You sir, are a conspiracy theorist, and I don't have time to debate that sort of mentality. Instead of seeing things logically, you see things as "the man" "big business" and everyone pays off everyone else to keep things evil, and to destroy the earth.

I happen to have a document put together by United States Senator James Inhofe: Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is backed up by over 60 scientists from all around the globe. It is a large document with factual scientific data that shows a strong basis for skepticism about the human influence on 'global warming'. It is a good read, and if you ever get a chance I recommend it. That is just one of the many documents (you would find if you actually looked) on the facts that ‘global warming’ is nothing more than just the natural course of the Earth’s climate shift patterns.

As far as your theories on deforestation ruining the environment, you seem to love to jump around our debate. You said that hemp would be more efficient than trees; I disproved your theory (and research on your part would do the same). You said hemp would mean fewer trees would need to be harvested; and again I disproved your theory (and research on your part would do the same). Now you're saying that it's just bad when trees are harvested. Come on man. And if hemp is this master solution to paper and an acre of trees is over 1000x more productive for paper than an acre of hemp...where do you propose we get the millions upon millions of acres to plant all that hemp?

The world isn't full of some infinite supply of arable land. As a matter of fact the US is about tapped out on agricultural land right now. That is also a reason why ethanol can never completely replace oil for power generation. We have 470,000,000 acres of agricultural land in the US total, and we would need 500,000,000 to grow enough corn (and other similar ethanol producing products) to replace the 22 million barrels of oil we use each day. And oh by the way, ethanol is only 65% as efficient at producing energy as gasoline and diesel are. We'd need to actually make more of it (something like 35 - 45 million barrels per day of ethanol) to get the same effects as gasoline....but that's whole other debate right there.

And these car companies are not some evil empire set on 'buying up' technologies so they won't be released. Did you know that GM, Toyota, and Mercedes Benz are some of the largest spenders on creating more fuel efficient (and oil independent) technologies? Of course you wouldn't know that, because you've convinced yourself that businesses are evil and set on destroying the earth to make a buck. Well, that's just not true. I know there is only 'so much time' in the day, but if you're going to debate big item topics like these, you might at least to some research (aside from your buddy the science student) and your professors. Turns out there are a lot of sources of information out there that offer real factually based information, and they aren't really that hard to find.

And then if you have a little more time, you can do comparative research and find out consistencies and inconsistencies in the 'facts' to find out who is telling the truth based on data, and who is just selling you what they want you to hear (or what is popular that day). Just because people like to make money, doesn’t mean those same people are out to ruin the earth. And most of our big businesses are responsible and smart enough to realize that deliberately being reckless with their product or the environment is detrimental to their company’s success.

Do you think GM has developed one of the most fuel efficient engines on the planet just so they can not sell it and ruin the earth while they all laugh about it over cigars and brandy? Turns out the consumer (you and me) drives the market. If people don’t buy electric or hybrid cars, then why should a company take a financial hit just to only make fuel efficient hybrid cars? GM and Ford lost $18 billion dollars last year, why would they get rid of their entire line of vehicles to only offer hybrids, when consumers (you and me and everyone else) aren’t buying the damn things? Do some research and you’ll find out I’m right. All the big 5 car companies have tons of hybrid and electric technology that they’ve developed and is ready (or almost ready) for the market. And as soon as people walk into a Chevy dealership looking for a 100mpg Sierra instead of a Corvette, the market will change. But until you and I and everyone else start putting down cold hard cash for this new technology, then the government can’t force them to only produce hybrids or electrics (or anything else for that matter). This is America, not Communist China.

Until someone has some logical arguments and isn’t basing their debate on conspiracy theories, I’m done with this debate for a while. Sorry; you can lead a horse to water, but he needs to drink on his own.