Theres no doubt that advocates on both sides of the issue are willing to spin and manipulate the data, clearly private industry has a big vested interest in dismissing any evidence of human impact on the planet, but their interest could be limited strictly to profit and continuing to externalise environmental costs, and this is a powerful interest indeed. Since I can acknowlege that both sides are spinning this issue, I can also admit that I'm less clear on what the motivations for the folks advocating that GW is indeed a problem, unless its actually altruism and a concern for humanity's welfare and the future of our planets inhabitability.

Now, I'm willing to play devils advocate for either side, so I'm curious about what alternative motivations for each side we can think of? Obviously big measures taken against GW run counter to simple economic performance, and these same measures might be positive to green investors. But remember, simple economic measures also point to unlimitted growth in economic activity, and this doesn't seem sustainable, especially given the growth in human population, and if GW is a real issue to be concerned about, we REALLY DO need to be investing in alternative green technologies.

Speaking about unsustainable economical growth, what about the decline in fossil fuels? You know, peak oil for instance? I almost feel schizophrenic sometimes, like I feel I have two conversations, one involves what we've been used to during our modern lives, and one that spans the history of humanity. I reach drastically different conclusions based on which of these viewpoints I feel my fellow debaters are interested in basing their discussions on.