Climate storm comes out of the blue: The Religion of Environmentalism

In some ways, it’s almost ironic. While the advocates of man-made global warming turn up the volume on their screeds against the United States, rather sizeable parts of the U.S. find themselves digging out after one of the worst winter storms on record.

In California, the citrus industry took a huge hit from an ice storm. Denver was snowed in for the better part of a week. Blizzard conditions in the Great Plains, from Texas to Nebraska, created all sorts of problems, ranging from travel emergencies to extended periods without power to major threats to both humans and livestock.

Less than a month after the man-made global warming advocates were pointing to what was deemed “the warmest winter on record,” the unseasonably mild December weather, winter arrived with a vengeance.

But somehow, the man-made global warming advocates have been doing their best to spin the winter weather as further proof that Armageddon is rapidly approaching. Just as they have tried to do with any other empirical evidence questioning their beliefs.

Is global warming the danger that some would suggest? Despite the best efforts of the man-made global warming advocates to silence anyone suggesting otherwise, there are, indeed, a number of scientific critics who question whether global warming is a problem and that the impact of human activity on global warming is negligable at best.

But because the global-warming debate has long since become more political than scientific, there are increasingly fewer resources, and recourses, for anyone not in lockstep with man-made global-warming advocates. As a result, those who would question the validity of the man-made global warming advocates find themselves facing a new inquisition.

Recently, one of the man-made global-warming advocates working for The Weather Channel, Heidi Cullen, stated, “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the (American Meteorological Society) shouldn’t give them a seal of approval.”

Other man-made global-warming advocates have been even more dismissive of critics. A CBS reporter compared skeptics to Holocaust deniers, and an environmentalist magazine writer stated, “We should have war-crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics), some sort of climate Nuremburg.”

Somehow lost in the call for a new inquisition is the memory of the old inquisition, and how some 400 years ago, a scientist named Galileo was subject to some serious sanctions for his claim that the earth revolved around the sun, not, as the consensus of religious and scientific leaders believed, that the sun revolved around the earth.

The modern-day environmental extremists, the foremost proponents of man-made global warming, are as fervent in their beliefs as the religious leaders of Galileo’s time and have embraced their religion of environmentalism as closely as did the Pope and the bishops who threatened Galileo with excommunication did theirs.

It is because of that extremist influence that many scientists have discovered the best way to get grant money is to curry the favor of those extremists, just as the scientists of Galileo’s time discovered the best way to ensure their future was to avoid doing anything that would result in a charge of heresy.

Not surprisingly, scientists who are global-warming skeptics are invariably castigated as being under the financial influence of the oil industry or any other industry that questions global warming, while those who provide support for the environmental extremist cause are never questioned about their financial support.

Historically, there is no question that there has been significant climate change. As recently as 200 years ago, the world was coming out of what has been termed the “Little Ice Age,” a period that may have started as early as the 13th century or as late at the 16th but which unquestionably created considerable havoc in societies that were ill-equipped to handle such changes. And it was only 30 years ago that there was more than a little concern about the possible arrival of a new period of global cooling, a potential new ice age.

Invariably, the man-made global-warming advocates point to their computer models to portend the future and the severity of the global warming threat. That, however, can create inexplicable problems.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hammered New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast, and Katrina wasn’t the only hurricane to create havoc. The 2005 hurricane season was, the global warming advocates intoned, a precursor of what was to come, and what would be coming in 2006, they predicted, would be 17 major tropical storms, resulting in five major hurricanes that would savage the United States.

As it turned out, the United States survived 2006 without a major hurricane. But somehow, a major winter storm showed up. Even if it didn’t register on the latest computer models.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758057/posts?page=30#30
See "THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1980s)" at that link

RE to >>>National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE<<<

More on who the NRPE is:

In October 1994, Paul Gorman, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), told Cleveland, Ohio’s Plain Dealer that, [NRPE’s] 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. Gorman’s 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 Environment’s agenda. Religious leaders were convinced to establish NRPE’s 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. NRPE’s Science Director participates in the Partnership’s 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 UCS’s 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 America’s 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: You’ve got to say, No, we want capitalism to come to an end.

The Union’s 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 UCS’s 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 America’s 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 Union’s 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 Partnership’s 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 movement’s political strategies. EGA includes such high-powered members as the Ford Foundation (which claims it fathered the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s), 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 Foundation’s president sits on the Union’s 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 Association’s 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 children’s 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. EIC’s media consultant, Mike Casey, was a former press secretary for Al Gore. The Center’s 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 Noah’s 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 Association’s 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. We’re players. They’re players.’ He then tried to justify this arrogant retort with the following remarks: ‘There isn’t 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.’

FYI, China already owns 43% of the Carbon Credits at the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
Carbon credits are measured in units of certified emission reductions (CERs). Each CER is equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide reduction. India has emerged as a world leader in reduction of greenhouse gases by adopting Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) in the past two years.

Developed countries that have exceeded the levels can either cut down emissions, or borrow or buy carbon credits from developing countries.

(snip)

http://www.mst.dk/transportuk/pdf/Danishcarbon%20brochure.pdf
Buying Your Carbon Credits

Excerpt:

Carbon Funds
Choose from three fund facilities managed by
EcoSecurities-Standard Bank, the World Bank or
NEFCO. These facilities offer different
combinations of financing and carbon contracts
that meet the needs of many project hosts and
developers.

(snip)

http://www.global-change.com/articles/Carbon_Credits_from_Renewable_Energy_2006-0917.pdf
Carbon Credits from Renewable Energy

Excerpt:

Renewable Energy Credits
RECs are a potential financial enhancement for renewable energy projects in many U.S. states which have
developed and mandated Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS). Renewable Portfolio Standards require
that certain percentage of a utilities overall, or new generating capacity, or energy sales must be derived from
renewable resources. RECs are tradable units that represent the commodity formed by the environmental
attributes of a unit of renewable energy from the underlying electricity. Under most programs, one REC would
be equivalent to the environmental attributes of one MWh (Mega Watt Hour) of electricity from a renewable
generation source. Many of the states in the U.S. have adopted some sort of Renewable Portfolio Standard and
some state utility commissions or electric utilities issue Requests for Proposals for the development of new
renewable projects to meet their RPS commitment. RECs do not have a uniform certification process like CERs
and different States in the United States have developed different standards to define what are considered
eligible REC attributes and who owns the RECs. Thus, while RECs can be an important project financial
enhancement or medium for investment, careful attention is required to the distinct rules of the various
governing states or regions.
Kyoto Protocol and Clean Development Mechanism
The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized countries that signed the Protocol, called Annex B countries, to
achieve certain greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets during the first commitment period, 2008 to
2012. The Kyoto Protocol established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the auspices of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 1997. CDM was
established to facilitate the implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction projects, and lower the
cost for emission reductions for industrialized countries, while at the same time assisting developing countries
in achieving technology transfer and sustainable development.

(snip)

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-20.pdf

Excerpt:

Market-Based Instruments
Market-based approaches include emission taxes, tradable carbon permits, and subsidies.

In a tradable carbon permit system, permits equal to an allowed level of emissions are distributed to each party. Parties with emissions below their allowance are able to sell their excess permits to other parties that have exceeded their emissions allowance.

Tradable permit systems are recognized for their potential to cost-effectively reduce emissions. Already, companies are trading permits on the Chicago and European Climate Exchanges.

NOTE, that above doc is from the EPA, even the the URL is hosted on a university server. The EPA has more on the site about permits being developed for carbon emmissions.

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.