Don Hannu makes a bid to decide the global warming debate in his letter to the editor on Aug. 25. Don claims that all his information is factual. Let's go point to point.

Do more scientists come out every day against global warming? What is the benefit of being a scientist who is proposing global warming (other than being a responsible individual)? What is to be gained if you work with the energy industry to say that global warming isn't happening? What is the cost of working against this administration and saying global warming is happening? In order of the above you have nothing, money and being fired.

Carbon dioxide isn't the predominant gas in the atmosphere. How much of a house's weight is insulation? Small to be sure. But how much can that insulation add to the heat retention of the house? We all need to keep in mind that we are not talking huge heat changes due to global warming. A change of a few degrees can make for disastrous results.

Does C02 have a short half-life? Yes, if we have not killed off the trees that make that true. Droughts, greed and industrial pollution are doing that exact thing.

Can the U.S. ever become an exporter of energy again? If we invest in the technology necessary to develop new and cleaner energy and learn to conserve we might. If we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to move into the future, we will continue to fall behind those who are willing to look to the future (falling even further behind in our trade deficit).

Motive is the key question in any debate. If you want to figure out who is lying to you, look for motive. The more gained, the greater the chance that a lie is coming. We know what gain there is for the energy companies. What gain is there for the environmentalists? Environmentalists actually lose money fighting these causes (personally and as groups). Environmentalists aren't trying to scare you. They are trying to save you.