The John Holdren Climate Refrigerator

John Holdren has patented a new refrigerator design, which works by pumping hot air into the fridge. This heat pushes the cold into the food, cooling it extremely rapidly.

Caution is needed, because too much heat will freeze your beer bottles and turn the contents into choom.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to The John Holdren Climate Refrigerator

  1. Anything is possible says:

    You’re making this up!

    John Holdren would never patent a refrigerator design. What’s the point? The changing climate is making it impossible to grow any more food.

  2. Robertv says:

    So warmer western boundary currents that carry water from the tropics to the poles will provoke more sea ice .

  3. professorangel says:

    Fantastic. I can’t wait to be done w/ physical readjustments. So much new engineering to wade into!

    Sent from my iPhone


  4. Bob Greene says:

    No wonder I struggled in thermogodamics. I kept thinking it went the other way.

  5. darrylb says:

    Of Course, he is always pumping out nothing but hot air (from more than one orifice). And as i have stated before, I believe he is a closet eugenicist.
    Although I do not believe he would be among the chosen!

    • Gail Combs says:

      “….I believe he is a closet eugenicist…”

      There is nothing closet about it he is an in your face eugenicist.

      From the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. (H/T to zombietime(DOT)com/john_holdren/ )

      Page 837
      Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society….

      Page 786
      One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

      Page 787-8
      Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

      Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.

      Guess what USDA grants recently funded?
      Epicyte: Contraceptive Corn

      In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created the ultimate GM crop—’contraceptive corn’—after researchers discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm….

      Announcing his success at a press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants and announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

      Shortly after the 2001 Epicyte press release, all discussion of the breakthrough vanished. The company itself was taken over in 2004 by Biolex and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of spermicidal corn….

      Think of the StarLink corn scandal. A genetically modified corn approved only for animal consumption that caused allergic reaction in humans started showing up in taco shells and over 300 other food products. Half of Iowa’s crop was contaminated. 16 states were involved. The contamination was from cross-pollination from neighboring fields. Corn is wind pollinated and even 200ft buffer strips did not prevent entire fields from becoming cross contaminated

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Holdren sounds a lot like this quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

        Talk about an elitist or eugenic sentiment. So the top eco-elites will chose who will be allowed to have children. I imagine a little large kickback $$ might help some prospective parents get on the favored list.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Why do you think Hospitals in the USA and UK are now banking the DNA of all babies that are born. Why do you think the USA is taking DNA samples of all criminals and for minor crimes that would be probation/fine you get off scott free IF you give them your DNA.

          Here is an example of the type of research happening:
          New research shows children with autism have excess of duplicated DNA

          DNA Degradation in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
          …. Recent genetic studies have offered up copy number variants (CNVs)—deletions or duplications of DNA segments—as potential causal factors for psychiatric disease ….

          In an of itself there is no problem until you mix in the Fabians, their London School of Economics and there desire to breed a ‘Super Human’ Sound familiar?

          George Bernard Shaw wrote: “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.” Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be “the most important question of all” while her husband remarked that “no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist”. Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded “procreation tickets” to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of “detrimental types and characteristics” and the “fostering of desirable types” instead. – from New Statesman article The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be “the most important question of all” while her husband remarked that “no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist”.

          Yeah, and no warmist can be a laissez-faire individualist. They want full out statist control of everything, and probably most of them would be cool with eugenics… LIKE THE NAZIS!

        • Keitho says:

          These “solutions” always apply to others. The decision makers are always secure in the knowledge that they will only be required to participate on a voluntary basis. The problem isn’t one of “too many humans” it is one of “too many of those kind of humans”.

  6. Justa Joe says:

    Holdren is a devotee of the perpetually incredibly wrong Paul Ehrlich. Everyone shoot put Holdren on auto-ignore.

  7. geran says:

    Hilarious. You out-did yourself again.

    • geran says:

      I may be opinionated because I just hooked up a new freezer. I was worried that it would still work with all the new CO2.

      -10 degrees after 4 hours, I had to adjust the thermo to bring it up.

      I don’t want to be blamed for freezing the planet.

  8. rah says:

    Reminds me of an old joke that about any American that had the pleasure of owning an old school Triumph sports car would remember. Why do the British drink warm beer? Because all their refrigerators are made by Lucas electronic. (Yes I know it isn’t really warm. Just not ice cold like most upstart Yanks like it.)

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is because we can’t stand the taste of rotted grain.
      (I don’t drink… except for cider. The UK has GREAT cider!)

      • Keitho says:

        Ah Gail, there is some wonderful beer out there even in England ( forget Scotland and Wales ) and it is said to be proof that God loves us. Just avoid that rancid muck called Bitter in the South and all big brewery lagers.

        I have consumed cider in Somerset ( before the floods ), they called it scrumpy and drink it by the pint. I have never been so legless in my life.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes that is the cider I encountered. One pint and you are on the floor.

          I have had a taste of some reasonable beer while in Europe but I usually ended up as designated driver instead. As a non-drinking female caver I got dragged to a lot of pubs. Usually without warning.

          Getting handed the keys to an English singer, (car) a five speed in a medieval town with narrow winding hilly cobblestone streets and buildings up to the curb was my first experience driving a car from the ‘Wrong side’ Come to think of it my first time driving a manual transmission was driving a pickup through rush hour traffic on hilly city streets because the owner (a caver) had badly injured his leg.

          It is a wonder I made it to my thirties alive and relatively uninjured when I think of some of the stuff I have done.

        • Brian H says:

          Evidence that evolution favours luck over brains?

  9. Eric Simpson says:

    Yeah, the same idea applies to cooling houses. During a hot day the cold inside the house will “stick together.” There’s no need for air conditioning. In fact the hotter it is outside the colder it will be inside. Unless you use air conditioning which adds CO2 and messes things up. Have you ever heard of a cold front? Notice that the cold sticks together. Holdren is brilliant. He says we must “de-develop the United States…[and] design a stable, low-consumption economy.” Eliminate all air conditioning and we are an eighth of the way there.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      The way to Holdren’s low consumption economy:

      To get us half the way there to a low-consumption economy, not just an eighth of the way there, we also need to outlaw the following things. Heating. That’s easier to deal with than air conditioning because you can just wear layers. Cooking. Well, actually we would allow the microwaving of efficiently pre-cooked goods (who says that de-industrialization won’t involve technology!). Yes, refrigeration also. Things like milk can be produced so that they don’t require refrigeration, and we can stick with the pre-cooked or other foods that don’t require chilling. Computers. Well, run your computer, check your websites, make your comments, then turn it off, but don’t just leave it on all day! TV. We know TV makes us stupid. Who needs it? Self-propelled vehicles. (Cars). Yes, there will be exceptions for limited taxi use, rentals for approved sojourns, and use by VIPs. But otherwise people can use mass-transit and trains or bikes or walk. Mostly they should move to where they are within walking distance of work and the market and social opportunities. Air travel. Again, with exceptions. Indoor plumbing. Problem with that is it encourages a lazy attitude toward conservation. We need to build character, and the Indians didn’t have it. Plus it causes CO2 emissions. Not what we want! And keeping water constantly heated is really wasteful. Heat a little water when you need to sponge bath or whatever, but don’t get greedy. Plus, some will object, but: no meat. Vegetarian fare can be made to be reasonably palatable, and it takes a lot more CO2 to produce meat. Meat has cholesterol anyway, and you can get plenty of protein with tofu and beans. There will still be beano available, probably. Also, we ARE going to still have electricity for those that want to spend extra for it, but it is going to cost like $3 a kilowatt hour, so I don’t think you are going to want to use vacuums because that is really going to break the budget. Brooms work. Be real careful with having just a few low wattage light bulbs on, and go to bed early. After all, there’s not going to be any more “late night TV.”

      As far as going all the way, not just half the way, the rest of the burden will be on business. Strict regulations and a high cost of electricity and power will steer industry toward efficient and necessary production. Then we’ve got it done. We get to live in a good world, to do the right thing.

      • Brian H says:

        The reason meat has cholesterol is that the walls of every cell in animal bodies is composed of it. Without it, you’d be a well-mixed puddle. But you can make your own; dietary cholesterol has minimal effects on blood or body levels.

        Dietary “science” is an even longer-running scam than climate “science”.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director and founding pioneer of AGW scare mongering
      “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
      “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism.. our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue

      • NikFromNYC says:

        Stewart Brand has become strongly pro-nuclear since his Catalog days and is promoting more purchase of Russian nuclear weapons to power reactors:

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Nik, that’s certainly good that Brand is now reformed, but I’m not sure if that point really helps the effectiveness of the old quote by him. I guess he no longer wants us to live like Indians. Oh well, that might be fun to live like Indians!! And as far as nuclear power, of all kinds, fission and fusion etc, I remind you that the futurist NextBigFuture is a great place for posts on that, like on the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics fusion project that if it succeeds will change everything, or he even covers cold fusion like he highlights this 2 hour recent video demo by Blacklight Power that I know is highly suspect:
        And sometimes his post’s titles borders on the humorous, like his most recent one today: “3D printing huge objects will impact the world economy not small hobbyist crap.”

        • Brian H says:

          Yes, the LPP project will render the whole renewables and energy waste/costs dispute moot. Limitless, dispatchable, waste-free, at about 6¢/W and 0.3¢/kWh. Virtually anywhere, in little 5MW bites. Been following it for years, and its results and stats blow away every other fusion project, at orders of magnitude lower cost.
          Go, go, Gadget!

    • Eric Simpson says:

      The truth is the cap & trade bill that passed the US House mandated 83% cuts in CO2. 83%. Yes, by 2050, but with draconian cuts right from the start. That 83% wouldn’t be made up by “efficiency.” Or windmills. We couldn’t afford massive subsidized windmills etc when are already almost bankrupt! No, the 83% cuts in the cap & trade bill that passed the House (but didn’t get to Obama!) would cause … radical de-development. Just like John Holdren wants. And my list above of all the things that would be outlawed or we couldn’t afford is probably not totally insanely off the mark. What would be needed to cut our CO2 and energy use by about 80%?

      • Gail Combs says:

        I looked up the numbers:

        Presently the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person
        In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu.
        The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu.
        If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person.

        In other words ONE HALF the energy consumption of people during the American Revolution!!!

        What does that mean?
        Farmers made up about 90% of labor force  in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (2.6% in 1990)
        About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of oil.)

        1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840?s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became at all common. It was in the 1860?s that kerosene lamps became popular.

        Also up until the 1850?s dung and wood were the major source of energy.

        In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals. Except farm animals would have to be cut too because they produce CO2 and we still have more CO2 reduction to go.

        Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights and if we are lucky a refrigerator … for a few years. FACTORIES use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers. But the Ecoloons want the rivers “Wild and Free” so no harnessing water power.

        Anyone who tries to tell you differently is talking baffle gab because at present less than 9% of the US labor force is in manufacturing. The USA got rid of most of its really energy intense industry like smelting the ores to make machines. The USA shipped its factories to China.

        This is what the Ecoloons really want IMAGE

        Maybe we should give it to them. I am sure Russia has some areas of Siberia suitable for a C)2 free Ecoloon colony.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Gail, I can’t stress enough how much I like your post. The numbers you present… are startling. And to begin with, I reconfirm this, from Beacon Hill on the cap & trade bill that passed the US House in 2009, and it was just a couple of votes shy of passing in the senate: “The Waxman-Markey Bill currently before Congress would bring GHG emissions, and hence carbon emissions, below 2005 levels in steps – 3% below those levels by 2012, 20% by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050.”

        That’s it. 83 percent CO2 cuts.

        And by 2014 (NOW!) we’d probably already be looking at a 7% squeeze, if the bill had made it to Obama. Insane already, and within a decade from now, a 30% cut. IN SANE. And as far as the already prohibitively expensive “renewables” like solar and wind: those costs are based on using production inputs that use conventional energy sources. Imagine that windmills had to be produced… with windmill power based inputs. There’s no way we could afford those astronomical costs. Yes, with overwhelmingly strict govt controls we’d see some efficiency gains, but mainly we’d see just the wholesale jettisoning of our industry and power use.

        And cutting our power down to 1790 levels??? Even if efficiency doubled, and I think for most things efficiency is already near maxed out, but if it doubled, we are still looking at, effectively, 19th century levels of energy use that would lead to the straight our ransacking of our economy, and yeah, to “de-development.” And starvation. No less. People need to reread your post, and think about it. That’s a fantasy, the 83% cut. But no, that was what the bill said. Not a fantasy, a nightmare, beyond compare. Maybe you’d think we’d be able to repeal this craziness. But look at the problems we’re having trying to repeal the generally despised Obamacare. No, the warmist Democrats would protest: “we are doing this [going down the tubes ourselves] to save the world,” and we’d need 60 senators for repeal, + the prez.

        • Brian H says:

          Actually, half of 1790 levels per capita. Let the horsies run Wild and Free, too! Live on dandelion salad. When the sun shines.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        But Gail I wanted to point out a couple of issues as I think your points are definitely worth repeating, and ironing out. Of some note I think that 80% of current energy (336btu) would be 67.2 btu per person. That’s my calculation anyway. Still, that’s substantially lower than … 1790. Plus, a typo I surmise, you say that in 1800 69% labor was farm related, but I’m thinking perhaps you meant 1900 on that. And lol on you image link to the woman pulling the plow!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Eric, yes you are correct. I come up with 67.1 btu per person.
          (I should not try to do math at 3:00 am in the morning after 23hrs of no sleep.)

          Also I should point out conversion to ALL nuclear power would allow an advanced civilization to function with the 83% reduction rate. We already have nuclear electric generation and nuclear powered ships. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment-Operation: …The ARE was operated successfully in November, 1954, at various power levels up to 2.5 MWt. The specific objective of the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) was to build and operate a high-temperature low-power circulating-fuel reactor of materials which would be suitable for a high-power reactor….”

          A U.S. company says it is getting closer to putting prototype electric cars on the road that will be powered by the heavy-metal thorium.( wwwDOT )

          Another company has prototype mini nuclear reactors ( wwwDOT )

          Unfortunately most of the research on thorium nuclear reactors and Micro reactors is being done outside the USA (Using our technological advances of course) or by private individuals. If the US government actually wanted that 83% reduction rate, they would have poured all those wasted “Renewable/Sustainable” dollars into continuing the Thorium experiments of the 1950s. SEE energyfromthorium(DOT)com/2006/04/22/a-brief-history-of-the-liquid-fluoride-reactor/

          Back to a “Renewable Energy USA”

          (From the US Census bureau History page) The first census was in 1790. In 1830, enumerators used uniform printed schedules for the first time…. After the failures of the past two censuses, no attempt was made to collect additional data on manufacturing and industry in the United States.

          The provisions of an act of May 23, 1850 that directed that six schedules be used to collect the information requested by the Congress….it also authorized the board to prepare forms and schedules for collecting information on mines, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, education, and other topics, as well as “exhibit a full view of the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country.”

          These farm numbers come from
          1790: Farmers made up about 90% of labor force
          After that you would have census numbers:
          1840: Farmers made up 69% of labor force
          1850: Farmers made up 64% of labor force
          1860: Farmers made up 58% of labor force
          1870: Farmers made up 53% of labor force
          1880: Farmers made up 49% of labor force
          1890: Farmers made up 43% of labor force
          1900: Farmers made up 38% of labor force
          1910: Farmers made up 31% of labor force
          1920: Farmers made up 27% of labor force
          1930: Farmers made up 21% of labor force
          1940: Farmers made up 18% of labor force
          1950: Farmers made up 12.2% of labor force
          1960: Farmers made up 8.3% of labor force
          1970: Farmers made up 4.6% of labor force
          1980: Farmers made up 3.4% of labor force

          You can reverse those numbers with Holdren’s ” massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.”

          Why are these nutters in charge of our government instead of in a Loony-bin where they obviously belong?

        • Gail Combs says:

          If the Republicans/Tea Party was smart they would be selling t-shirts and Gimme-caps with this IMAGE
          With the caption:

          Image courtesy of U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
          Originally created by the U.S. Food Administration.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Lol Gail on another image of women plowing. Except that this one isn’t really that much of a laugher in that you get the sense that it really real. And that that was what a lot of women, and may still do in third world:

          Stewart Brand may have wanted “us ecofreaks… to live like Indians.. with our gardens.” That’s the picture the leftists have: that de-development will lead to a kind of idyllic Garden of Eden. But it wouldn’t be that way. You would still need huge farms, not quaint gardens, to feed everybody, but without the energy you couldn’t use as much machinery. As the warmists cut our CO2 by 83% (and nuclear, for most of the Green Peacers, is NOT part of the plan [the plan is to live like Indians!!]), as energy is cut so human labor returns to the farm. What a joy! Problem is that our quality of life would hit the skids. We just wouldn’t have things: like.. much income, good computers, quality and quantity (q & q) of food, q & q of medical care, q & q of cell phone service, cars. Roofing materials, whatever. Q & q of toilet paper (think Venezuela). Working electric grids, don’t have it, at least in q & q. And what about the sewage? The systems would break down when we didn’t have the labor and energy to devote to all matter of things. Talk about an environmental disaster! And the farms just wouldn’t produce enough food for all. We’d have starvation, and disease. The human population would drop so the eco-elites would, as they lay dying, rejoice. And Malthus would probably pick just that moment to rise out of his grave and say “look, I told you so!”

        • Brian H says:

          The POTUS’ Science Advisor is the de facto de-development Czar? Wouldja buy it fer a quarter?

  10. Sundance says:

    John Holdren’s heat causing cold temperature refrigeration methodology is causing the Great Lakes to ice over at the same level as 1977 when pre-Holdren refrigeration methodology was based cold causing cold temperatures and freezing lakes. If you disagree and don’t accept that hot is the new cold you are a flat Earth denier in the eyes of the White House. 😉

  11. Aard Knox says:

    We had a refrigerator just like that when I was a boy.
    To make ice cream you lit a fire under it.

    • calvertn says:

      We had one also – when I was very young. It lacked power and was replaced. There was a wick and a small flame at the base – not far above floor level. I believe it used an ammonia cycle – which still forms the basis for some industrial-scale refrigeration works, cold-warehouses etc.

  12. These con men are trying to tell us the back-radiation from all that red hot CO2 in the atmosphere is going to boil the oceans and turn earth into venus, but the one thing they forgot to mention is that daytime solar radiation is 10 billion times stronger than earth’s IR radiation into the atmosphere and the corresponding 15 micron back-radiation, which, as trivial as it is, can’t warm the earth’s surface anyway because earth is already 9-13 micron (220K to 320K range), and CO2 doesn’t radiate in that band, so it can’t possible warm the earth because the wave length of the warm CO2 is too long (the CO2 back radiation is 15 microns which is 190 K and colder than anywhere on Earth). Let’s do a reality check and understand, earth is heated by the sun, not by our own cold 190K atmosphere.?

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is why I like those graphs you saw a few days ago. One look at those graphs and I knew the Climastrologists were p!$$ing into a zephyr and calling it a cat 5 hurricane.

      Too bad most Americans can’t understand the graphs even if they got a chance to actually see them.

  13. Bob Knows says:

    This invention will work with a pan of water at the bottom of the refrigerator because heat dives into oceans and other water where it sinks to the bottom. The hot water on the bottom of your refrigerator pan can be drained off to a safe place leaving your refrigerator freezing. Climate scientists all know that heat sinks in water.

  14. darrylb says:

    Gail Combs, thanks for all your responses. Yeah, I was understating Holdren’s eugenicist theatrics.
    He is so easy to understate because (it would seem driven by an insatiable ego) he goes ballistic on every issue.
    Did your passion for this subject keep you awake?
    Gail, if you have readily available, could you write his statement about a huge tsunami breaking off of the Antarctic and causing damage of untold proportions? Also, where the statement is located? I believe it is in the same book.
    Finally, I believe I have seen your comments at another blog, but I cannot remember where.

  15. cynical seamus says:

    @Eric Simpson 5.58pm

    “We’d have starvation, and disease. The human population would drop so the eco-elites would, as they lay dying, rejoice.”

    Eric, I think you’ve missed the point here. The Eco-Elites consider the starvation, disease and death should happen to other people – that is, not their sort of people. They’ll only realise their mistake when they find the shops empty, no power and no water in their taps.

  16. Hew Manatee says:

    The perfect accompaniment to the IPCC oven:

  17. Brian H says:

    I have faith that Reality will whack the Eco-Loons upside the head, hard. But it takes its time about the “what goes around comes around” thing, and it is careless about collateral damage and victims. That’s what worries me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *