Below is a qoute from a reader comment in The Patriot Post.

I just had to share, and couldn't have put it any better myself.

Well I could have...

Number one, I don't know how many scientists/weather forecasters are involved in predicting hurricane season, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near the volume of scientists who have expressed their belief in man-made global warming.

I have believed in global warming at points, but certain things make me wonder from time to time. My problem is with people like the commenter who seem to assume the opposite is true. That makes one guilty of the same thing. A favorite of mine is when someone says in May "wow, this cold weather...must be that global warming.(har har)" I wonder what they'd say now that we're having a heat wave in October. Assuming that climate change only makes everywhere constantly hotter doesn't even go along with what the scientists are saying.

And forecasters wanting to dismantle our entire industrial economy? What about just wanting to take care of the environment? The old Boy Scout motto of leaving the forest as you found it. My position on global warming is that whether or not it really exists, it would still be better to take care of the environment. Just look at this story and tell me...how is that good for us? I know I've read a similar story about Los Angeles and its smog problems. If our government wasn't in bed with big businesses, maybe we could've started doing things decades ago in a more efficient and healthy way. I'm not talking just about oil and car companies, but a specific example of how they won't legalize hemp because lumber companies, etc would be out of business if hemp was used to make paper, among all of its other uses.

I hold the belief that a scientist has a much greater chance of knowing what is going on with the environment than me, or anyone else. They've done, or have access to, a lot of data and research. They've studied the topic a lot more than I have, or you have. Would I just the same listen to, and consider the information provided by, a scientist that seeks to disprove global warming or that it is man-made? Sure. Provided that it hasn't already been proven that he/she was on the payroll of an oil company. Why people, like some of my friends, protect that side of the argument is beyond me. Do you get a check from the oil company to argue that global warming isn't real? I know I don't. I guess people are scared that their way of life might change. Actually, I'm fairly sure that's it. Americans (may be other countries, but it seems like its mostly Americans) would rather say screw the world, I want a big car, I want this, I want that, and honestly just couldn't give a damn about the effects they have on other people and the world.

Look, we're never going to know for sure what this whole issue is going to result in. Civilization in a few hundred years or more will have to look at piles of data just like we did to see when there were ice ages, etc. in the past. I think we should just cut the crap and work on new ways of energy, because what we do know is that we only have a limited amount of resources, like oil, in this world. We also know that unless we figure something out, someone, like Saudi Arabia, will always have power over us unless we attack them. And given that Saudi Arabia and our views aren't exactly in line, I'd say that's a bad thing. Even Bush has said that we need to get off of our dependence of foreign oil, yet no one seems to be doing much about it. We have to get people to stop using the "global warming isn't real" line to keep us from advancing our technology and means of energy.

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

You should read a few of my other posts (and my article) on Global Warming. You'll see that I agree with most of your points.

I agree whether or not Global Warming is real or man-made we should be taking care of our environment.

But Govt. shouldn't force us to make vast technological changes (which can hurt the economy far more than Global Warming). The govt. can't force Toyota or GM to come up with the longer lasting battery, just because electric cars will save the environment. Technology can't be badgered into working better.

And as you know, global climate shifts happen all the time, and have occurred (on an even great scale) in the past; long before man-made pollution.

I just think the article above is interesting in that some things in science are 'theories' as they should be until proven, yet so many (on both sides of the issue) are 100% convinced that science proves one way or the other on Global Warming.

The temp of the earth shifts all the time, and has done so for billions of years. Human existence is only a small flake of time in the history of Earth. How can we say that this one particular climate shift is caused by humans, when all the other 12 - 17 shifts have been caused by naturally occurring patterns of carbon dioxide and ice?

If you don't already know, there are a lot of prominent scientists who have come out with data that shows the climate does shift in patterns, and that humans have little to nothing to do with it. Those scientists have actually been banned from the scientific communities around the globe, and 2 years ago when one of them tried to speak at a banquet about his data, he was taken off the stage and removed from the banquet hall. He was speaking to his colleagues about his data that shows humans having little effect on the global climate.

And your theory of hemp is actually misguided. I understand your interest in the subject, because hemp is supposedly so useful. Well, there are a lot of things out there that are useful, but not efficient. Do you realize that for 1 acre of trees you can produce 1000x more paper than 1 acre of hemp? Not a very efficient business if you ask me. And the Federal govt. doesn't have to step in on that one. If a lumber company could make more money with hemp don't you think they would do it? That is why we live in a capitalist society, if you can make more money, do it! Lumber and paper companies own hundreds-of-thousands of acres of land. If they could switch to Hemp and make more product more efficiently (as you put it) don't you think they would?

This hemp business aside, Global Warming is not an accurate term. I actually don't think that term should exist. Climate shift (or change) is the acceptable term for describing what the Earth goes though (on its own). The human influence in climate shift is still not a proven factor, and honestly most of the scientific data shows that we don't have much of an impact at all. But the money (scientists need to get paid too) is in Global Warming. If you are a scientist in the business of proving Global Warming and the Human Influence; you are going to make a lot of money from grants and donations. If you are a scientist trying to show the opposite is true, good luck cashing your welfare check?

Money makes the world go round, and right now polluting, oil, and Global Warming are the big money making items. I just hope that in the future, clean power technologies, cancer research, and AIDS treatment can be the big ticket items. But we'll have to wait and see.

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

Some scientists can be paid-off to say one thing or another, but there are scientists at almost every university in America (and the world) among many other sources. The group of scientists that came out against the human-global warming link is a large group of experts from many different countries, sources, and backgrounds.

I'm pretty sure 'big oil' didn't pay every single scientist in the world off, and I'm pretty sure neither side of our govt. did it either.

Deforestation can be a problem, but if you do some research you'll find that paper and lumber companies (at least in America) actually replace more trees than they cut down. And as a matter of fact the forest levels in the US have risen vastly in the last 100 years.

- Lumber and paper come from trees
- Lumber and paper companies make money based on how much they sell
- Destroying their source of income wouldn't really help make money

So they have come up with pretty ingenious ways of making more trees than they take. It was a huge movement in the industry 60 - 80 years ago (and sometimes further back than that). Lumber and paper companies employ a lot of agricultural experts to keep them in business, and to actually help the environment.

Also, BP & Exxon (and several other) 'big oil' companies are dumping billions upon billions of dollars into alternate, clean, and new primary sources of energy. The companies are smart enough to realize that eventually oil will either; A: not be available or B: technology will make it less of a money making commodity.

Big oil is actually spending its own money to keep up with (and sometime actually create) new technologies to improve the future of power generation and industry. They realize they will be able to make money when the time comes that oil is no longer the primary source for power...and they want to be right there waiting with all the answers to oil so they can stay in business.

You see, "big business" is everyone's favorite thing to blame for every problem (besides the Bush Administration of course). But what people fail to realize is that "big business" stays in business by being ahead of the curve, and smarter than everyone else in their line of work. So it actually behooves these companies to help the environment and make things better. It means more money for them, and they look good in the public eye (which increases stock revenue).

I'm not saying there aren't shady things that happen in business or government; I'm just saying that sometimes 'evil things' get wrongly labeled as such. Do more research into these areas (hemp, lumber, paper, oil, govt., etc.) and you'll find a lot more good than bad. You'll also find that those 'big businesses' are invested hundreds of times more money into improving the environment than Greenpeace or and other 'movement' out there.

My statement about welfare checks was sarcastic in order to get a point across that smart people usually go where the money is, anyone else who challenges where the money is usually end up on the short end of the stick...and it does happen. Science isn't a rich man's profession, and so if you aren't getting in good with the popular movements of the day, you'll find yourself in a pretty tight spot. If you do a little history in the science (and history) fields, you'll find a lot of people who question or challenge the popular thinking of whatever time they find themselves in, have been literally kicked out of their community of science or history. It even gets bad enough where they are ridiculed and made to look like liars and heathens...and I don't think those people thought it was silly when they were unemployed and unemployable because of their beliefs and theories.

From what I've heard, there really aren't that many scientists that disagree with the global warming-man made link, so I don't think it would be that hard to pay them off...especially when only a small number are actually publishing materials about it.

Of course lumber companies want to keep trees growing so they still have business and money to make, but that's not to say that deforestation of the other trees doesn't have some bad effects. Simply putting a paved road through the woods messes up the habitat and has some pretty bad effects. I'm not a scientist, but a friend of mine studies that sortof thing so I take his word for it.

And have you ever heard anything about car/oil companies buying up any new technology, etc? Sure, it might be because they have the money and want to develop it themselves, but it also seems like they would want to prolong the way we do things as long as possible while reaping profits and then they'll be ready when we really really really need to make the change. I heard the story about big companies buying new developments and then you never hear about them again, but I don't know the source.

And don't do the "everyone blames the Bush administration" line...you know that all Republicans do it when a Dem is president just the same. Heck, i still hear it about previous Democrat presidents.

I'd love to do more research on the topics, but there's only so much time in a day. And given that I come here to chat every once in a while, you'd lose the pleasure of my company if I cut out this web site to do more research. And plus, learning stuff from talking to people is more fun. I can only stand doing so much research, especially if I'm not getting paid for it.

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

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.

tROCO; I'm sorry to be so crass with you, but it's hard when one person is debating facts with opinions, and the other person is debating opinions with facts. I'd love to continue our debate, but you should do some follow up research first.

Prove me wrong, or prove me right, but either way we should debate this with facts based on both our research abilities. Not based on hearsay or whatever the popular opinion of the day is.

Inhofe's a joke. But i'm not even going to get into it because apparently I'm a "conspiracy theorist."

I do my research on these topics and one point or another, whether its a book, news article, or web site. I sincerely apologize that I'm not able to constantly reference everything I've ever read on the subject, especially due to the fact that I often post here during some free time at work.

I try to recall what I can to bring to the discussion. If you want purely referenced materials, why do you even bother with a message board? You can read published articles, etc. anywhere else, and re-posting them here defeats the purpose of this web site. I came here to discuss things with people. This is a relatively new board and I just thought I'd talk a little and get things started. Instead, I'm already a conspiracy theorist after 14 or so posts. I happen to think I do think logically. Do you also think that we should trust the president no matter what? Because my logic says that he's another human being just like me, and humans make mistakes. Blindly trusting everybody isn't very logical...the president is not God.

This has obviously become a waste of the little free time I have simply because I'm not providing pages and pages of citations. But have fun discussing all of these topics with everyone that thinks the same way you do...I'm sure that'll accomplish a lot. I thought being a moderate and seeing some issues towards the left would be interesting to discuss with a group that seems to be predominantly right. But people like to read things that reaffirm their own beliefs. Sorry I don't have a citation for that!

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

I haven't seen you actually reference anything on this topic. You haven't referenced anything on lumber companies, paper companies, hemp, land acreage, oil & car companies, politicians or science.

Please re-read your own posts. You say things about how it seems possible that big oil paid off every single anti-global warming scientist. Where have you actually seen proof of this?

Where are any of your counter points on my statements about companies and government paying large sums of money to develop new and better technologies?

This isn't just any old message board. This is a site to debate and discuss important topics in the world. If you want to talk about your opinions then use a blog. This is a site for educated debates using facts (as well as your viewpoint on the subject matter). If all you can do is guess that big business pays everyone off to hide their evil doings, how am I supposed to discuss that with you.

If you guess that the govt. and big oil is evil, how am I supposed to have a logical discussion with you about it. I can sit here all day and guess that it seems like our government is evil and big business just wants to pay off scientists and buy up technology so no one can have it. But where will that get us? No where.

I am trying to discuss reality and facts about climate shift, agriculture, how American businesses actually do help develop new technologies. And all you can do is say things like:

How is any of that factually based, logical or a counter point to a debate or even an educated discussion?

I'm not trying to be mean, but you can't say things like "from what I've heard" when debating facts about global warming. I'm not saying you need to be an expert on the subjects at hand, but if all you can offer to a real debate is "from what I've heard", then don't try to debate the subject.

We can discuss the issues, but don't use hearsay to counter factually based debate points. As a major in journalism you should really know these sorts of things.

I don't want to scare you off this site, but you need to realize the difference between discussion and debate. And from your other posts on this site, you haven't quite realized the difference yet.

Don't leave this site just because I debate facts...I can be sort of overbearing sometimes. Please add to our discussions as you see fit. Just don't try to debate someone who has facts and research compared to your hearsay and guessing.