And Then The Climate Alarmists Came After My Soft Toilet Paper

December 9, 2009 – 8:01 am

The drum beat against toilet paper is continuing, this time by those oh so responsible and respectable folks at Greenpeace, who are know for their rational actions

The issue over tissue in the bathroom — the really super-soft stuff — is more like the fight about the big SUVs loved by many Americans.

Anti-green, according to environmentalists. Politically incorrect. Why should Americans use luxurious toilet paper made from old-growth trees when much of the world gets by with a far more basic and often recycled product?

Why should we flush redwoods, so to speak?

So Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups have pushed manufacturers such as Kimberly-Clark (Cottonelle) and Procter & Gamble (Charmin) to stop using wood from virgin forests to make tissue products.

But, of course, they just can’t stop there. They can’t make it about saving the forests

Environmentalists said old trees were being cut down when recycling alternatives exist. And it’s not just about trees, they said. It’s about carbon dioxide and ecosystems necessary to wildlife.

“The large old trees are the ones that do the most good,” said Bill Grotts, head of the Heartland Tree Alliance, which is part of Kansas City’s Bridging the Gap.

“They absorb the most water because they have more leaf area and provide the most cooling effect.”

So, they offset through nature what Mankind is doing by driving SUVs and not wanting to tear their delicate posteriors up with bargain brand triple recycled sandpaper, er, toilet paper. Liberals want government out of the bedroom. I want liberals out of my bathroom.

Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt links up an interesting new study

They unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…

Pearson’s work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

The climate alarmists still haven’t done more than create a tenuous and irresponsible link between Mankind’s output of CO2 and rising temperatures. They just assume there is one.

The NY Times is pushing a story about how costly a deal at Copenhagen will be, monetarily, but, of course, they spin it by saying there will be some pie in the sky jobs and energy arriving, perhaps through a time slip from an alternate universe. That way we can do away with evil oil companies who are just….evil, but, pay the bills

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 8:01 am and filed under AGW Scaremongering, Enviroweenies, Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “And Then The Climate Alarmists Came After My Soft Toilet Paper”

  1. Otter says:
    December 9, 2009 at 8:38 am

    Have you seen this farce yet, Teach?

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/091208/canada/greenpeace_ages_world_leaders_in_head_turning_ad_campaign

  2. Kevin says:
    December 10, 2009 at 7:25 am

    This is a silly protest anyway. No one cuts down virgin timber to make paper of any type. Paper is made from scraps, scrap trees, and trees too small for lumber.

  3. Trish says:
    December 10, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Shhhhh, Kevin, it wouldn’t be as effective for these guys to mention the truth…

  4. Reasic says:
    December 10, 2009 at 10:03 am

    Teach, I have a couple of thoughts on this one. First of all, I thought you were a champion of the environment. Why do you not support these people’s cause of saving trees? Why are you complaining about using a recycled paper product?

    The climate alarmists still haven’t done more than create a tenuous and irresponsible link between Mankind’s output of CO2 and rising temperatures. They just assume there is one.

    Secondly, are you seriously denying the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere? This isn’t an assumption; it’s established science.

  5. Reasic says:
    December 10, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Oh. Interesting note on your “interesting new study”. First of all, Bolt didn’t link a study. He linked an opinion piece about a study, which he then added his own addition opinion to. So, I sent the link to Asten’s opinion piece to Dr. Pearson (the scientist who conducted the research in question) to see if he felt that it accurately described his findings. His response? “No, I don’t!”

    He said that he and his co-authors have written a response to The Australian, clarifying the findings in their research:

    An opinion article in The Australian newspaper suggested the research casts doubt on the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. In a joint letter to the Editor of The Australian newspaper, Professor Paul Pearson, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Dr Gavin L. Foster, National Oceanographic Centre, Southampton and Dr Bridget S. Wade, Texas A&M University have said this is not the case.

    Professor Pearson says in the letter: “The opinion piece “Climate claims fail science test” has misrepresented our recent research by suggesting that it casts doubt on the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.

    “Our study, published in the journal Nature (live link to: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/full/nature08447.html) is a reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 levels 33-35 million years ago when the ice cap first appeared on Antarctica. In the paper we clearly state that the results are in line with expectations from climate model simulations and theory on how the global carbon cycle ought to respond to the growth of an ice cap over very long periods of time.

    “The article says that climate after the ice cap grew was similar to the present day, despite higher levels of CO2. This ignores a vast amount of geological data to the contrary and our clear and fully referenced statement that the world at this time was ‘warmer than today, with no evidence for sustained continental ice caps in the northern hemisphere, and possibly West Antarctica, until much later’.

    “There is a general correspondence between periods of warmth in the past and reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations, but we caution against any attempt to derive a simple narrative linking CO2 and climate on these large timescales. This is because many other factors come in to play including other greenhouse gases, moving continents, shifting ocean currents, dramatic changes in ocean chemistry, vegetation, ice cover, sea level and variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.

    “Carbon dioxide levels are currently rising year on year at an alarming and geologically unprecedented rate. Nobody to our knowledge is seriously questioning this, or the sound physics that underpins the greenhouse effect. Instead, it seems, some commentators are choosing to focus on simplistic re-interpretation of records like our own that, taken in isolation, can neither prove nor disprove the greenhouse effect.

    “We would like to take this opportunity to add our voices to the strong and steady message that the world scientific community is delivering to the Copenhagen negotiators – the greenhouse problem is real, imminent and potentially devastating for the planet, its life, and human civilization. Fortunately it is still not too late to avert the catastrophe.”

    Do you people see what I mean when I say that you are being brainwashed? This is what deniers like Bolt, Asten, McIntyre, McKitrick, and Watt do. They misrepresent science and take scientists’ statements out of context in order to make political statements about the science. See? You think it’s scientists who are manipulating data and inserting politics into science, but it’s the other way around. You’re being fed a pack of lies, and conservative publications will most likely not print the corrections requested by scientists, which means the deniers can lie all they want without any repercussions.

    Please tell me that you find this troubling.

  6. Otter says:
    December 10, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    We find you troubling, realsick.

  7. Bob Belvedere says:
    December 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    They’ll get my Charmin when they pry it out of my cold, dead, butt.

    Quoted from and Linked to at:
    FIRST, THEY CAME FOR OUR SUV’S
    —–
    It’s Time To ROC ‘N’ ROLL:
    Restore Our Constitution & Restore Our Lost Liberties

Pirate's Cove