i agree with some of that...most people don't call it 'global warming' now, etc...i was just responding to your thread and you used that term.

when i was talking about hemp, i mentioned efficiency before i brought it up, but i basically meant that it would be better for the environment, not for businesses. hemp has no detriment to the environment when it is cut down; however, i'm pretty sure vast deforestation isn't that great...what with it being habitats for different species and creating oxygen and all.

while it might be true that scientists are getting grant money, etc. for trying to prove global warming, i think you're making yourself look a little silly to think scientists trying to disprove global warming are "cashing welfare checks." not only has it been proven (by way of leaked memos, etc) that oil companies paid scientists or "scientists" to dispute the evidence for global warming, but even without that...doesn't it make sense to you that it is in the best interests of oil companies in this capitalist society to keep making money? what would make them not keep earning money? maybe if there was a worldwide consensus that using their product was bad for us and the earth? i think that might eat in to their profits. so i strongly disagree with you on that point, because with their record profits they've been recording the past couple years, i think they can spend some extra cash to get people to defend their position.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover