since the thread we were on before was getting kind of old, and you never replied after I posted these references. Here is a copy of my rebuttal to your attack with the references you wanted- since you accused me of making it all up.
First Joe, you need to understand the English Language. I am amazed at how many people read my post and totally change what I have said. Like on the logging issue where I said some trees should be allowed to be cut and a lot of people coming back with, "You want to cut down all the trees in the world".
In my post on the Communist Party funding and starting the Environmental Revolution I clearly stated that I didn't know that it was fact, just an interesting call that someone made to a radio station that made sense. Because I clearly stated that I didn't know if it was true or not you said I had no credibility? If I had stated that it was true when I didn't have evidence, you could have said that legitimately. I have never represented anything on this forum as fact that I haven't got references for, as far as I am aware of. I have only debated with others on things they have represented as facts that I could disprove. I have never debated anyone's opinion, because that is exatly what it is- an opinion, and thus, not open to debate.
Second, the words It seems like and I think indicate opinion not fact. If I don't have references for some point/s I am trying to make, I preface the statement with these words to clearly indicate they are my opinion.
Third, here are some of references you so desperately need--to prove I am not making any of this up as you claimed in your attack.
Take particular note of the references on Global Warming and Scientists bragging about fraudulent environmentalism at this site
http://pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html
Radioactivity and the dangers of coal energy production vs. nuclear plants.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Nature Conservancy frauds:
First, causing forest fires by preventing thinning.
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/newsservice5_21_03.htm
Second, about "environmental" groups making endless appeals like I said. A congressional investigation on them.
The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Forest Conservation Council were among the worst to file frivolous administrative appeals. House Resource Committee Chairman, Richard Pombo (R-CA), expressed outrage at the findings:
“This finding is nothing short of appalling [in light of last year’s catastrophic fires],” he said. “I hope this study serves as a wake-up call to the American people that radical environmental rhetoric serves a political purpose, not an environmental cause,” he continued.
http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue27/am44.htm
Below is an important, pertinent excerpt so you don't have to read the whole article if you don't want to. Moore is the founder of Greenpeace.
Through his website (www.greenspirit.com) Moore notes: "I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism."
He supports these statements with real evidence. He describes Greenpeace's duplicity in the "Brent Spar" campaign that actually resulted in more environmental damage after the Greenpeace "solution" had been adopted. Moore told us about his challenge to the current dogma about endangered species, which states we are losing about 50,000 species per year due to human activity. "Name one", he challenges, but has received no replies as of yet.
About them giving land to their executives and logging and drilling on land that is a reserve for endangered wildlife. First two or three paragraphs are amazing!
http://www.familywateralliance.com/nature_conservancy.htm
About new logging practices that don't cut the large trees or clear-cut the forests.
http://pushback.com/environment/forests/ModernLogging.html
About "environmentalist" lawyers asking for government money to pay their legal fees that are grossly exaggerated.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/graphics/graphic3a.html
A whole series of articles by the Sacramento Bee about environmentalism being big business and some of their frauds.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/index02.html
I don't think I missed anything, but if you need proof of anything else I've said, let me know and I'll get you a reference for it!
I have plenty more reference if you need them. And note, many of these references come from liberal newspapers like the Sacramento Bee and N.Y. Post- so you can't accuse me of getting it from right wing radio!
Like they say on the X-Files--The truth is out there Its just that the environmental groups, that are making a killing, don't want you to find it!
Yes, some environmental groups do some good, like I said before. It's almost all, or all, of the large groups with recognizable names and tons of money from donations/legal suits, that attract all the lawyers and con-men that I don't trust. They are the ones that are often found to be making fraudulent claims for profit. If the group is small and has no money, the con-men aren't interested in them, so they are probably actually interested in the environment and not interested in just getting rich off of environmental supporters (I think suckers is the term they use for their supporters!) 
Rodney
