Posts Tagged ‘David Suzuki’

Maurice Strong turns 80

August 18, 2009

Happy Birthday Maurice!

No one has done more to undermine the sovereignty of Canada than You!

maurice_strong_hires2

Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement

The Green Agenda

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Man is the Enemy!

The Green Agenda

The History of the Global Warming Scare

Cloak of Green

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Is Global Warming Man Made?

Understanding the Environmental Movement

Global Warming – Scam of the Century

Global Warming Exposing the Scam

Green Agenda Quotes

AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,

Advertisements

Carbon tax flim-flam

February 26, 2008

Carbon tax flim-flam

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.

The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.

When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.

In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.

Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.

The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.

The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.

Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.

The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”

The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.

 The National Post

Suzuki's foundation should lose status

February 15, 2008

Editor:
Once you understand what Suzuki is up to, you might ask for his Order of Canada back. Ask David why China and India are exempt from Kyoto. Those two countries have close to half the worlds population. Ask David about CIDA, set up by his mentor Maurice Strong. From there Canadian tax dollars were used, under the guise of environment, to influence politics in Brazil and other countries. David is just doing what he has always done. This time he is doing it Canada. David if you want to be in politics then it’s time you threw your hat in the ring.

When the fraud of global warming is finally exposed, will you claim ignorance or will you move to China with Maurice Strong.

Before you donate to any environmental fund read the Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar. You will never look at the environmental movement the same again.

Thanks again to Lorrie for doing his best to get the story out. You won’t get the story from the CBC.

Suzuki’s foundation should lose status

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Is there anyone who doesn’t think, based on his own words, that David Suzuki wants voters to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Conservative Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in their upcoming elections?

If so, why hasn’t the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the David Suzuki Foundation?

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

Recently, in a speech at McGill University, Suzuki basically suggested Harper and Stelmach should be jailed for indifference to climate change, although a Suzuki spokesman later said he wasn’t speaking literally.

According to the National Post, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” Sounds literal to me.

Sarah Babbage of the McGill Daily reported: “(Suzuki) gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands, (adding) It is an intergenerational crime that … they keep dithering as they are.’ ”

Vincii Tsui of the McGill Tribune reported on Suzuki, “singling out (Harper and Stelmach) for prioritizing the economy over the environment.”

The Post reported Suzuki said: “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton.”

I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about the Liberals.

Last year, the Calgary Sun reported on Suzuki attacking Harper before an audience of elementary school children as he accepted $835 they collected for his foundation.

“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” Suzuki said. “I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body — he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment …” That’s non-partisan?

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

In June, a government spokesman denied Suzuki’s allegations, saying politicians don’t launch CRA audits. Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post the CRA had dramatically increased audits on environmental groups in recent years but: “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for …”

Charities can spend 10% of their budgets for non-partisan political activities to influence public opinion, policy and relevant laws, including organizing conferences, lectures, rallies, letter-writing campaigns etc.

But what Suzuki’s doing? C’mon. This isn’t about free speech — he can say whatever he likes.

But if partisan political activity is “prohibited,” why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn’t have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA’s charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain.

Source

Snow Job – Heartland Institute

February 14, 2008

Editor:

Please get a copy and read Cloak of Green
  The fraud that is Global Warming
Enjoy!

Snow Job

Can You Save Al Gore

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

February 12, 2008

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, February 11, 2008

David Suzuki's LegacySo David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb  7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.

Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Suzuki’s image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses. As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases–the now familiar ‘consensus’ argument, the ad hominem attacks (’climate deniers’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘international outlaws’, etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.

The latest position is that ‘the science is settled’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Complete article at CFP (Canadian Free Press) 

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail.

February 7, 2008

By any means necessary

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?

Terry O’neill, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

(See hardcopy for Photo Description)Brent Foster, National Post(See hardcopy for Photo Description)

No one knows how many forests have been felled to print all the stories that have been published about David Suzuki, Canada’s much-honoured but continuously controversial environmental crusader. The dead trees probably number in the many thousands, a (supposedly) global-warming-causing harvest so plenteous as to lead one to assume that preacher Suzuki might have begun moderating his apocalyptic sermonizing, lest he trigger yet another round of clear-cutting.But no. Instead, Suzuki has lately pumped up his rhetoric with even more frantic language, apparently as part of an all-out, last-ditch attempt to persuade Canadians that the world is fast approaching an environmental meltdown. It’s not clear whether he’s changing any minds with his new bellicosity, but he has at least been doing his bit to keep the country’s loggers busy.

So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren’t acting quickly enough to save the environment “should go to jail for what they’re not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act.”

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments’ alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science.

The geneticist-turned-broadcaster had particularly harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta because of their alleged favouring of economic growth over environmental protection. “It is an intergenerational crime” — there’s that concept again — “that, in the face of the work of scientists over the last 20 years, they keep dithering as they are,” Suzuki declared.

Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

On this latter matter, he told the McGill crowd there is actually no difference between human beings and the environment in which they live. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” he declared, thereby equating, for example, a newborn baby with a mud puddle. How heartening.

But this is old ground. What we haven’t seen from him until now is such an incendiary call to arms. Taking to the streets to protest climatechange inaction is one thing. Calling for the jailing of politicians is quite another — especially considering the fact that, the last time I checked anyway, there is nothing in the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from attempting to enhance both the country’s economy and its environment. It’s called balance.

We shouldn’t really be surprised at Suzuki’s latest tactic. Eco-pirate Paul Watson, formerly of the Sea Shepherd Society, has long argued that he answers not to the law of man, but to the law of nature. And we’re not talking here about his need to take bathroom breaks while chasing down whaling ships on the high seas. Suzuki now seems to be adopting a similar philosophy: that human-written law should be subordinate to that of Mother Nature (except, of course, when it comes to incarceration; human-constructed jails are so much more reliable than caves or thickets). And, of course, it’s only Watson and Suzuki’s special hot-line to Gaia that allows them to interpret nature’s law; the rest of us unenlightened ones need not apply.We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki’s “lock ’em up” rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we “celebrate our differences,” there’s a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent “human-rights” prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn’t agree. It’s only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. Perhaps U.S. author Jonah Goldberg ought to be thinking of adding a chapter to his high-profile new book, Liberal Fascism, to explore this subject further.

Actually, Czech President Vaclav Klaus (who, coincidentally, is up for reelection tomorrow) has already done a lot of thinking in this area and has concluded that environmental zealotry poses as great a threat to human freedom as did communism. Klaus, whose book Our Planet is Blue not Green will soon be translated into English, believes that climate-change alarmists persuade governments to launch costly and unnecessary programs that have the ultimate effect of impoverishing people, thereby making them less free.

“When we look at it in a proper historical perspective, the issue is — once again — freedom and its enemies,” Klaus wrote last year. “Those of us who feel very strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current world has embraced climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind, as well as the irrationality of [anti-globalwarming] measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

Suzuki is actually supporting a more direct attack on freedom than that which worries Klaus. Suzuki’s plan would lead to a loss of freedom, not though punitive economic measures, but through the incarceration of politicians with whom he disagrees. I have a better idea: Let the court of public opinion decide this at the polls. And if Suzuki doesn’t like the democratic outcome, he can always show his displeasure by giving us back his Order of Canada medal.

oneills@telus.net – Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.

Source National Post

Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

February 4, 2008

Editor:

Dear David Suzuki:Have you lost your mind?
Elaine DeWar wrote “Cloak Of Green” which took four years to research. I suggest students pick up a copy and understand once and for all what the “Green Movement” is really about. Once read they may be looking to have you jailed Mr. Suzuki.
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

 You are worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes
Green Agrenda Quotes

 Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

Environmentalist denounces economists’ obsession with GDP

By Sarah Babbage
The McGill Daily

David Suzuki delivered a scathing and powerful speech to a packed house at McGill Thursday night, calling on young people and business leaders to reverse the demise of ecology at the hand of shortsighted economic theory.

Suzuki, an award-winning Canadian scientist, environmentalist, and broadcaster, kicked off the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability by addressing the conference’s theme of “looking backward and moving forward.”

“The only guide for our future is our past, and we don’t look back,” he said.

Suzuki underlined the importance of looking backward by explaining that, because the past 50 years have seen a boom in technology and population expansion, ideas of economic growth have been skewed.

“That means you have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period,” Suzuki said to the young audience. “You all think [economic] growth and change is normal. It’s not.”

He said we need to do more to look forward, as well. He cited a brochure from 1992 entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, signed by over 600 of the world’s top scientists, that expressed the seriousness of modern threats to the environment.

“No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished,” he read from the brochure.

He noted that no major news outlets deemed the story newsworthy at the time.

“If that brochure was frightening, the response of the media was terrifying,” Suzuki said, adding that the media was instead preoccupied with celebrity figures.

He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

mcgilldaily.com

Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

January 26, 2008

 Editor
Is it possible that Al Gore and David Suzuki are full of hot air? Maybe all their screaming about global warming caused the increase in temps. Just a thought.

Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

“Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005,” said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of “solar” impact on changes in the Earth’s climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

“A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality,” Abdusamatov said.

He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

“By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041,” he said.

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.

It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

“However, the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans and seas will delay a ‘deep cooling’ of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades,” Abdusamatov said.

Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.

Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth’s population, the scientist concluded.

Source: RIAN News Service is an English-language newswire providing real-time coverage of key events in Russia, Baltics and the CIS.

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

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