Meet Ellis Wyatt

Ellis Wyatt went to Washington, met Mr. Thompson; it didn't work. Anyone surprised?

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

…

The other reason for America's abundant supply of oil and natural gas has been the development of new drilling techniques. "Horizontal drilling" allows rigs to reach two miles into the ground and then spread horizontally by thousands of feet. Mr. Hamm was one of the pioneers of this method in the 1990s, and it has done for the oil industry what hydraulic fracturing has done for natural gas drilling in places like the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast.

Leaving It As I Found It

"I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."

— Sign left by Ellis Wyatt at the foot of the burning hill of Wyatt Oil in Atlas Shrugged.

The moon bats claim Wyatt did not in fact leave it as he found it. He extracted some oil and left a major conflagration that was not there when he found it.

(I suspect the new left would probably worry more about how the oil spill will impact those poor birds and fishes, and less about the property damage, as the old left would when Ayn Rand wrote this.)

Yet Wyatt spent his money and part of his life on the oil field, money and time that no one will refund him.

So your point was, moon bats? Thought so.

The Immorality of Low Flow Toilets

Rand Paul complained to the looters about invasive environmental regulation in general and that his low flow toilet doesn't work in particular. Now the hippies believe if they buy him a working low flow toilet, they're off the hook and he's bound to give in.

If he doesn't, it's allegedly not his toilet that's full of shit, but he. Turns out it's the hippies that are full of shit. Again, the hippies are trying to delude everyone, most desperately themselves, with green smoke and water mirrors.

Yet the problem is not clogged toilets or expensive, harmful light bulbs. This is not a mechanical, but a moral problem. Fascism — a nominally free system where all decisions are made and enforced by the state — is not OK, even if the toilets run on time.

And often, they do not:

Most waterless urinals however do not remove odor staining on the surface of the urinals, if not normally cleaned. Even when maintained according to recommendations, flushless urinals emit a fish-like odor that most people find unpleasant. In February, 2010, the headquarters of the California EPA removed waterless urinals that were installed in 2003 due to "hundreds of complaints" including odors and splashed urine on the floors.

As Ayn Rand observed, in the long run, the moral is always the practical and immorality always impractical. Even if you don't mind being told at gunpoint what to do.

Don't build another dam; lower the water in the toilet. The hippies say that for desirable innovation and progress, the government has to set the bar, and the market has to clear it. But what they do not tell you is what the producers would have done with their money, resources, and time if they had not been busy for years jumping through hoops, lowering the water in toilet bowls, getting those pesky low flow toilets to work.

Now, maybe the producers in question would have spent their resources going golfing, like Obama spends his worthless time. Or maybe these resources would have been allocated to finding a cure for cancer. (One presumes that Obama's and his taxpayer-funded leisure class' penchant for golf and madness bracketing makes them believe the former.)

We simply do not know. What we do know is that the decision was not made by businessmen, engineers, and scientists, but by the people's democratically elected representatives, whose concern is not the conquest of nature, but the conquest of men.

Those representatives in turn were chosen in an election where the sage and the village idiot have an equal vote. What's more, generally neither the people nor their representatives have any expertise in the fields where they presume to enforce their final solutions at gunpoint.

If water shortages do become a problem, like maybe in the Southwest, the solution has to be decided by the market, where the number of "votes" one person gets is determined by their productivity. In a democracy, every last moron gets an equal vote. In capitalism, productive people, being richer, have more power than unproductive people, and people who are affected by the problem, being more willing to spend money on it, have more say than carpet-bagging activists.

The first commenter who tries to refute that by anecdotal evidence wins a toaster. Only that no dead tree toaster will be delivered to you, as my contribution to cutting unnecessary "carbon." In the spirit of environmentalism, progress, networking, and replacing mechanics with electronics, I'll get you an e-toaster.

Obviously, democracy is not absolutely evil, and capitalism is not absolutely good. Even in democracy, the rich sometimes have more power than the poor. Even in capitalism, human beings make mistakes.

It's just that capitalism works way better than democracy. Do you generally get better service from private businesses or from your friendly neighborhood government?

In times memorial, there has never been a completely capitalist society. Even in the times of the Old West, which may have been the closest the world has come the capitalist ideal, there was a Washington, DC, and a federal government doling out subsidies and favors.

Yet in the past, the follies made were at least pro-man follies much of the time. The first transcontinental railroad, Hoover Dam, the Apollo program, the New York World Trade Center, the eradication of smallpox — railroads, dams, rockets, buildings, and medicines for which there was not yet a market. But if government-funded follies they were, they were nevertheless heroic follies.

From the follies the man-hating green government is sponsoring today, man won't profit in the foreseeable future. They're exclusively for the protection of Mono Lake and of hypothetical ice bears from a probably imaginary global warming.

If anybody wants to protect Mono Lake or the like, they should please spend their own money, resources, and time on it. I might even give them a twenty or so, particularly if that means I never have to see the government again.

And anyone who believes they have a human right to potable water without producing it or paying for it, or that anybody else has a duty to provide it to them free of charge: Go squeeze turnips.

Why I Am Not Worried about Japan's Nuclear Reactors

(HT to Joshua Zader.)

Very timely. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, eco-terrorists!

And stop bitching either about your "global warming" delusions* or about your "nuclear energy is unsafe" delusions. You can have only one or the other.

Unless you want to return man to the age of the windmill. And it that case, you're truly insane.

Update: "Fukushima Is a Triumph for Nuke Power: Build More Reactors Now!"

"You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. Reactors are not dangerous."

— Edward Teller

* Or are you calling those delusions "climate change" now?

UN Climate Conference Bans Dihydrogen Monoxide

(Hat tip to Coyote.)

The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference has ended. The delegates could not agree on banning carbon dioxide, so they ended up banning an at least as dangerous chemical.

Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is the worst greenhouse gas, the major contributor to acid rain, and lethal when inhaled. Yet it is all around and even inside us.

It is used in nuclear powers plants, in naval warfare, for industrial and household cleaning applications, as a solvent, as a spray-on fire suppressant and fire retardant, and even as a food additive. Substantial quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have accumulated in the body of every single human being alive.



In other words, the UN ended up banning water, H2O. The "scientists" at the UN climate conference in Cancun that settled the "science" of global warming are so dumb they can be duped into banning water. I rest my case.

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, "global effort," "international community," and "planetary." Such was the case at COP 16, this year's United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water.

The first project, entitled "Petition to Set a Global Standard" sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line, and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation's economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled "Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)" (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible, or practical than banning water.

CFACT / CC BY 3.0

Gore Got Some Big Cojones

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,
But All Gore's balls are snowballs, that's all.



Happy winter, Al. You may restock now.

Want a Couple Feet of Global Warming?

December's barely here, and all of Europe's got enough cold and snow for several white Christmases.

Last year the eco-terrorists claimed snow in midwinter or thereabouts is a sign of global warming. I guess the same is true for snow and cold in late fall.

Here the entire text for the new meteorology textbook approved by All Gore and the Obama administration:

If it's hot, it's global warming.

If it's cold, it's global warming.

If there's no weather at all, boy, is that global warming.

Objective Environmentalists?

Alex answers his mail, re: "Eco-Terrorists Sentence Skeptics to Death."

This article proved rather polarizing, even among the Objectivist-leaning audience of The Atlasphere. Most all ratings that weren't five stars were one star.

Marlize writes:

Excellent column. Disgusting videos. I'm tempted to watch them again — as I still can't believe these even exist in the world — but I'm eating breakfast as I write this and would prefer to keep it in.

I hope you're right when you say the video makers may have misjudged the situation and thought their views more mainstream than they are. I fear that all too many environmentalists, or even college students who are doing the hip thing and "going green," would find these commercials somehow amusing.

Great column, though.

Thanks a lot. Glad you liked my article.

Yeah, I know more people that apparently absorbed green through social osmosis than I care to. Seeing basically only defiant comments at the Armstrong YouTube interview was quite encouraging, though.

Maybe hip environmentalism is only skin deep. As long as they think they're green if they recycle their bottles and switch off the light when they leave the room, it's cool with them. But once they realize that environmentalism means no cell phones, no internet, and no flying and/or that noncompliance is answered with a death threat, it's a lot less hip.

I guess if civilization dies from environmentalism, it won't be with a bang, but with a whimper. One democratically enacted, environmentally friendly law after another until the lights go out.

Like some years ago in California. Of course the moon bats blame that on the free market, and not on the fact that too few if any new power plants get built…

Ramon writes:

Wow, the "Thompson Harmonizer."

I'm sure they'd love to have that. Only they'd call it the "harmony with naturizer."

Turns people into carbon. They couldn't get any more in harmony with nature.

Carbon is people!

Adrian writes:

I agree with you wholeheartedly with respect to the fallacy of global warming and the brainwashing of the unsuspecting public by the governmental encouragement of the propagation of incorrect "scientific" information. (Whew! Mouthful)

I have not yet formulated a philosophical opinion to the actual existence of an environmental issue which happened to be true.

Objectivists, of which I am one, are only too happy that this particular environmental issue, namely Global Warming, is false.

What if one lived on a volcanic island inhabited by 500 to 1000 people and his property was so situated that it was the highest in elevation of all owned properties where the main river ran through it before it flowed through or near anyone else's property — would it be legal and/or moral for him to poison the water while it flowed through his land? (I use "volcanic" merely to demonstrate the island's topographical characteristics).

This realistic situation has been plaguing me for a while now. Obviously harming the unsuspecting rest of the population is murder. If we agree on that premise, then the best answer I could come up with is that the water in the river is only his if he claims it. The only way to claim that water is to claim its molecules. The only way to do that is to gather and store that water in a container. THEN, he owns that water and can do whatever the hell he wants to do with it.

This may seem to be elementary but it surfaces contradictions with accepted Objectivist views on the environment.

Though it is quite possible to contain air molecules, should it be only legal/moral to poison the air that one contains? When one is afflicted with a highly contagious deadly virus, we all agree that he should be legally quarantined.

How is this different to poisoning the air or water with factory waste? I am all for production and do not believe that smoke stacks generally affect the environment enough to cause more unhappiness to my life than the products it produces promote happiness. However is there no waste that a factory can produce that would tip that happy/unhappy scale? If so, what then?

Blank.

A philosophy is a system which equips man with a code of morality, according to reality if it is Objectivism, to achieve his own happiness. Just as man must know legal law before he acts, so too should he know moral law beforehand.

The example I illustrated above is far from farfetched. Yet we have no answer for it should it occur. Yet other Objectivists do not seem to care.

We need an answer.

Of course no one has a right to physically harm someone else negligently — otherwise anyone could murder anyone and pretend it was just negligence. And of course no one has a right to emit anything onto anybody else's property.

But to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and destruction, no one should use force unless he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other party is guilty of aggression. And no one should use force over trifles, like you don't kill someone for pushing you.

So if the acid rain from someone's smokestack eats the laundry on your line, you have a right to stop his pollution by force. But if you can't prove that his carbon dioxide is causing any material damage, you should not.

John writes:

That ad campaign really misses the point with the death threats and all, I'll give you that.

Just let me tell you this, if your happiness and independence are going to be sacrificed to mother earth just by making a conscious effort to make this earth more livable then you're probably doing something wrong.

I agree that the video is way over the top and really takes the idea too far, I also think that joining a religion won't make the world a better place but cutting your emissions will have immediate benefits for the most important person: YOU!

Check your premises. Or rather, theirs.

They are not out to abolish waste. They're out to abolish flying.

Aaron writes:

Let me get this straight. You actually believe that global warming activists all secretly would act this way if given the chance. That this is "incontrovertible proof" of "their totalitarian anti-man designs to have everyone who refuses to sacrifice their happiness and independence to mother earth murdered."

Let me get this straight. You watched that video and Franny's comments and still aren't convinced that these global warming activists would act this way if given the chance?

As for all global warming activists, even if they have nothing to do with the video, not very many of them are "libertarian environmentalists" or "Quaker environmentalists" acting on their own beliefs and restricting their interactions with skeptics to nonviolent persuasion. Almost all environmentalists I ever heard of advocate the use of (government) force against dissenters ("polluters," "deniers," etc.).

Are you just hyping this idea to get attention, or are you some kind of dumbshit?

Actually, I'm more of a jerk. You're the dumb shit.

Of course I'm hyping it for all it's worth. To let the mainstream media hush it up would be irresponsible.

There is nothing inherently "anti-man" about wanting the planet that every single human lives on to possess a healthy environment. Quite the opposite actually.

It couldn't be more anti-man. The eco-terrorist don't want a healthy environment. They want to force people to make do with less just to make everybody as miserable as the eco-terrorists are.

Can people of all political persuasions make ads that are in bad taste? Certainly. But, to argue whether and how well this ad is trying to make a point with dark humor is beside the point. To truly believe that all "greens" really want to murder those that don't think exactly like them requires an extraordinary lack of judgment on your part.

You mean, "greens" do not advocate environmental legislation, and those who break those laws and defend themselves against the subsequent government aggression will not be murdered? To blank out the fact that eco-terrorists have the state aggress against "polluters" requires an extraordinary lack of judgment on your part.

Kyle writes:

Okay, so this particular ad campaign is in poor taste. It is a logical fallacy to attribute this poor taste to all environmentalists.

The scientific truth is that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions, the world will become unlivable. Most environmentalists are pro-science and pro-humanity. They are true objectivists.

The fallacy is all yours. It's called bait and switch, switching my "the environmentalists" for your "all environmentalists." I don't have to prove anything about every last environmentalist.

There were north of a hundred people involved in making this video, and it didn't occur to a single one of them to say, "Hey, wait, a terror threat, even tongue in cheek, might not be such a good idea"? That's a pretty good sample for me.

And if that's not enough, see the lack of nonaggressive greens noted above.

BTW, I'm not emitting any carbon. On the contrary, I have plenty of carbon in the form of coal burned for power generation.

As for your carbon emissions, I could sell you some carbon offsets. Or you could see a doctor. Something must be wrong with you if you emit carbon.

Or wait, what kind of carbon do you emit? Coal? Graphite? Diamonds? If it's diamonds, I'm willing to dispose of your carbon.

The snake oil salesmen who deny global warming are the ones who despise humanity, coddling them into committing global suicide by ignoring the scientific warnings and continuing to pollute with abandon.

"Global suicide"? Now, that sounds objective and scientific. You have me convinced.

You are aware that your "pollutant" is actually a nutrient? Our plants would need it if they weren't plastic.

Objectivists should be the first to embrace science and reason, to face our problems squarely and seek solutions boldly. When I see so-called objectivists denying science, I have to shake my head and roll my eyes. Get with it, people!

This kind of "science"?

Really, if it was 1930 and I showed you guys a funny nazi silent movie about gassing Jews, you'd say they don't mean it. The nazis hate Jews, and once they established a totalitarian nazi government, they exterminated Jews. The commies hate businessmen, and once they established a totalitarian commie government, they exterminated businessmen. The eco-terrorists hate everyone who produces carbon dioxide, and guess what they'll do once they establish a totalitarian eco-terrorists government?

Evidently, if the Franny Anderson types are the rulers, there will be death camps. How could anybody mistake the fanaticism evident in her videos for dark humor?

If your garden variety greens are the rulers, there may not be death camps, but there will be murder nonetheless. Everybody who refuses to have his standard of living reduced to Stone Age standards will be arrested and legally murdered once he resists arrest.

We're talking about a "problem" here whose science is very much not settled and that even if the worst-case scenarios are true can be solved relatively cheaply by building levees and replacing trailer parks and light-frame firetraps with real houses from steel, concrete, and masonry, as they should be anyway.

We're not talking about vilifying Jews or businessmen here, but a gas that is produced by any human activity, including breathing. You really want to put the most murderous invention of man, government, in charge of reducing that?

No Pressure Redux

To cope with its honesty deficit, eco-terrorist group 10:10 released its revised No Pressure video:

All Gore: Yes, We Are Anti-Man

And here my article at The Atlasphere on the eco-terrorist video:

"Eco-Terrorists Sentence Skeptics to Death"

Hippie Valley Hypocrites

(Without any apologies whatsoever to Fundie C. Riley.)

Hippie Valley EPA

I wanna tell you all a story 'bout a Hippie Valley single dad
Who had a teenager adopted who attended Hippie Valley Junior High
Well, this young man came home one afternoon and didn't even stop to play
And he said, Kev, I got a note here from the Hippie Valley EPA
Well, the note said, Mr. Traynor, you're flyin' your Gulfstream way too high
And it's reported you've been pollutin' and a drivin' round with girls and burnin' fuel
And we don't believe you oughta be a bringin' up your little boy this way
And it was signed by The Secretary, Hippie Valley EPA
Well, it happened that the EPA was gonna meet that very afternoon
And they were sure surprised when Mr. Traynor wore his .45 into the room
And as he walked up to the lectern I can still recall the words he had to say
He said, I'd like to address this meeting of the Hippie Valley EPA
Well, there's Gillian Anderson sittin' there and seven times she flew across the lake
And St. Obama sure seems to melt a lotta ice whenever he's away
And Philip D. Jones, can you tell us why your secretaries had to leave this town?
And shouldn't Hippie Gore be told to keep his thermostats all turned completely down?
James Cameron couldn't be here 'cause he played too long with his dirt bikes again
And if you watch Franny Armstrong's spot you'll find she's lost her little bit of brain
And then you have the nerve to tell me you think that as a father I'm not fit
Well, this is just a concentration camp and you're all Hippie Valley hypocrites
No, I wouldn't put you on because it really did, it happened just this way
When Kevin Traynor socked it to the Hippie Valley EPA

My Carbon Output Is Zero

"There are several allotropes of carbon of which the best known are graphite, diamond, and amorphous carbon."

I produce neither graphite, nor diamonds, nor coal, so by definition my carbon output is zero.

In fact, for the power I use, carbon in the form of coal is burned into products like carbon dioxide, so my carbon output is actually negative.

Hey, All Gore, wanna buy some carbon offsets from me?

The RLC Franny Armstrong Challenge

"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure — a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change."

— Franny Armstrong

Not that it matters, but I count at least seven "blips" murdered in Franny's wish-fulfillment fantasy: two student blips, three office blips, one soccer blip, and the blip that is Gillian Anderson.

(BTW, is it only me, or do those raised hands of all those climate nazis in the office at 1:40 remind you of the Hitler salute? Climate Heil!)

Not only is Franny unable or unwilling to count her victims, the 300,000 number is a lie, too.

Anyway, is it "kill" or kill? Sounds like those fascists would happily murder five to seven human beings in real life to save 300,000 others.

Well, we capitalist polluters are a little more moral than you hippie fascists.

"Be that as it may, this is not about practicality, but about inalienable rights. If the lives of one billion people could only be saved by sacrificing the rights of one individual, I would always choose to save the one and let the billion go to hell. Anything else is cannibalism."

"But aren't you then sacrificing the billion to save the one?"

"No. There is a difference between eating others and refusing to be eaten, whatever the consequences. My refusal to be fodder does not make me a murderer. My rights are inalienable. If others can only survive by sacrificing me, they have no right to live, to live by sacrificing me. They have no right to live as cannibals."

(Mysterious Boat, p. 146.)

So I ask that ugly, murderous hippie bitch Franny Armstrong: If killing five people to save 300,000 is OK with you, how about killing just one to save 300,000?

Yes, that's right, only one. The only person you have a right to kill — yourself.

In the name of the humanity you wish to exterminate, I challenge you to put your life where your big, lying mouth is. How many tons of carbon dioxide do we have to save in exchange for you to kill yourself?

I'm sure there's no better motivation for mankind to cut emissions — in fact, to do anything, whatever it takes — than the prospect of getting rid of a terrorist monstrosity like you.

You remind me of the day I crossed a mantis with a termite and got an insect that said grace before it ate the house. Only you're a cross between a nazi and a hippie. Can there be anything grosser in the universe?

Name your number, make a bid, and if mankind succeeds in cutting the required amount of carbon dioxide, you kill yourself. No excuses.

No pressure. Only honor. Oh, wait, I should spell that to a hypocritical liar like you…

Terrorists and Liars, Too

No Pressure was made with minimal carbon emissions — shot wholly within the M25, the crew got around on public transport and in low-carbon hybrid vehicles (thanks to Green Tomatoes and National Express) and the production had a zero flight policy.

How then did they get Gillian Anderson to the set, or the set to Gillian Anderson, Anderson being American?

Was Anderson in the UK anyway and they make believe for that reason her flight doesn't count?

Would that be a zero flight policy? Well, only in the sense of All Gore's carbon offsets.

Or did she take the Queen Mary 2? Or a private yacht?

And how environmentally friendly are those luxury modes of transportation? (That better was a sailing yacht.) I love the smell of bunker C in the morning…

(As the quoted page has since been taken down, I cannot prove who of the terrorist hippie bitches made that statement, so I re-titled the post.)

Update:

Being informed by an anonymous operative that Gillian Anderson moved to the UK — hey, wait. I covered that above.

So her flight to the UK was a little longer ago. But on the other hand, she probably flies across the Atlantic regularly to visit friends and family.

"We had a zero flight policy, but our star is a frequent flyer. "

"OK, folks, terror spot's in the can, get me to the airport!"

I'm not even mentioning Franny's blueberries.

Make that terrorists and hypocrites.

Boris Johnson, What Have You Done?

Some public-spirited oiks were about to off that hippie bitch, Franny Armstrong, but hizzoner had to play the knight on a shiny bicycle.

We learn a very ecological lesson: Everything in nature has its purpose. Oiks kill hippies, so that hippies cannot blow up humans.

If man interferes with this fragile balance of nature, it is man who suffers in the end. If oiks are hunted, they cannot kill hippies, and hippies will murder humans.

The circle of life…

(Dude, not funny? Franny, you asked for it.)

Meanwhile, Back in the Cave…

Franny Armstrong's YouTube broadcast from the cave next to Osama Bin Laden's was a resounding success… Unfortunately for her, it was a success for the libertarian/capitalist/consumerist/"carbon"-producing camp…

Maybe Detroit should build her a monument.

11oss: The adverts showing people who disagree with her being blown up have convinced me to go and buy a V8. Her carbon footprint is ok because she is important than me. Nice

Nikopolis1912: After seeing this video, I must go and turn on a few lights, run an empty washing machine, leave the car idling in the drive and have a bonfire just for the hell of it.

WanderingRover: Dear Franny and 1010global…

Maybe killing innocent men, women, and children in the name of environmentalism seems like dark, edgy humor to you, but I think you should consider that you're running a global initiative, and some of the countries you list on your home page are the kinds of places where in living memory innocent men, women, and children really were murdered by smug, repulsive bastards to serve somebody else's great cause.

In closing, fuck you. And this time I mean what I'm saying.

reddycelt: Boycott Sony, the source of money behind these fuckwits. They should be shot.

libertopian: These freaks need to be stopped.

kisemuk: After seeing this I have just turned on my air conditioner and an extra heater. Tomorrow I am going to chop down a tree before heading off to buy some giant spotlights, I need to increase my carbon footprint.

escobari: I'm going to breathe and fart 10% more

blogegog: It's going to be difficult to raise my carbon footprint by 10%, but I'm going to try. We've ALL got to try, people. If we don't, the world will become filled with hippie vegetarians like this lady. This cannot happen.

tmack62: Wow! This really is her religion. No wonder she doesn't need to really look at the evidence and use logic. She operates on faith driven by a need to give her life meaning.

mntccd: Imagine having to spend five minutes with this woman. The crazy, it burns.

Her hatred of normal people is palpable.

4wdweather: 10:10 can never be taken seriously again — you're history

nosehair515: maybe if she was prettier guys would like her and she wouldn't feel the need to arrogantly talk about not true things

RachelBartlett: I am so tempted to flag this braindead ecofascist propaganda as promoting genocide and crimes against humanity.

WeAreTheBritish: I am personally going to RAISE my carbon emissions by a minimum of 10% and I urge everyone to do the same

equinoxranch: Embrace Totalitarianism.

10% leads to 20% which leads to 30% which leads to 40% which leads to.............. your heretofore normal life controlled by these dictatorial nut jobs.

Meanwhile, the public-spirited campaign to raise "carbon" emissions by ten percent is gathering steam around the globe:

disco!!!!: what the fk was that

the temperature of my urine has hit somewhere near boiling point

so instead of purchasing a small economic diesel for a winter run around I'm going to hunt for some sort of luxo barge with a minimum of a v8 strapped to the front of it

I'll do my 10% you fking pricks

Xaero: I thought it was a joke at first. Are the people in it supporting the campaign to stop climate change or taking the piss out of green ecomentalists?

As it turns out it was real... I'm a bit shocked. I mean they kill school children to get their point across : | With an explosive set inside them. Isn't that worse than Hitler?

I didn't mind "doing my bit" before, although I wouldn't take too kindly to be told I have to hit a target when it comes to cutting emission. The fact they are happy to kill people for disagreeing, makes me want to burn all the world's fuel by flying a Concorde around the planet until it's all gone.

hornet: They've actually made Osama Bin Laden seem rational. That's rather special.

If found that if I want to fly a 707, I have to either fly to Libya or Romania or ask John Travolta for a ride. Hmm… I guess I'll go with Travolta.

During the flight, he can tell me all about scientology. Can't be worse than environmentalism.

Eco-Terrorists Declare War on Mankind!

It is in vain, dude, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!

(Hat tip to John Stossel.)



So that's how All Gore got his name!

If you never understood why they're not properly called "greens" (though they sure vegetate) or "environmentalists," but eco-terrorists, or why Ayn Rand correctly identified them as anti-man, now you have proof from the horses' asses' mouths.

Apparently, we threaten the eco-terrorists' existence by breathing, using power, and stuff, or at least they're deluded enough to believe that:

"What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?" jokes 10:10 founder and stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

They must have amputated her brain…

Well, if the eco-terrorists want a civil war, they can get it. We'll win it hands down.

After all, they can't use jetfighters (emissions), tanks (depleted uranium), or even lowly handguns (lead pollution). OK, eco-terrorists, draw your sticks and stones, and make my day.

(As for that half-assed apology, you can shove it next to your head. One false move, and I amputate the shortest appendage of your unwashed hippie body.)

Update:

So what's the result of their stupidity?

Currently boycotting Gillian Anderson. Boycotting Richard Curtis, too, though I never heard of that limey fucktard.

Planning to fly somewhere, in spite of the airport nazis. Does anyone know what airline has the best fleet in terms of emissions? Anyone still have 707s or Concordes? :P

Looted into the Ground

First nanny state prohibits airlines and passengers from deciding for themselves whether they want to take the marginal risk of flying through an ash cloud that exists mostly in the same computers used to dramatize "global warming." Politicians like to be seen doing something, and initiating the use of force against disarmed victims "to protect them from themselves" looks like a pretty safe option to those bastards.

Now, nanny state forces airlines to pick up the tab for nanny state's crime. European airlines will have to reimburse stranded passengers for their hotel costs.

(This should be good news for American airlines, which through cutthroat competition had made themselves vulnerable to being taken over by their European rivals, US looters' permission pending. Now their European rivals will have to give any available funds to grounded peons.)

Of course, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Now that airlines know that they will be grounded when politicians feel like posturing and will be expected to pick up the tab, they will have to figure the costs of volcano eruptions and mad cow politicians into their fares.

So it's bye-bye to cheap airfares for European peons. Now they'll be forced to buy volcano/politician/hotel insurance with every ticket.

You cannot decide whether you want to risk flying through some wispy ash veil. And you cannot decide whether you want to buy hotel cost insurance in case the jackbooted thugs ground you in case of the former.

Big brother nanny state makes sure you spend the commission allowed to you for taxes paid exactly the way those nitwits believe wise. Big brother nanny state rules!

So what can you do while you're waiting for the capitalist world revolution? Take a train or take a car…



Puts you out of reach of the jackbooted airport thugs, too.

Happy Earth Day!

Exploit the Earth or Die

Happy Earth Day, suckers.

Warmest Cheers for The Donald

Donald Trump recently stated with a laugh at a speech to his membership at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester "with the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels from Virginia all the way up and down the coast, the Nobel Committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore."

As Mr. Trump explained, "Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world and China, Japan, and India are laughing at America's stupidity while they go along with the good act of pretending they're all for spending dollars on global warming." The entire room of 500 people stood up and cheered.