Previous Sessions
1. Examined UN, how it operates,
reliance it places on NGOs and regional organizations
2. Showed UN is restructuring
itself to become the solution to world’s needs
3. Showed that environment is
a very strong issue with UN, suggested it may be key to
UN’s ascendency to world governance
This session
1. the US and the NWO environmentalism
2. begin by examining an environmental
group in US called Wildlands Project
Wildlands Project [excerpts from Wildlands Project web site]
1. Wildlands Project: “A plan
to return 50 percent of the North American continent to
wild land or wilderness for the preservation
of biological diversity.”
a. Wilderness is an area of public land where man is only a
visitor.
b. Wilderness areas allow no motorized equipment, and usually
no vegetative
management of
any kind.
2. The project seeks to do this
by creating "reserve networks" across the continent.
Reserves are made up of the following (include
chart with definitions):
a. Cores. The central component of the wild land reserve program.
Core areas are
large (100,000
to 25 million acres), allow little or no human use, and are
taken mostly
from public lands such as National Forests and Parks.
b. Buffers. Areas of moderate, though restricted, use that
surround core areas
to provide additional
protection. Buffer zones are primarily drawn from
private land
and allow for limited human use so long as they are managed with
native biodiversity
as a preeminent concern.
c. Corridors. Areas of land that connect core areas to other
core areas. Corridors
generally follow
rivers and streams, and wildlife migration routes. They are
taken from both
public and private lands.
3. The moral and ethical guidelines
for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy
of Deep Ecology, a philosophy that gives equal
value to human and non-human life.
Deep ecologists believe that humans should
use natural resources to satisfy only
vital needs.
4. US map showing “Reserve and
Corridor System”
a. map developed by Environmental Perspectives, independent
group opposed to
Wildlands Project,
using the following
i. Wildlands Project publications
ii. Convention on Biological Diversity
iii. various UN/US Heritage Programs
b. red: core reserves & corridors
i. little to no human use
ii. Wildlands project goal: set aside approximately 50% of North
American
continent as wild land or wilderness; i.e., core areas
c. yellow: buffer zones; highly regulated use
d. blue: normal use
e. this is not a joke
5. Wildlands Project
a. is radical environmental group
b. at least some of our US congressmen are aware of this group
and its plan
c. I don’t know whether Wildlands Project is registered as
NGO with UN, but
seems to be
very influential in US politics
d. one thing certain: Wildlands Project’s plan for core areas
with surrounding
buffers, connected
by corridors is standard concept held by world leaders,
appears in UN
conventions and agreements; don’t know if original with
Wildlands Project
e. considered at international level, being implemented piecemeal
f. this is how global governance will work; important decisions,
major impact, we
have no input,
not even aware until after fact.
6. [Sustainability: A concept generally
defined as meeting the current needs of society
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet theirs.]
_____________________________
Quotations from Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore. 1992
A significant amount of his information is from congressional hearings,
including hearings on
global warming before the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee
of the House Science and
Technology Committee, which he chaired. Realize: he was already an
environmentalist before
serving on that subcommittee
I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal
action: we must make
the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for
civilization. Whether we
realize it or not, we are now engaged in an epic battle to right the
balance of our earth, and the
tide of this battle will turn only when the majority of people in the
world become sufficiently
aroused by a shared sense of urgent danger to join an all-out effort.
Adopting a central organizing principle — one agreed to voluntarily
— means
embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every
law and institution,
every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and
course of action — to use,
in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and
to preserve and
nurture our ecological system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments
in ongoing
programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered
in lieu of genuine
change — these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the
public’s desire to
believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of
society will not be
necessary.
1. he’s saying sacrifice, struggle,
and a wrenching transformation of society will be
necessary
2. also saying the only acceptable
approach is for environmentalism to supersede all other
issues
[listen to the “good guy/bad guy” imagery]
The world is once again at a critical juncture. A relentless
advance is again claiming
victims throughout the world, and again courageous men and women are
standing in the path
of destruction and calling upon the rest of the world to help stop
the invasions. . . . More and
more people of conscience are joining the effort to resist, but the
time has come to make this
struggle the central organizing principle of world civilization.
1. again: environmentalism must
become the central principle of world civilization
______________________________
Excerpts from remarks by Vice President Al Gore
UN Special Session on Environment and Development
June 23, 1997
(read without transparency)
Today, greenhouse
gas emissions continue to rise at record rates. Unless we change
course, during the lives of our grandchildren
concentrations of these gases in the
atmosphere will reach levels not seen on this
planet for more than 50 million years.
Kyoto presents
a critical opportunity for the world to forge an agreement with binding
emissions limits, flexibility in meeting those
targets and the participation of all nations.
We must act.
The consequences
for human well-being, social stability, biodiversity, soil stability,
water quality and climate change are extremely
serious. We must reverse these trends.
Comments:
1. Mr Gore’s remarks 5 years after
writing Earth in the Balance; ideas unchanged
2. now he speaks to world leaders
as official representative of the US
Very brief excerpts from speech by President Clinton
Address to the UN Special Session on Environment and Development
New York City, June 26, 1997 (read
without transparency)
Yesterday, I
announced the most far-reaching efforts to improve air quality in our
nation in 20 years, cutting smog levels dramatically,
and for the first time ever, setting
standards to lower levels of the fine particles
in the atmosphere that form soot.
Still, we have
much more to do, especially in reducing our contribution to global
climate change.
The science is
clear and compelling: we humans are changing the global climate.
Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are at their highest level in more
than 200,000 years and climbing sharply. If
the trend is not changed, scientists expect
the seas to rise two feet or more in the next
century. In America, that means 9000
square miles of Florida, Louisiana and other
coastal areas will be flooded... in Asia,
17% of Bangladesh, land on which 6 million
people live, will be lost... island chains
such as the Maldives will disappear from the
map. Climate changes will disrupt
agriculture, cause severe droughts, floods
and the spread of infectious diseases,
including 50 million or more cases a year
of malaria. We can expect more deaths from
heat stress --just two years ago in Chicago,
we saw the tragedy of more than 400 of our
citizens dying during a severe heat wave.
Here in the United
States, we must do better. With 4% of the world's population, we
produce 20% of its greenhouse gases. Frankly,
our record since Rio is not sufficient.
We have been blessed with high growth for
several years, but that has led to an
increase in greenhouse gas emissions in spite
of the adoption of new conservation
practices. So we must do better, and we will.
The air quality
action I took yesterday is a positive first step, but many more must
follow.
In the United
States, in order to do our part, we must first convince the American
people and the Congress that the climate change
problem is real and imminent.
______________________________
1. These are representative statements
from our President and Vice President
a. clear: they support environmental agenda of UN
2. Mr. Gore wrote in his book
there is no doubt about global warming and its causes
a. also, Mr. Clinton stated, “The science is clear and compelling:
we humans are
changing the
global climate.”
b. in reality, this is very controversial topic; many scientists
don’t agree with the
alarmist position
c. media presents only one side of this issue and portrays
those who disagree as
uninformed,
so Americans are being programmed to believe the desired position
Excerpts from article: “Global Warming? Hot Air!” by John Loeffler
Article in Personal Update, December 1997
In 1992, over 400 scientists from around the world signed the
Heidelberg Appeal prior
to the UNCED conference in Rio [the “Earth Summit”]. They expressed
their doubts about
global warming and asked the delegates not to bind the world to any
radical treaties based on
global warming. Today scientists agreeing with the Heidelberg Appeal
number over 4,000!
The UN’s IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report
on climate
change put together by atmospheric scientists meeting in Bonn, Germany
[in 1996] had
significant sections by atmospheric scientists who said there is not
enough data to suggest
that man is radically altering the temperature on the planet.
When the report was published, however, the United Nations had
systematically
removed that information in over a dozen pages to eliminate the appearance
of disagreement.
[some scientific perspective from same article]
From about 800 AD to 1200 AD, the earth’s average climate was
warmer than it is
today — at least 1ºC warmer — the same amount everyone is panicked
about. It was the
period when Vikings crossed the oceans in open boats without cabins
and were able to settle
and raise crops in Greenland, because it wasn’t covered with a sheet
of ice. Note that the
oceans didn’t flood the continents. Scientists refer to this period
of time as the “climactic
optimum” — an optimum and not a disaster! [warmer than it is now]
From 1200 AD onward, the earth began to cool. The period between
1450 and 1850 is
the period scientists refer to as the “little ice age.” The Vikings
had to abandon Greenland
since it became covered with perpetual ice.
By 1850, the cooling cycle reversed and the earth began warming
to the temperature
norms we see today. It is clear the earth passes through normal long-term
cycles, attributed to
sunspot cycles and other factors. Our current fluctuations are normal
variations not caused by
human activity.
Not all scientists agree on global warming
1. Predictions of global warming
are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of
science still in its infancy. The empirical
evidence of actual measurements of Earth's
temperature shows no man-made warming trend.
In fact, over the past two decades,
when CO2 levels have been at their highest,
global average temperatures have actually
cooled slightly.
2. A chart from book, The True
State of the Planet, published 1995. Available at
Chesterfield Central Library. Book is full
of very interesting scientific data that refutes
many of the popular claims. Chart: Satellite-Based
Monthly Global Temperatures,
January 1979 to April 1994
a. solid line shows temperature increase predicted by those
claiming global
warming
b. dashed line shows actual trend -- decrease in average global
temperature, 1979
to 1994, based
on satellite measurements; same period during which CO2
emissions increased
significantly. according to people’s claims, increased CO2
supposedly will
increase the earth’s temperature; in reality the opposite has
happened
3. Petition signed by over 18,000
American scientists:
a. We urge the United States government to reject the global
warming agreement
that was written
in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar
proposals. The
proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment,
hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare
of mankind.
b. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release
of carbon dioxide,
methane, or
other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth's
climate. 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.
c. [Note: this petition signed by over 18,000 American scientists,
many with
advanced degrees
in their fields; these people know what they’re talking about]
4. I saw a program on Discovery
Channel a few months ago that briefly showed a chart of
data collected at weather station in Ireland,
beginning over 200 years ago, I think.
Chart plotted average annual temperature in
Ireland and plotted sunspot activity levels.
Direct correlation. Sunspot cycle is 11 years
long; every peak in sunspot activity
coincided with peak in average temperature.
Gradual increase in sunspot activity over
duration of the records was reflected by corresponding
increase in average temperature.
I’ve searched Internet and library shelves:
widespread agreement that sunspot activity
directly affects earth’s temperature, but
cannot find that data or chart.
5. Another program on Discovery
Channel about global warming declared the 1990s the
hottest decade on record in over 900 years.
Sounds alarming until you think what that
means: 900 years ago there was at least one
decade that was hotter than 1990s! You
have to listen to what people say, in some
cases read between the lines.
6. You’re familiar with theories
about ice ages based on geological evidence. In the most
recent major ice age, polar ice cap extended
into America’s central plains, as far as
Virginia on east coast; northern half of Europe
was under ice. Obviously, the earth
warmed and ice cap retreated; not a result
of man’s actions. It’s a natural cycle for
earth’s temperature to swing up or down.
7. Another claim relates to the
disastrous effects of increased CO2 levels on plants and
animals. Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen
as they grow. Several years ago,
studying hydroponics and greenhouses: in Israel,
test performed in a sealed
greenhouse: doubled amount of CO2 in the greenhouse
and the plants grew at record
rates and produced record amounts of fruit,
as you would expect. Conclusion:
increased CO2 levels would not be harmful
to plants as claimed; actually beneficial,
makes plants healthier and more productive.
8. Do you remember in 1960s, scientists
were claiming we were entering a new ice age,
that earth’s temperature was dropping? I remember;
teenager, began to imagine what
changes we’d have to make to live during an
ice age. Now, 30 years later, frantic claim
of earth heating up. Okay, which is it?
9. In library doing research for
this presentation, discovered something interesting: recent
books on global warming next to recent books
on global cooling next to recent books
saying situation is too complex to predict.
Chesterfield Central Library; go look. Point:
man in all his knowledge and wisdom really
doesn’t know what’s going on. That
shouldn’t surprise us.
10. Another chart I plotted from data
in The Statistical History of the United States, from
Colonial Times to the Present, published 1965.
Available at Chester Library.
a. plots annual mean temperature; mean temperature is halfway
between the
highest and
lowest temperatures for the year; not same as average annual
temperature,
but shows interesting trend
b. data from temperature readings taken in city of Baltimore
from 1817 to 1957
c. thin line shows mean temperature for each year
d. dark line shows a calculated average
e. notice average mean temp is dropping from 1830 to about
1900
i. this is mean temperature, not average temperature
ii. average temperature began increasing around 1850; hope isn’t
confusing
f. notice average mean temp increases rapidly from 1900 to
1957
i. we might conclude from this data that the earth is warming
since 1900
g. I found other data for 1990s that continue this trend in
city of Baltimore, but
something very
significant: annual mean temperature in county outside
Baltimore in
1990s is same as mean temperature in the city in 1900s!
i. city of Baltimore heated up, 1900s to 1990s
ii. but surrounding counties did not heat up!
h. a possible explanation: familiar with “heat island effect”?
i. cities get hotter than surrounding counties
ii. why? because paved roads and masonry buildings in cities trap
heat, and
cities have fewer trees than suburban and rural areas; trees absorb heat
iii. notice the temperature in Baltimore began increasing significantly
after
1900s; I suggest that wood was the most common building material until
1900s, when rock and masonry were becoming dominant building
materials, followed by concrete
iv. rock, masonry and concrete have high thermal masses; they collect
and
retain heat, which makes them ideal materials for passive solar buildings
v. conclusion: it’s very likely man’s activity in city of Baltimore
caused
temperature to increase locally in city, not globally, not even in
surrounding counties. have to be very careful about interpreting data
i. cannot sustain continued population growth indefinitely
(chart); population is
increasingly
rapidly.
i. we haven’t yet exceeded the earth’s capacity to feed us
ii. Sec-Gen Kofi Annan agrees; statement on World Food Day, 16 Oct
97:
“The world has enough food. What it lacks is the political will to ensure
that all people have access to this bounty, that all people enjoy food
security.”
iii. people are starving due to political problems, not environmental ones
iv. also is data showing fertility rates worldwide are dropping;
some
projections indicate world population will reach a maximum of 8 billion
around 2030 then begin decreasing without legislation or int’l
agreements
v. already nations with low fertility rates (mostly developed
countries),
whose populations are aging, not enough young workers to support
economy and old age benefits; a serious economic problem
vi. some nations importing workers to fill job vacancies or offering
financial
incentives for families to have more children; won’t hear that on the
news!
In conclusion, some general comments:
1. We’re getting a slanted message
from our leaders and media
a. the only side we’re hearing is claims about environmental
crisis: CFCs
destroying the
ozone layer, greenhouse gases trapping heat, global warming
causing the
oceans to rise and flood populated areas, and so on
b. these claims are the basis for extremely rigid national
laws and international
agreements
2. In reality, the issues are
very controversial
a. despite claims by Mr. Gore and others, there is strong scientific
data that
contradicts
their claims
b. in some cases, there is no solid scientific proof supporting
their claims (such as
CFCs destroying
the ozone layer; is only a theory based on speculation, never
proven that
it even could happen, much less has happened)
3. There are legitimate problems
that cannot continue indefinitely
a. require tough decisions, necessary changes.
b. Ex: cannot continue dumping sewage and chemicals in rivers
and oceans.
c. Ex: cannot continue producing waste products with extremely
long life spans
and simply bury
them in landfills.
d. major issues do exist and solutions are needed, but some
proposed solutions
have dangerous
repercussions, may be worse than the problems they “solve”
4. I suspect the environmental
crisis is at least partially contrived, being used to justify
greater national government control and world
governance
a. national and world leaders are not scientists, not experts
on environment
b. they must rely on what the “experts” tell them, decide which
experts to believe
and which to
disbelieve, because experts disagree with each other
c. a problem with experts: when focusing on one issue alone,
that issue becomes
all-important
to expert, believes everyone else must sacrifice to satisfy that
issue; typical
perspective of sinful human nature.
d. I’m not suggesting there aren’t environmental problems,
because there are
e. I’m suggesting the dangers are exaggerated or in some cases
the claims are
based on incomplete
evidence
f. the prevailing philosophy is very convenient (quote from
previous session): “In
situations where
there is the risk of irreversible or serious damage to the
environment,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as reason to
postpone action.”
In other words, their minds are already made up not to be
concerned about
scientific evidence, unless it supports their position.
g. people usually believe what they want to believe
h. our present indoctrination about the supreme importance
of environmentalism is
leading us rapidly
to global governance and radically altered American culture.
5. This is a “heads up”
a. be aware of what the real issues are
b. be aware that no human system is worthy of your complete
trust
i. God alone is your security; he alone is a worthy object
of your faith
ii. God leads, protects, provides for you with absolute wisdom, w/o
mistake
iii. no human system can do that
c. be aware we are in the last days, beginning of birth pains
i. Lord’s return is close
ii. world is changing rapidly, Satan knows time is short
iii. do the work God has called you to do, advance his kingdom
iv. this is not a message of doom, but of hope
v. finish line is in sight, so focus all your energies on successful
finish