Our mission statement: To research and demonstrate Earth friendly alternatives to an oil based economy.  
Their message, "Nature does not need protection.  Conservation is a personal virtue."  
We are very frightened.

http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/free.html
http://people.linux-gull.ch/rossen/solar/deathray.html
http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/sunlight.html
http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/

It boggles the mind that anyone could really believe their message- nature doesn't need protecting. Shall we start a list of all the observable adverse effects man has already had on nature? Have they forgotten DDT, the ozone hole, species decline, deforestation, mercury in fish, etc., etc.

 I say it again, people believe this message because they want to- it goes down easy, and leaves you feeling good. Don't worry, be greedy, dump that crap, and don't look back. It's so easy to believe the future will be grand- that scientists will fix all our problems (without contradicting our faith, of course), and nature will heal herself, no matter what we do to her. But then again, most folks have no idea what a catalyst is, and what a little bit can do to a balanced system.

To most, the word 'sustainable' is a threat to profit margins, and therefore a threat to their job. If your business is unsustainable, and your profit comes at high environmental cost, shouldn't it go away? How palatable is that message? A hard sell at best. I hope your story doesn't stop anybody from pursuing their green dreams. Surely that's not what your trying to do...?

a liberal in redsville

As for Crichton, jeezus what a nimrod.

But it does point up the problem with the whole global warming thing; i.e., that it's so complicated as to be largely beyond our grasp. Nearly everyone who isn't a climatolgist or specialist in the field has to accept on faith what the scientists tell us, based on their notoriously unreliable computer models. And that has to be filtered through the media. And climate is, by its very nature, unstable. So, as I heard one skeptic put it, if the climate wasn't warming, it would be cooling. True enough. Of course, the real question is whether we're forcing the observed warming. Are we? Most think yes, some say no. Me, I'm inclined to think yes, but also have to admit, it boils down to a kind of informed faith. People talk about a consensus, but the majority isn't always right. Right? Anyway, the skeptics are probably necessary to keep the other side on its toes. But scientific arguments, like political arguments are not purely cerebral. There's money and agendas involved. So it gets nasty. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left on the sidelines, scratching our heads, feeling the need to pick sides. Because, after all, there's a lot riding on the outcome. But the worst part is that against all this confusion, far too many people will wind up reading Crichton's crap.

God help us.

There were 32 witnesses there, and a tort pending.  They claim to be working with false information about illegal drugs, but that won't wash.  The interrogatives show some truth.  Few would believe the long story.  I am not suppose to be talking about this and will stop.  No violence, support the Green Party.

<30>

The simplistic attitude of "everything will be fine, there's nothing to worry about" is easier for people to handle.  That's exactly why we need organizations like this, and members such as ourselves.  We can't let big business, the automobile industry, the energy industry, the Bush Administration, to dismiss the problems of the environment, claiming "there's nothing wrong".