Posted on 03/01/2007 1:18:03 PM PST by Billy Jacks blog
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the group which actually generated the report on February 1, 2007 claiming the near absolute certainty that 90% of the greenhouse gases in the environment are produced by human beings. The IPCCs stated purpose is to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments and inform policy choices.
This Panel has a chair (from India) and three vice chairs (from Kenya, Sri Lanka, and the Russian Federation respectively). It consists of 3 work groups. Work Group 1 has the task of assessing scientific aspects of climate change. Work Group 2 assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change and options for adapting to it. Work Group 3 assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Along with these Work Groups, there is a Task Force Bureau which develops international agreements on methods for calculating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and removals. They also work to encourage wide spread usage of these methods by countries within the IPCC.
From a scientific perspective, the chairs and vice chairs on these sub-divisions are highly qualified to assess climate change. The concern comes when considering the IPCCs influence on government policy. Though the most recent report made no recommendations on what policies need to be implemented, the behind the scene purpose of this group is to influence environmental policy throughout the world. That fact is alarming when you consider the governments that are represented at the highest levels of this Panel.
Since the United States is expected to carry the heaviest load in terms of the expense of environmental policy change, you would expect it to be well represented at the highest positions of leadership in this Panel. Unfortunately, the only Chair position it occupies is in Work Group 1 which has nothing to do with influencing policy. Work Group 3 along with the Task Force Bureau are the policy influencing arms of the IPCC, and the U.S. has no Chair positions on either of those groups. To make matters worse, people in the highest positions of these Panels are from governments who are, at best, neutral toward the U.S. and at worst, enemies of our country.
In view of this, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that the welfare of the American people is not going to be served by our government relinquishing policy decisions to these individuals. Our elected officials must keep a steady hand on decisions profoundly impacting the economy of this country and the welfare of its people. After consulting with American experts from the private sector, they must make policy decisions based on the proposals of those experts without regard to what a Panel of our enemies would want us to do.
The problem is the enemy is amoung us, well represented by the Democrat Party with their Socialist agenda.
Why does this not surprise me?? After all, AlGore's minions negotiated Kyoto.
>>>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ONE Of the Groups is:
http://www.nrpe.org/issues/i_air/air_interfaith01.htm
NRPE
Who is NRPE???? SDS! From the 60's and 70's! The anti war jerks who spit on our brave men as they returned home from war! They are the damn terrorists that bombed our capitol building! They were funded by General Aniline & Film in the forties to protest WW2 and spread propaganda about jews. General Aniline & Film was the American holdings of I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben FUNDED IG Auschwitz!
Someone get them out of our government agencies and lock them up in Gitmo where they belong!
In October 1994, Paul Gorman, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), told Cleveland, Ohios Plain Dealer that, [NRPEs] focus is not on legislation . . . but rather the integration of [environmental issues] permanently into religious life. We are not, he insisted, the environmental movement at prayer. Despite Mr. Gormans assurances, however, the Partnership has taken an active role in the political debate on Endangered Species Act reform. In January 1996, the Partnership -- which includes the U.S. Catholic Conference, Evangelical Environmental Network, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, and National Council of Churches of Christ -- launched a $1 million political campaign against ESA reform. Executive officers of the Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Resources Institute greeted this activism with joy. Green organizations, over the last few years, had lost grassroots activists to the property rights and Wise Use movements. Finances had been fractured so badly that green groups had been forced to rely on government grants and nonprofit foundation and corporate donations for more than half their budgets. More important, the environmental lobby had fewer troops to mobilize against Congress. All that changed, however, when the religious community was shepherded into the environmental fold.
Environmental leaders moved quickly to establish control over the National Religious Partnership for the Environments agenda. Religious leaders were convinced to establish NRPEs headquarters at the Green Cathedral, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church in New York City. Then they set out to control the scientific information upon which NRPE policy decisions were based. One of the Partnership first acts upon creation was to establish a Science Office that would address the inescapable evidence on conditions threatening the integrity of the global environment. According to NRPE, the Science Office represents an essential resource for all program areas . . . as well as a vehicle to sustain the dialogue and alliance between religious leaders and scientists. NRPEs Science Director participates in the Partnerships key strategy meetings, and provides scientific information and public policy recommendations. It is, therefore, of critical importance that the Partnership chose to headquarter its science office with the Union of concerned Scientists in Cambridge Massachusetts. The Partnership claims it abdicated this crucial role to UCS because it enables the religious community to draw upon UCSs extensive body of research, its national network of scientists, its longstanding experience in public education and its knowledge of environmental policy. In reality, NRPE placed entire control of its agenda in the hands of a left wing organization.
In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest Americas involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind. This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: Youve got to say, No, we want capitalism to come to an end.
The Unions trendy radicalism launched it into money, power and influence. A permanent office was opened in Cambridge, and UCS grew into a multimillion dollar activist organization. Three of its original founders still sit on the board: James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering (MIT); Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Physics Department at Cornell University; and Victor Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus of Physics (MIT). The Board of Directors of this organization also includes the standard litany of corporate America special interests, liberal nonprofit foundations, and former government agency employees.
Political activism in UCSs early years was confined primarily to opposing nuclear power and the military defense establishment. Emphasis later shifted to include all energy policy issues and global warming. In 1989, the Union commissioned Republican pollster Vince Breglio of Research/Strategy/Management to conduct a survey on global warming and environmental protection. Breglio found that the environment is becoming a political issue with some bite. This poll convinced the group to change its focus. In 1990, UCS brought together forty-nine Nobel laureates, and 700 members of the U.S. Academy of Scientists to sign an appeal for action against global warming. The event was highly publicized and called for tougher fuel efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles, centralized government control of energy issues and the continued deactivation of Americas nuclear power generating industry. That same year, however, 425 scientists and intellectual leaders presented another document to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio. Entitled The Heidelberg Appeal, it condemned UCSs document as an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. Today, more than 2,700 signatories, including
dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102 countries have signed The Heidelberg Appeal.
Undaunted by professional criticism, or the fact that a mere 10% of the Unions membership actually comes from the scientific community, UCS decided it needed to coordinate a new movement to save our planet from the looming threat of global warming, environmental degradation, over-consumption and population growth. It was at this time that former Senator Al Gore brought the Union and religious leaders together. UCS provides the scientific foundation upon which the Partnerships faith groups inform tens of millions, establish thousands of model congregational programs, train leaders, distribute resources, undertake research and scholarship and set in place networks to assure the permanent commitment of the American religious community to environmental activity." In short, the National Religious Partnership has become a front organization for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Environmental Grantmakers Association -- sugar daddy of the environmental movement -- is also using its power of the purse to manipulate the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Every year, the EGA bestows hundreds of millions of dollars on green organizations, and coordinates the environmental movements political strategies. EGA includes such high-powered members as the Ford Foundation (which claims it fathered the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s), and Pew Charitable Trusts. Less known nonprofits like Surdna Foundation are also members. Surdna owns 165,000 acres of timber in Northern California. It likes to donate to green groups that file timber appeals against its competitors. Not one appeal, however, has ever been filed against Surdna. As a result, the Foundation enjoyed a $2.7 million income from its timber holdings between 1992 and 1993.94 Other EGA members include Apple Computers, L.L. Bean, Chevron, Waste Management, ARCO and Pategonia Inc. The later openly promotes Earth First!s radical Wildlands Project in its adult clothing catalogue.
EGA members use their money to entangle organizations in a financial spider web of control. Grantmakers Association foundations donate directly to the National Religious Partnership, but they also manipulate the members that belong to it. Like Surdna Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation is one of the fourteen direct NRPE funders. However, the organization also has a representative on the advisory board of one NRPE partner, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. EGA tentacles extend to Partnership support organizations as well, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundations president sits on the Unions board of directors. It also receives donations from George Gund Foundation and the Florence and John Schumann Foundation -- both Grantmakers Association members. The Partnership relies heavily on the Union to provide essential resource[s] for all program areas, and to supply congregations with speakers who can relay the true condition of the planet, tell them how their families and communities are at risk, where to find reliable scientific data on the issues, and instruct congregants on how to become politically active. When the Partnership abdicated control of its science program to UCS, therefore, it not only relinquished power to a radical environmental group, it gave EGA members a seat at the NRPE policy-making table.
Other green policy makers have sought, and obtained, influential positions with the NRPE. When the Evangelical Environmental Network launched a $1 million media campaign in January 1996 to save the Endangered Species Act, it hired the Environmental Information Center. EIC was formed in 1994 by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rockefeller Family Fund (whose director is the Grantmakers Associations Coordinator of the Secretariat), Pew Charitable Trusts, W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the Conservation Law Foundation. EIC literature claims it was created to combat environmental misinformation and help strengthen grass roots support for environmental protection. In reality, the Center conducts training sessions that instruct green groups on how to use the media to reach religious, scientific, and childrens constituencies. Fenton Communications, the Washington, D.C. based public relations firm that orchestrated the Alar scare, participates in these training sessions. Top EIC staffers came directly from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and the League of Conservation Voters. EICs media consultant, Mike Casey, was a former press secretary for Al Gore. The Centers executive director, Philip Clapp, served on the Clinton-Gore National Steering Committee of Environmentalists.
It appears the National Religious Partnership for the Environment answers to a more earthly master. San LeQuire, director of the Evangelical Environmental Network, bristles at the suggestion the NRPE is nothing more than a front for the environmental movement. Trying to link us with secular environmentalists is just not true, he fumed in a February 27, 1996 Washington Post article.102 Nevertheless, the Evangelical Environmental Network charged in a January press release that Congress and special interests are trying to sink the Noahs Ark of our day." EEN also circulates a publication called Green Cross, whose 1996 consulting editor was Michael Crook, Senior Director of Policy Communication for the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Crook wrote in the Green Cross article Truth, Lies and the Endangered Species Act, that landowners were lying about ESA horror stories. He ended the piece with the instruction: Green Cross members and supporters can help by demanding that the [Endangered Species Act] debate be grounded in another Christian value: simple honesty. Crook should have heeded his own words, making it clear to Green Cross readers where his own loyalty lay.
At Environmental Grantmakers Associations 1992 workshop, funders candidly discussed their influence over programs like the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Donald K. Ross, Vice President of Rockefeller Family Fund observed at that time, The fundamental effort that has to be made is a reorganization of the [environmental] movement . . . We have to look much more at a task force approach on major issues . . . Where funders can play a real role . . . is using the money to drive, to create ad hoc efforts . When asked if organizations resisted being driven by the foundations, Ross replied that many groups did not like funders setting their political campaigns, strategy and style. I know that there are resentments in the environmental movement toward funders doing that, he said. Too bad. Were players. Theyre players. He then tried to justify this arrogant retort with the following remarks: There isnt one of them, even the biggest -- National Wildlife, or Audubon or Sierra Club -- that has the capacity to wage full-scale battles on major issues by themselves.
Who are they indeed. This group along with Al Gore's fictitious movie and the Neocom(aka Libs)media have caused arguments, discussions, firings, and chaos over the end of the world based on an IPCC report which hasn't been written yet. The purported summary offered to cause panic and an elimination of free market capitalism is based on a non-existent report. The report is still in the process of being written, and is not expected to be complete until 04 May 2007 therefore, THERE IS NO REPORT TO ARGUE OVER YET! The global warming Hoax ranks right up there with the Presidents military records farce and the ten thousand bodies stacked up at the Super Dome in New Orleans during that Bush instigated Hurrican(whats its name?)
Didn't Robert Watson used to be the head of it? The same guy that bloviated at the Rio Summit in the early 90s?
Your right. Watson was involved in the UNCED conference in Rio back in 1992 and became chairman of the IPCC in 1996. The kicker is that he also served in the CLINTON administration as science advisor. Mo politics here
Thank you Excellence for this info. Proof perfect that my comentary was correct concerning the phantom report which the drive by media and Algore have been “talking” about since the beginning of the year. How many people are aware that they have been arguing over a yet to be completed report? Talking about it as if it has been in existence the whole time.
The larger deception is the scientific farce. Every high school senior knows that science studies a process and devises a conclusion based on repeatable results obtained through experimentation. Real science does not start with a conclusion and then proceed to cherry pick results and develop “theories” which will substantiate the original conclusion. This my friend is the purist definition of Junk Science.
I want to know who these “many hundreds of scientists” are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.