Archive for the ‘Science & Environmental Policy Project’ Category

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

March 9, 2008

Editor
I want to thank the Heartland Institute and the scientists for their dedication and hard work involved in exposing the scam that is global warming.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend —

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

The Heartland Institute

Advertisements

Global Warming Conference in New York City

March 3, 2008

Report #1 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Joseph Bast – March 03, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by The Heartland Institute and more than 50 cosponsors, got off to a fast and successful start … (read more)

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (pdf)
Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. – March 02, 2008
The public’s fear of anthropogenic global warming seems to be at a fever pitch. Polls show most people in most countries believe human greenhouse gas … (read more)

Media Advisory: Presentation of the Summary for Policymakers of the NIPCC Report on Global Warming
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
The Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is being officially released at the 2008 International … (read more)

Policy Study (pdf): Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate
Ronald J. Rychlak, J.D. – March 02, 2008
The manipulation of visuals–bar and line graphs, pie charts, even photographs–has proven to be a highly effective way “to offer up scary scenarios” … (read more)

Global Warming Visuals Often Distort Scientific Data
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
(Chicago, Illinois and New York, New York – March 3, 2008) A new study on the use of visual exhibits in the global warming debate–a tactic employed regularly … (read more)

Heartland Institute

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

February 26, 2008

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

February 25, 2008

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC – not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.

It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report’s Forward:

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The report is highly critical of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(…)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.

Source: A Dog Named Kyoto

Cloak of Green The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business

January 20, 2008

Editor:
This book was published in 1995 and after you read it you will never look at the Green Movement or your govt. the same way again. A massive con of the public by the Greens, govt. and the media. One world govt. is the end game for these groups. Follow the link at the bottom of the page to read the book online, get it at your library or order a copy, but read the book. Follow your tax dollars.

Now that Elizabeth May is in politics, and presumably hoping to attract progressive-minded people, she will have to live down her reputation, so caustically described by Elaine Dewar in her book, Cloak of Green, about the environmental movement, of being on all sides at the same time.

Dewar first ran into May when she (May) was a member of the Canadian government delegation to the preparatory meeting in Nairobi for the upcoming Rio summit on the environment. Since May was national director of the Sierra Club, as well as executive director of Cultural Survival Canada, Dewar found this rather puzzling. After a little further questioning Dewar came to the conclusion that May had become an NGO interface with government.Rogelio A. Maduro 21st Century Science and Technology : “Cloak of Green … is a devastating expose of the shady finances of the international environmental movement… if you’ve been snookered into supporting the groups that raise money to prevent environmental doomsdays, this book just might help save your money for real causes.”

Publishers Weekly : “Cloak of Green probed the dark underbrush of environmental politics…”

Joe Woodard BC Report : “This is a must-read for anyone interested in environmentalism and the “global environment” movement…this account of [the author’s] determined four-year journey through environmentalism is a triumph of truth over ideology.

Cloak of Green is truly honest reporting of a threatening future.”

Book Description
Most concerned citizens trust environmental groups to fight on behalf of the public for sensible solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. But Elaine Dewar discovered that this trust is often misplaced.

In this book the award-winning journalist explores links between key environmental groups, government and big business. Written like a mystery, Cloak of Green follows the author from a Toronto fundraiser for the Kayapo Indians of Brazil to the Amazon rainforest and the global backrooms of Brasilia, Washington and Geneva. Along the way she meets some fascinating people–Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, businessman-politican Maurice Strong, and activists who run key Canadian and American environmental groups. She discovers some disturbing revelations about these groups and their relations to “green” corporations and government.

Cloak of Green is a penetrating investigative study that challenges many established pieties of the environmental movement.

About the Author
ELAINE DEWAR is a prominent journalist and author with many National Magazine Awards to her credit.Cloak of Green can be read on line here

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS

January 17, 2008

Editor:
The same thing is going on here in Ont. Both gov., and industry get away with too much.  Where is the media?  Before you buy your next newspaper, magazine or turn on the TV news, ask yourself a question, who is your media working for?
If you don’t think you are getting honest, even, two-sided information from your media, then stop supporting that media, both with your dollars and your eyes.

PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://www.windaction.org/releases/13645

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS IN KEMPTHORNE’S SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE ON WIND POWER AND WILDLIFE

Membership of Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee violates FACA

WASHINGTON D.C. (January 17, 2008) – In a letter submitted today (http://www.windaction.org/documents/13651), environmental and wildlife groups [1] called on Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne to revamp the membership of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The current membership violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs the establishment of federal advisory committees.

“Secretary Kempthorne has clearly skewed the composition of the committee in favor of the industry representatives while ignoring leading experts on critical wildlife impacts,” said Eric R. Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, the law firm representing the groups. “This is precisely the kind of committee composition that the Federal Advisory Committee Act was designed to prohibit,” he added.

he Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee was formed to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities (see Fed. Reg. 72:11373 (March 13, 2007)). Secretary Kempthorne announced the appointment of 22 people to the committee on October 24, 2007.

Under FACA the committee must have balanced points of view represented and the functions to be performed, and will not be inappropriately influenced by any special interest. In their letter, the groups assert that the committee’s overall composition clearly violates FACA in several ways.

* No committee members possess research expertise or publication record regarding bats, nor direct knowledge or experience involving bat interactions with wind turbines.

This is a glaring omission in light of recent reports[2] and Congressional testimony [3] on the issue of massive bat mortality at wind energy facilities. For example, a recent study estimated that up to 111,000 bats may be killed [4] every year should only 3,868 MW of wind turbines be constructed within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands regions of VA, WV, MD, and PA. As of today, in those states, there are over 6,300 MW of wind turbines under study for interconnection to the regional electricity grid.

* The committee lacks the requisite expertise regarding bird impacts, especially with respect to effects on migratory birds using the Appalachian mountain ridges in the eastern U.S., despite the fact that dozens of planned wind projects are slated for this part of the country.

* No committee members have significant research, scientific, or regulatory experience with wind energy development and associated wildlife impacts resulting from onshore wind projects in the eastern U.S.

According to the letter, these scientific and technical omissions are especially troubling in light of the many individuals on the committee who either expressly represent or are clearly aligned with the interests of the wind industry.

The groups call on Secretary Kempthorne to appoint appropriate experts to the committee who are experienced in wind energy development in the eastern U.S., where thousands of industrial wind turbines are proposed, and many are already in operation. Several highly-qualified candidates who applied for committee membership but were not appointed are listed in the letter. Their expertise includes both bats and birds and extensive knowledge of nocturnal migration. In addition, the groups encourage the appointment of experts with research experience in forest fragmentation impacts, particularly in the eastern forest region.

CONTACT:

Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 275-5960

Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, (202) 588-5206

Lisa Linowes, Industrial Wind Action Group, (603) 838-6588 (llinowes@windaction.org)

###

[1] Center for Biological Diversity; The Humane Society of the United States; Hawk Migration Association of North America; Industrial Wind Action Group; D. Daniel Boone; Maryland Conservation Council; Save Our Allegheny Ridges; Friends of Blackwater Canyon; Protect the Flint Hills; Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power; Green Berkshires, Inc.; Juniata Valley Audubon; Ripley Hawk Watch; Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound; and Wildlife Advocacy Project.

[2] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11935

[3] http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=32&extmode=view&extid=47

[4] http://www.windaction.org/documents/11179

Green Agenda Quotes

January 4, 2008

Editor: And you were worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes


We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, many aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about saving the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs and agenda of the influential leaders who are attempting to impose their vision of a New Green Order on the world. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment


The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin



We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis
…”
David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member


We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.
Al Gore, from Earth in Balance


We need a new paradigm of development in which the environment will be a priority… World civilization as we know it will soon end… We have very little time and we must act… If we can address the environmental problem, it will have to be done within a new system, a new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, the way humankind views the world.
Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly tothe new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)



“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the
right time.

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution



The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.

Mikhail Gorbachev,
Club of Rome member,
State of the World Forum, 1996


A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister



In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. W
e must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.

Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General



Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”
UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)



The alternative to the existing world order can only emerge
as a result of a new human dimension of progress….
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking
….”
Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum, 1996



We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement 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.”
Al Gore, from Earth in the Balance


Adopting a central organizing principle… means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution… to halt the destruction of the environment.
Al Gore, from Earth in the Balance


Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– excerpt, UN Agenda 21


The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.

– from the Earth Charter website


Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Visit The Green Global Agenda

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

December 30, 2007
Editor:
Another paper about Maurice Strong and his followers. You may ask, what does this have to do with wind farms? Everything is the answer. Maurice Strong started the E7 now the E8 which is about the internationalization of energy. Wind farms are a part of the process. Ever wonder why the wind companies, putting up the wind farms, seem to be from different countries, well if you haven’t, you should. David Suzuki is pushing wind farms, his wife, Severn Cullis-Suzuki, is a co-chair for Earth Charter Commission, as is Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party of Canada. These people are indoctrinating your children into their cult through programs in the schools. Time to wake up folks.
– © Terry Melanson (First Published: Nov. 6, 2001, Last Update: Aug. 11, 2004)

For those who may have dismissed the notion of a UN Agenda for a New World Religion used to usher in sweeping anti-constitutional environmental agreements, I offer the following.

On September the 9th, 2001 a celebration of the Earth Charter was held at Shelburne Farms Vermont for the unveiling of the Earth Charter’s final resting place. This “Ark of Hope” will be presented to the United Nations along with its contents in June of 2002. It is hoped that the United Nations will endorse the Earth Charter document on this occasion; the tenth anniversary of the UNCED Earth Summit in Rio.

Placed within the Ark, along with the Earth Charter, were various items called “Temenos Books” and “Temenos Earth Masks.” Temenos is a concept adopted by Carl Jung to denote a magic circle, a sacred space where special rules and energies apply. Some of the Temenos Books were created within this magic circle by children, who filled them with visual affirmations for Mother Earth. Fashioned with the “earth elements”, the Temenos Earth Masks were also worn and created by children.

Maurice Strong and the “Agenda”

In 1992 Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the historic United Nations (UNCED) Earth conference in Rio. This gathering featured an international cast of powerful figures in the environmental movement, government, business, and entertainment. Maurice Strong’s wife Hannah, was involved in the NGO alternative meeting at the Summit called Global Forum ’92. The Dalai Lama opened the meeting and, according to author Gary Kah, to ensure the success of the forum, Hanne Strong held a three-week vigil with Wisdomkeepers, a group of “global transformationalists.” Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat, and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.

It was hoped that an Earth Charter would be the result of this event. This was not the case, however an international agreement was adopted – Agenda 21 – which laid down the international “sustainable development” necessary to form a future Earth Charter agreement. Maurice Strong hinted at the overtly pagan agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio Conference delegates he said, “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.” [note: Alice Bailey, and Blavatsky before her, used these terms often. Their writings state that the ‘force of darkness’ are those who adhere to the ‘out-dated’ Judeo-Christian faith; those who continue along their ‘separative’ paths of the one true God. The ‘force of light’ (Lucifer), in there view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. In the New Age of Aquarius there will be no room for the ‘force of darkness’ and ‘separativeness’.] “We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the SUPERIOR LAWS OF DIVINE NATURE,” Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.

Despite the disappointing setback of no official agreement toward a “peoples Earth Charter”, Maurice Strong forged ahead, with Rockefeller backing, to form his Earth Council organization for the express purpose of helping governments implement UNCED’s sustainable development which Agenda 21 had outlined. Agenda 21 was perhaps the biggest step taken to facilitate any future “enforcement” of a patently pagan Earth Charter. According to Strong “the Charter will stand on it’s own. It will be in effect, to use an Anglo-Saxon term, the Magna Carta of the people around the Earth. But, it will also, we hope, lead to action by the governments through the United Nations.”

Earth Charter Commission Co-Chairs

The Earth Charter Initiative was launched in 1994 by Maurice Strong, his newly formed Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev, acting in his capacity as president of Green Cross International. In 1997, the Earth Council and Green Cross International formed an Earth Charter Commission to give oversight to the process.

  1. Kamla Chowdhry, India
  2. Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia
  3. Mercedes Sosa, Argentina
  4. Maurice Strong, Canada
  5. Amadou Toumani Toure, Mali
  6. A.T. Anyaratne, Sri Lanka
  7. Princess Basma Bint Talai, Jordan
  8. Leonardo Boff, Brazil
  9. Pierre Calame, France
  10. Severn Cullis-Suzuki, Canada
  11. Wakako Hironaka, Japan
  12. John Hoyt, U.S.A.
  13. Ruud Lubbers, The Netherlands
  14. Wangari Maathai, Kenya
  15. Elizabeth May, Canada
  16. Federico Mayor, Spain
  17. Shridath Ramphal, Guyana
  18. Henriette Rasmussen, Greenland
  19. Steven Rockefeller, U.S.
  20. Mohamed Sahoun, Algeria
  21. Awraham Soetendorp, The Netherlands
  22. Pauline Tangiora, New Zealand
  23. Erna Witoelar, Indonesia

Sri Chinmoy

UN Prophet Indian Mystic, and outspoken advocate of the United Nations’ “spiritual mission.”

UN Meditation Room

United Nations Meditation Room

Large Photos of the Room

  1. Photo stored on UN Server (High Quality)
  2. Photo Taken at A “Religious Orders” Conference Held at the UN

The U.N. Meditation Room is built in the shape of a truncated pyramid. In the center is an altar made out of magnetite, the largest natural piece of magnetite ever mined. For meditation purposes it is probably the most ideal spot on the planet, since the magnetite altar has its foundation straight down, built into the bedrock of the land below; tapping into the energies of the earth itself. The mysterious mural also helps the worshippers tune into esoteric energies, and helps facilitate a state of altered consciousness. Continue reading

Press Release – Science & Environmental Policy Project

December 19, 2007

Press Release from
Science & Environmental Policy Project
10 December 2007
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].

The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming.

The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface.

Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.”

Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

Science & Environmental Policy Project