Chop Stick Transplant

Commie ECO Freaks Restore tree transplant the 30,000 chopsticks ripped from its body!

Priceless comments: # Juho says: I think the correct number was 100 acres of trees, not 100 trees. 100 trees would not be that much in a country as big as China. # swelle says: … And now to start on plastic bags… # welz says: Wow! I do think it’s 100 acres of trees. But what a thought. I think I’ll eat my sushi with my hands next time. http://www.ecolandscapegroup.com # hohumm_toronto says: ... there’s metal unscrew-in-half ones . # themalcolm says: actually i think it’s 100 trees. This one small tree made of the chopsticks contains 30,000 chopsticks. 100 regular sized trees per day could probably produce between 5,000,000-10,000,000 chopsticks. that’s a reasonable number for one day. # quiltingmatilda says: What about all the plastic forks and spoons thrown out everyday in other countries? Trees will grow again, when oil is used for a product it is never oil again. onemillionthoughtbubbles say: who gives a crap what happenes to ratbastardchinesecommies?

Rainforest Shmainforest

People are always asking .. Hey Rodge.  What do you do when you're just fed up?

I watch this:

The First Climategate

The Revelle-Gore Story Attempted Political Suppression of Science

“ Another media cover up Wouldn't you think that if the Vice President of the United States was at the center of a libel lawsuit in which a global warming skeptic scientist, whose work was a huge embarrassment to the VP, was being defamed by another scientists closely associated with the VP, and the result of the lawsuit was a complete and unequivocal apology and admission that every libelous utterance was untrue - wouldn't you think that this would be news? Well, it wasn't. I sure never heard about it, and I have been paying very close attention to this issue for a long time. - Rob Kremer ”

I was led to this piece by Oregon Guy, as were some of you who follow comment links (often worth more that the post being commented on).  This really resonates with me for these reasons: Like Mr. Kremer, I too "have been paying very close attention to this issue for a long time." I will include below some links to L. Fred Singer's work,  going back to 1997, at which time I started the Topic  " Environmentalist Wackos" on Free Republic.  So, while not quite a policy wonk, I do qualify as a more than causal observer of the man-caused global warming (and cooling) scams. Dr. Singer was central to many of those stories, and yet I had no knowledge that he sued Al Gore -  through his proxy Dr. Justin Lancaster.  Wow. Since Al Gore was a student of Harvard Professor Dr. Roger Revelle, maybe we can call that the "Big Bang" moment when the Goreacle was created? Documenting Al Gore's disreputable, and despicable behavior as a United States Senator would, in normal times, destroy his advocacy for - anything, really. Except maybe for  better prison food.  The nutshell: [From Chapter 11, The Revelle-Gore Story Attempted Political Suppression of Science] Dr. Roger Revelle was one of the outstanding oceanographers of the twentieth-century.  His studies caused him to conclude that not all carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels would be quickly transferred into the ocean and some might accumulate in the atmosphere. Gore was a dope smoking student of Revelle's at the time. Gore becomes an eco-freak. Dr. Revelle by now realizes that carbon dioxide science is not all that it should be, and with Dr. Singer publishes the warning: “What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap,” in April 1991.  The main conclusion was a simple message: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Algore fails to heed the warning, and publishes "Earth in the Lurch Balance,"where he wrongly cites Revelle's science. Somebody finds this obscure Revelle-Singer paper during the 1992 campaign, and pretty soon George Will is writing about discrepancies in Gore's book.  Sen. Algore is deeply embarrassed. The Goreacle enlists proxies,  like Harvard's Dr. Justin Lancaster, a "scientist" who knows on which side his grant requests are buttered, to destroy Singer. Singer is pissed that his reputation is being besmirched, and sues. Discovery yields info about how close many warmist scientists are with Al Gore, and volumes of other damaging facts, but a real turning point is when Al Gore attempts to get Nightline's Ted Koppel to expose Singer as an incompetent fraud , liar, and dupe of  Big Energy. Koppel didn’t do the vice president’s bidding and chastised Gore on the air. “ There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore—— one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century (objection your honor, hearsay)——[is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works. ” Of course Gore paid little attention.  By then, all of his time was being spent strong arming campaign money from his White House office telephone (unlawful), and meeting with, and taking money from Buddhist nuns (unlawful).  These files are from 1997-2002, and will be of interest to wonkers (I said wOnkers).  Amazing how the same arguments are being fought; the same charges leveled. All because Al Gore got away with Climategate I, unscathed.   Is 'global warming' hot air.html How Bush Conceded Global Warming.html Not Scientific Consensus.html The Sky Isn't Falling.html

Green Treason

I know what you're asking

"But Rodge, why are you building a formidable  fighting machine designed to capture and throw down a volcano as many as 2 billion American liberal swine?

If not me, who? “ Whether the next American president is black or white, the leading contenders have already declared themselves "green." John McCain (and Huckaboo, and Romney) on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and everyone else) for the Democrats, all promise to take dramatic action against man-made global warming if they win. The problem is they all cloak this pledge in the same false, comforting, political rhetoric. That is, that moving away from a fossil fuel based economy will be relatively painless once the "know how" of big business is applied to the task under their leadership. [M]any environmentalists advocate redefining what "prosperity" means. Indeed, they contend Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) is a poor tool for measuring our economic success, because it measures the wrong things. For example, they argue, the cost of cleaning up environmental disasters caused by global warming, such as rebuilding New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, contributes to GDP growth in the U.S., thus interpreting it as a positive event economically, when it should be viewed negatively. Let's leave aside that the destruction of New Orleans was not caused by global warming ... .     [Beware the greening of America] ”