4Organic? In or Out? 

4Organic? In or Out?

September 6, 2015

We recently acquired the name 4Organic.com.  Now I was pretty excited about this new acquisition to add to my portfolio but considering my mixed feelings about organic meat and produce I must question my motives.  Now I will be the first person in line at the veg. stand on the side of the road in our quaint little town, because I honestly think there is nothing better than the taste of a sun-ripened, warm mater right off the vine!  Delights my heart in Mid October just remembering biting into that sweet, ruby red tomato—no salt needed!  I can generally load up a grocery bag with the finest of what Mother Nature can produce for less than $10.00 and that includes all sorts of squashes, corn, cukes and whatever else my farmer neighbor down the streets happens to have out on his stand at the time. 

Now, this brings me to the crux of my problem.  Now it is mid October and all the stands in our town–and we have many–are closed down, well except for the HUGE one and they will be selling pumpkins for cheap, all squashes and gourds will be clearanced and Taters and Onions will be a bargain price of $5.00 for a 20 pound bag. until they pack up and head South for the winter. So it is finished and my heart cries out… So what am I to do?  I wander the “organic” isles of the grocery store and realize that I am being emotionally drained by STICKER SHOCK!  How in the world is it that I can buy 10 vine-ripened tomatoes from the stand down the street for about a $1.00 but here at the organic aisle in the store they are $6.99 a POUND!  WHAT!  How did this happen?  Will I have to settle for the “regular” (for lack of better words) produce until next summer?  And the answer to that question is; YES, YES I WILL!  BUT, will my family suffer for my cheapness?  Will they know the difference? Most likely not as they do not have the emotional attachment that I have formed to fresh, out of the garden veggies.  They do not have the anticipation that I have become accustomed to as I slowly drive up to the rickety stand on the side of the road…the giddiness that I have, just wondering what was harvested that day!  No, that is MY emotional attachment, they will just eat whatever I cook for them and gosh darn it, they will LOVE IT!

So what shall I do with the name 4ORGANIC.com?  Not sure yet.  Perhaps I will start a little Fungi farm in my basement.  I hear they can mushroom into very successful businesses 🙂

Cindy Burke, an author, cook, and blogger did an excellent interview with NPR news and she had some interesting comments regarding the organic industry.  Take a moment to check it out. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11251576

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4earth and Featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 31,000 and counting– scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda 

31,000 and counting– scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

October 12, 2013

 

To read this story on the original site please go here

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

WND Exclusive HEAT OF THE MOMENT

31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’

Posted: May 19, 2008

8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an “escalation of the claims of ‘consensus,’ release of the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Mr. Al Gore, and related events,” according to officials with the project.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore’s office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about “global warming” have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by “global warming.”

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, “The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.”

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. On the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful,” he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on “global warming,” officials said.

“The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries,” Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

He said the “global warming agreement,” written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

“Yet,” he said, “the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

“The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration, and development.

“In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom,” he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,” officials told WND.

“The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

“In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For example, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists,” the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others “have claimed that the ‘science is settled’ – that an overwhelming ‘consensus’ of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.”

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project’s website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured Writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

A Resolution geared at protecting Conservative Americans against Deploraphobia! 

This meme is used under the fair use doctrine as parody.

A Resolution geared at protecting Conservative Americans against Deploraphobia!

January 22, 2017

 

 

The Conservative Right is constantly reminded that we did not win the popular vote for this election.  The Left wants us, in no uncertain terms to understand that we are NOT the Majority, but the minority!  Well hot damn, we are considered a minority!  Ok, I can go with that.  However, that being said, where is Loretta Lynch?  Our US Attorney General!  Isn’t she supposed to protect our rights against intense violence and hate that has ensued as a result of Trump being elected as our President?  Democrats proposed a resolution (HR 569) and a stronger resolution, modeled on the HR 569 is currently in the US House of Representatives, this resolution condemns hate crimes against certain Minorities. 

Not all mind you, just one particular group.  This doesn’t seem to fit the American concept of equal justice one bit.  However, I will highlight a few of the qualifiers in this Resolution and add my own additions.  

“Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Trump speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by Domestic terrorist groups of US hatred of Trump, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives”—
(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Trump hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against Trump supporters or those perceived to be Trump supporters;

(4) recognizes that the United States Conservative community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Trump supporters in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Ok, so I rewrote this a bit.  Every place that it now says, Trump, or Trump supporters, Domestic, Conservative, replace with Muslim; that is the original text.  I think if the Attorney General was an advocate of protecting ALL citizens of the United States from violent acts of hate mongers, then this bill would not pertain only to protecting Muslims from Islamophobia, but every citizen of the United States against hate crimes. It would be ridiculous to create a resolution that only applies to persecuted Trump supporters, even though the numbers in that group are quite large and comprise a YUGE portion of the US population.  So why isn’t it just as ridiculous and pro-religionist (yep it’s a word) to have this Resolution/Bill pertain to Muslims only?  Attorney General Lynch states, “We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any particular group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action — and that violent action is what we would have to deal with,”  So Ms. Lynch, did you simply miss all the inspirational calling for acts of violence against Trump supporters for the last year or so?  Have you not seen the riots, the violent aggression against Trump Supporters?  I assume by your statement, that we are a, “particular group in America” and an extremely large group at that, but touted by the media and the Liberals as a minority–not the popular vote.  Have you not heard the “rhetoric” against us, that has inspired “others” to “violent action”?   Lynch goes on to state, “At this point…we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals. There are a number of groups that are on social media, looking to encourage people to commit acts of violence within the homeland, so at this point we simply do not want to rule anything out.”  UMMMM HELLO Ms. Lynch, WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HERE!  Considering Mrs. Clinton called us, Islamophobes, to the entire world, am quite certain that your statements pertain to protecting Muslims against Conservatives.  Hmmmm, we are not flying planes into buildings, blowing up people, chopping off heads, driving trucks into crowded areas.  You also didn’t see us, blocking major highways, roadways, rioting, looting, destroying property, assaulting innocent people, etc.

So we have seen and are currently seeing this country ablaze with a conflagration, specifically intended to spark  against those who hold a certain belief that Trump is a person we support. It is our belief and our constitutional right to hold that belief.  And yet, we have an (outgoing) Attorney General, YOU, who have done absolutely nothing to protect the citizens of the US from the well organized and well funded domestic terrorists that have been and continue to perpetrate acts of violence and property destruction against those who hold a different ideology or belief than the “majority”!  Is it because we are not Muslims?  We are not Liberals?  Is it because we are average American Citizens?  Shouldn’t a proposed bill such as HR 569 equally protect ALL of the Citizens of the United States and not just one religious or political affiliation?  Or just this one, Muslim?  OR, was the Democratic agenda something completely different than protecting people?  I suspect the latter!   I will introduce yet another new word to add to our ever-expanding vocabulary,  DEPLORAPHOBIA!

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

Again, it boils down to the 1%…climate change elitists! 

Again, it boils down to the 1%…climate change elitists!

February 11, 2017

I have been so completely enthralled with the muses and thoughts of Scott Adams, that I had to post one of his blog entries here!

SCOTT ADAMS’ BLOG

  • TOP TECH

About the 97% of Climate Scientists

Posted February 10th, 2017 @ 2:31pm in #climate science

One of the most famous statistics in the world of politics is the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with the idea that humans activity is boosting CO2 to dangerous levels.

Critics say the 97% is misleading because the critics like to include in their own list the scientists that are working for energy companies. The industry-paid scientists and engineers have less credibility, say the critics of the climate science critics.

Recently I retweeted a link to a climate science whistleblower. I don’t have any way to evaluate his claims. But his story did a good job of illustrating the flow of data from the measuring devices all the way to the published papers and then to your brain. And what I got out of that was that very few people have direct access to the measuring devices and the original data. Let’s say 1% of climate scientists are actually involved in generating the temperature data and deciding what to include, what to smooth, what to replace, and so on. Apparently you can measure Earth’s temperature a number of ways, from ice core samples to satellites, to ocean buoys, to land thermometers. I might be missing a few. Oh, and each of those methods probably changes a bit over time, so you have some apples-to-oranges comparisons if you look at history.

In other words, even the 1% involved in direct measurements might not be involved in all the different forms of it.

What follows next is pure speculation, based on my years of experience in corporate America and my understanding of human nature. But it seems to me that 99% of the 97% are relying on the accuracy and honesty of the 1% who actually produce the temperature measurements. Sure, the other scientists read the papers and see whatever “adjustments” were made by the authors. But that seems like opening the hood of the car, looking at the outside of the engine, and determining that it’s all good on the inside.

Speaking of my corporate experience, this reminds me of a situation when I worked for the phone company. 100% of the employees believed that one of the Executive Directors in our group was a Ph.D. in some sort of technology field. After all, he said he was, and the Human Resources group does background checks before hiring. So he had to be a Ph.D., right?

But it turns out he was a con man. He had no Ph.D. The Human Resources group was two years behind in their background checks. When they caught up with him, he was fired immediately.

I’m open to correction on my assumption that 97% of climate scientists depend on the accuracy and honesty of the handful of people with direct access to the data. Let me know if I got that wrong. If I’m wrong, that supports my point that non-scientists such as myself can’t be expected to have useful opinions on science topics.

You just witnessed a little trick I learned from President Trump. I gave myself two ways to win and no way to lose. You should try it. It works every time.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157072093411/about-the-97-of-climate-scientists

All Credit for this post goes to Scott Adams, Creator of the Comic Strip, Dilbert!

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

 

AL GORE–NOT DOING HIS JOB IN PROMOTING THE USE OF ELECTRIC CARS! 

AL GORE–NOT DOING HIS JOB IN PROMOTING THE USE OF ELECTRIC CARS!

August 6, 2017

I keep seeing all the bruhaha over Al Gore’s electric usage. 34% more than the average American household? Gee Al, how do you ever expect to make all these electric cars popular if you are only using 34% more than the average?

Well, being the electricity hog family that we are, it is just common sense that when you have a big house and are NOT really very energy-saving conscientious, your electric bill is going to be way higher than the average ranger. Now, we are just little peons in the wash cycle, but we do our share to keep our Electric company in the black. I suppose if we stood on our soapbox and screamed, “GLOBAL WARMING–We are all going to die if we don’t stop burning coal to make electricity.” (well our electricity comes from a hydro plant) then I would be considered a HUGE HYPOCRITE!

We are just a pod on the bean poll, but this is what I receive every few months from our electric company…personally, instead of guilting our family for using so much electricity, they should be sending us a gift certificate for dinner, to Panera perhaps for being such good and loyal customers.

GO AL GORE, KEEP THOSE ELECTRIC COMPANIES ROLLING IN THE PROFITS AND START DOING A BETTER JOB OF PROMOTING ELECTRICITY…34% THAT IS PATHETIC! YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO BETTER!   THE TESLA CORP IS DEPENDING ON YOU!

We are certainly doing our part…

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.