Steve,

Whew! Where to begin...

I found your narrative a little hard to follow, but I think what you are trying to say is that liberals are bad and that today's conservatives are bad also because they are acting like liberals. Neat trick!

What you are doing is confusing politics with philosophy. You know, there isn't anything inherently wrong with either philosophy. But as I've said before, the real problem is when folks begin to believe that one philosophy is always right and the other is always wrong.

The American Revolution itself was this nation's pre-eminent expression of liberalism. Now I don't want you to worry about this. Since you are a patriot, on Independence Day I assume you take the same pride in our country as I do . But had you been a true conservative in colonial America back in the early 1770's, you would have been a Tory - or Loyalist - and among the roughly 40% of colonists who favored continued allegiance to the Crown, which makes it all the more ironic that modern day "Tea Baggers" fashion their movement after the actions of this country's most revered liberals.

What you have to say makes a little more sense if you are talking about Democrats, Republicans and modern day politics as opposed to traditional liberals, conservatives and political philosophies. Today, politics is all about constituencies and has little or nothing to do with political philosophy. These days, politicians on both sides of the aisle pander to well defined groups of voters. It's no secret for example that blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic or that white evangelicals overwhelmingly vote Republican. Moreover, the American public is divided into distinct groups along the lines of education, wealth, ethnicity and (obviously) gender. By the way, the Pew Research Center is an excellent site to go to and examine how these various groups are politically aligned.

In my life at least, I'm not sure if I can remember a time when politics was not this way. In fact, I think the source of just about all ineffective government has always been the result of politicians making choices based on money and votes as opposed to what works and what doesn't. You and I both can remember the constant strikes and shut-downs of the 70's. Republicans generally sided with business, Democrats with labor - and labor won.

But I guess we can both agree it was something of a Pyrrhic victory. The high cost of labor has now come back to haunt us all. Not just jobs, but whole industries have been shipped overseas in search of cheaper labor. As you know, we no longer have a textile industry in this county. Employment in the steel industry has declined from over half a million jobs in 1974 to now less than 150,000. The electronics industry is pretty much gone and the automobile industry is on life support. As these and other industries have disappeared from the American landscape, so too have the many thousands of jobs in various ancillary businesses. And Steve, gone along with these jobs are the taxes which paid for roads, schools, law enforcement, health care and yes, national defense. Back to your narrative...

I'll have to admit I'm a little irked by parts of your story line as well as a couple of comments.

In the first place, I think you want to want to design a history of American politics based on whatever happened in some alternate universe as opposed to this one. If you mark the beginning of the cold war as the end of 1945, welfare spending in this country from that point on stayed relatively modest up until 1961, where it spiked briefly as a result of unemployment benefits occasioned by a short recession, then dropped back down. As a matter of fact, except for the year 1961, welfare spending as a percent of GDP (2%) didn't exceed the level 0f 1940 until 1972. On the other hand, defense spending dropped from a war time high of over 40% to around 10% right after the war's end - and didn't decline appreciably until 1970. In other words, welfare and defense spending stayed relatively fixed for 15 years after the close of World War II. This is hardly the "dollar for dollar" match in welfare vs defense which you claim to have occurred during the height of the cold war.

Ironically, Republicans today are quick to blame Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs for a massive increase in welfare spending. They should read their history. Welfare spending during all of Johnson's presidency stayed below 2% of GDP. Nixon took office in January, 1969 and was succeeded by Gerald Ford, who held the presidency until 1977. It was during this period that welfare spending really took off, and climbed to a high of over 4% of GDP in 1977 - a figure not matched until 2010. Under Carter (a Democrat) welfare spending dropped from the 1977 high to under 3% of GDP in 1979. It was only under Ronald Regan that welfare spending climbed back up to 4% in 1984. Believe it or not, history shows that welfare spending generally goes up during Republican presidencies and goes down during Democratic presidencies.

I'd be remiss if I didn't respond as well to a couple of other comments you made.

You say "government manufactured the idea there was a health care crisis...". Say what? In this country we pay on the order of 3 times more than folks in other developed countries pay for health care - on top of the fact that over 10% of the population has no health care insurance of any kind. If this isn't a crisis, Rupaul isn't gay and Mama Cass wasn't fat. Furthermore, this is a crisis which hamstrings American businesses every bit as much as it does individual citizens. Think about that for a minute.

Personally, I don't need to go any further than my own place of employment to see the effects of this. Technically, I'm "covered" by health insurance. Yet in spite of this, if and when I suffer from a major illness, the odds are virtually certain what little savings I have will be wiped out by an extremely high deductible and co-pay. As a matter of fact, this has already happened more than once to some of our guys. As for the owner - who happens to be a pretty great guy - he's had to scale back coverage, increase deductibles and boost participation amounts. Yet still, his share of the cost has skyrocketed over the last few years. Steve, this same thing is happening to small business owners all over this country and to claim it isn't is, frankly, breathtaking.

Then we come to the "mythical" global warming... What irks me most about this is that your sources of authority for this claim are nothing more than unscientific, right wing "think tanks" and industry front groups. Since we have agreed to give this subject a rest, I'm only going to say that no where else but American politics can an institution which consists of amateur, untrained political hacks be considered transcendent over the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of well credentialed professionals in the atmospheric sciences.

OK, I feel better now.

Now if you are still reading this and not laying on the ground in the middle of an apoplectic fit, allow me to say I actually do agree with a lot of your thinking.

Steve, we are in the middle of a horrible recession. Just how bad it is can be gauged by the fact that The People's Republic of China, which lay in utter economic ruin just 60 years ago, is today the world's largest exporter - exceeding the value of U.S. exports by about two hundred billion dollars annually - and as a result finances almost a trillion dollars of our Federal debt.
And speaking of the debt, some bold economists are now beginning to conclude that it cannot ever be repaid.

Now I have no doubt that government bears a huge share of responsibility for this recession. But in a larger sense, it is more of a problem which is organic to the way American society has evolved. In essence, what we have done as a people is maintained a standard of living on borrowed money. Most Americans today have come to believe that not only can they have it all and have it now, but also that they are naturally entitled to it. And, when they are told they can't have it, they turn to government to provide it for them. If we are ever going to get out of this pickle we are in, this sense of entitlement has got to stop.

Personally, I believe the best place to start is by electing political leaders with the guts to tell Americans the truth - as opposed to what they want to hear. Politicians on the left are telling us that government can buy us a way out of this recession with borrowed money. On the right, they are telling us that if government shrinks by half, all of a sudden, magically, American industry will get rolling again on the road to prosperity. Neither of these promises really engages some fairly daunting realities.

We need politicians who engender the trait which is not only lacking in politics, but in American society as a whole: trust. We need politicians who can enter a room, hash out their differences and emerge with workable programs. They don't do that these days because the American public has come to view comprimise as a form of weakness.

Now I hate to close this on a negative note, but I honestly don't think we will ever elect the kind of leaders we need until we learn to trust each other. Steve, you and I have incredibly vast differences on a host of issues. But the fact that we can air these differences and at least try to reach an understanding is precisely the model I'm talking about. For instance, you accuse Democrats of deliberately engineering a fake climate crisis. But I hardly think you believe I myself am part of that deception. Frankly, I feel the same way about you. Despite what you often say which goes against my own beliefs, I would't believe for a second that you are trying to deceive anyone.

In short, I trust you. And you know something? I'd rather elect a person I trust than one who simply tells me what I want to hear.

-Chris

A Pox On Both Your Houses

There has been a lot of recent talk, mostly from the Democratic Party, about "reaching across the aisle" and "cooperation" - as though this were a New Idea that was previously impossible to achieve. The problem for political ideologues is that there are two kinds of "cooperation". One is genuine compromise, where respective groups treat 'politics' as the art of the possible, always with the national interest put ahead of any partisan positions. While this has happened with notable success in the past, such times do not happen as often as they should.

By example, in the dark days of the Cold War, the US was targeted by 25,000+ nuclear warheads. This was not an imaginary threat, although some 'historians' have made statements the threat wasn't real. That view likely suffers from a case of 20-20 hindsight, because anyone that lived during that time *knows* the threat certainly SEEMED real... The annual parade through Red Square of missile and tanks were real. The Hungarians, Czechs and East Germans had no doubt in their minds.

The common and jointly accepted(?) political strategy of the time (i.e., Contain Communism) dictated that communist countries must be 'blocked' from any type of expansion and left to themselves as much as possible, where they would crumble in upon themselves. (It should be noted those countries believed capitalist system would collapse, too.) This containment policy required extreme patience and a lot of resources (mostly financial). While we waited, the other side looked for our weak points and made strategic and tactical probes against positions where we appeared vulnerable.

To be sure, there were very few True Communists in the USSR - most had set their ideology to the side in favor of pursuing simple imperial-style conquest in its various forms. But even those efforts had to be closely monitored - requiring more financial and ever increasing technological resources - because the Containment Strategy could not permit 'war to feed war'. None of this was hidden or secret. Anyone who gave the situation a serious, rational look - after removing any rose-colored glasses, of course - could see the obvious in front of them. This was generally true regardless of party or ideological beliefs.

However, the Liberal wing of American politics went a step farther and put a slightly different spin on things. The (real) Costs of the Cold War could not be allowed to impede Progress, at least what constitutes Progress according to the Liberal Agenda. The solution was to insure financing of the Cold War was matched, dollar for dollar whenever possible, with various plans and programs to further their ideological agenda. Such thinking (e.g., vote buying) proved to be effective - because it seemed the electorate returned Representatives and Senators to office because they brought money to the home folks - and this approach was ultimately adopted by both sides of the Congressional aisle. This lead to the Great Society and (later on) No Child Left Behind, to mention two examples of numerous 'progressive' programs as desired and established by both parties.

The current political parties fragmented away from their respective origins, adopting new persona. The Republicans tended to focus on taxation and business efforts (e.g., private enterprise, capitalism), while the Democrats embraced social reforms and legalism (e.g., legislating from the bench as needed). Within each party, the 'Progressive' leadership took charge. This evolved to where control of the tax monies raised by fiscal conservatives to battle deficits produced by social engineering efforts became the real battleground.

Effectively, the Republicans were the tax collectors for Democratic spending projects. In the later stages of the 20th Century, the Republicans returned to a measure of political power, but instead of returning to their roots, chose to focus instead on the “Feel Good and Get Re-elected” strategy employed so effectively by Democrats for years. This means the Republicans, lead by their so-called 'Country Club' subset, simply changed the spending from favored Democrat programs to spending on favored Republican programs. Thus, government spending spirals ever upward; the only change is in which side benefits from the largess. The only winners were the ever-more-expanding core of lobbists, whose ranks began to swell as former 'public servant' found out the path to Real Money in your own pocket was to influence the spending habits of congress-critters for all stripes.

Slowly, the taxpaying public is finally becoming aware of this bait-and-switch situation. We've seen a couple of recent elections with unexpected results which SHOULD be defined as the application of “throw the rascals out”. However, the winning side tends to see their victory as justification for THEIR spending programs. We are starting to see yet-another voter rebellion: once again, the driving force will be “throw the rascals out”. It remains to be seen if either major political party will learn anything from these results.

The message - which is apparently too difficult to digest for the entrenched political class - is quite simple:

“Look, you jokers... No new taxes: don't worry about trying to tax him or her, us or them, low, middle, or high income... taxes are high enough! What you really need to do is CUT THE SPENDING! Balance the budget by shrinking government. Sure, there will be some tough choices; that's what we hired you to do (remember: you work for us, not the other way around). And while you're are at it, make darn sure we taxpayers get a good value for our money you're spending. Government is enormous, government service is minimal, our roads are disintegrating, travel service is horrible, unemployment is over 10%, and WE, the tax paying public, ARE NOT HAPPY! (and, by the way, we're watching you like a hawk - if you can't/won't do the job, we'll find someone else.)”

Yep - it's clear the American people do not want more government and higher taxes. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those “Country Club” Republicans who are willing to reach across the aisle to 'get something done'. This is a critical year: this is the year to return to the simple principle that government is not the solution, government is the problem. If you want an analogy, after years of cutting off our nose to spite our face, we have decided we will accept a less than ideal nose, rather than have our face continually disfigured.

“But What about Health Care Reform?” --- The problem with health care reform, which has caused it to backfire like most of the top priorities of the current administration, is that this was not a major concern, and certainly not THE primary concern of most people, before it was created as a campaign issue (or talking-point distraction). Continually telling people that they want something, does not change the fact that most do not. Before all of the rhetoric and hyperbole got rolling, most people had little more than a passing interest in the subject, and were relatively satisfied with our health care system as a whole. Sure, there are problem areas here and there, mostly related to ever-increasing costs - but nothing to justify tearing the whole thing down to build a new house of cards.

What concerns most people is getting or keeping a job, not losing a house, not being killed by inflation, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, not being taxed to death. There are also concerns about personal security, terrorism, and other such things. Instead of dealing with these issues, the government manufactured the idea there was a health care crises, decided to do something about the mythical global warming, and created a huge, still largely unspent, slush fund under the guise of an economic stimulus package. Wrong. In addition to mishandling the priorities they assigned to issues, the solutions offered were not the solutions most wanted. In many cases (cap-and-tax comes to mind), the 'solution' had nothing to do with addressing the supposed problem. Wrong again.

I don't want to go into more detail on certain areas - we've been over a lot of that too often. My point is: where the government is doggedly and desperately trying to go - remember: I'm talking about BOTH parties here - is NOT the direction most people want to be taken.

Consider the difference between leaders and rulers: A leader takes people where THEY want to go, while a ruler takes them where HE wants to go. By ignoring the wishes, complaints, and misgivings of the majority of citizens, the Democrats have clearly shown which style of government they prefer. That said, the Republicans are hardly a better choice. The leadership of both parties seem to consider themselves as some kind of intellectual super-citizen: where THEY know what is better for US than WE are capable of determining on our own. They suggest (demand?) that we accept a sleek and slippery authoritarianism, which allows them to remain firmly in control as they stake their hopes for national regeneration on cliques of bossy technocrats reporting to a charismatic leader, protected by liberty-stomping cohorts of 'secret policemen' (e.g., various czars, cabinet officials, an entrenched bureaucracy, etc.).

*sigh*

We need AT LEAST two opposing parties. Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were nations run by a single political party, as are most of the terrible little former colonies in the Third World. IMHO, it is best that America *NOT* follow that path, even if the party in control is the Modern Republicans, but especially true if it is the Democrats. The lesson here, that we always seem to be relearning, is that you can not trust politicians, and that government is merely a tool. The good craftsman is always in control of his tool, never the other way around.

Disagreement on policy is not a question of patriotism or desire or motivations or intentions... it is a question of JUDGMENT. Both sides love their country and want the country to move forward; but there should be clear and distinct differences within each party on HOW the country will move forward. We-the-people can choose our desired direction accordingly. That means you DO NOT tell us what WE want or WHERE we (should) stand: just tell us where *YOU* stand and what objective principles YOU are willing to fight and sacrifice *OUR* hard-earned dollars for...

The ultimate responsibility lies with the VOTING populous. And as long as the taxpayers outnumber the moochers, the country has a chance to survive. The race is nearly too close to call. We get exactly the type of government we demand and require.

- Steve

The Changing Status of Climate Change

To begin -- the ClimateGate controversy demonstrates there are legitimate concerns about the CRU datasets and manipulation of the climate modeling system as a whole. The much trumpeted and balleyhooed peer-review process has effectively descended into a farce of near-criminal proportions.

Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently recanted its own conclusions and proclamations on glacial melting occurring before 2035, aka GlacierGate, said conclusions based on a single, non-peer-reviewed article by the WWF advocacy group.

To make matters worse, and proving this was not an isolated situation, the same thing happened again, aka AmazonGate, where the IPCC published and promoted claims of the impending endangerment of some 40% of the Amazon rainforest. (Bizarrely, even the WWF's own report on the Amazon forest doesn't support this conclusion. You'd think the IPCC's peer-review process would have caught that...)

Then, in a classic case of kicking-them-while-they're-down, there is the PachauriGate revelation, where Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, was identified as chairman of the board or otherwise connected to several companies positioned to profit handsomely from current climate change proposals. Hardly a disinterested party. (And have you looked at Al Gore's business interests lately?)

* sigh *

Worse, this entire situation has devolved into a series of sniping attacks by both sides against the other. (Yes, I am guilty as charged. Mea culpa.) However, regardless of which position anyone supports, here is the key point:

If we can't trust scientists, and scientists are the ones telling us we can't trust other scientists, how can we trust the scientists telling us not to trust other scientists?

A puzzlement... But to continue...

- If the global temperature monitoring system were viewed as a 'lab instrument' it has never had even ONE DAY where it could remotely be considered to be 'in calibration'. Worse, not only is the instrumentation itself 'uncalibrated', it is systematically being 'adjusted' to ensure that it shows a warming trend. Significant numbers of data points are simply 'made up' (i.e., 'interpolated') from stations located sometimes over 1000 km away. Example: a single station now supplies all the data for Canada north of 65 degrees (and that location is frequently described as the 'Garden Spot of the Arctic'). In many instances, stations showing cooling trends are systematically dropped from data reporting.

- It's arguable *ALL* terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems which render them USELESS for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. The data have been skewed to the point of overstating observed warming both regionally and globally. Instrumental temperature data for 1850-1980 have been widely, systematically, and uni-directionally 'adjusted' to the point they cannot be credibly support the assertion of significant "global warming" in the 20th century.

- Global terrestrial temperature datasets have been critically compromised, if for no other reason, than because ¾ of the 6,000 stations which once existed are no longer reported or tracked(!) There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further overstatement of warming due to contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades. Numerous peer-reviewed papers have shown the overstatement is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone, and when combined with the cherry-picking of observation sites and interpolated data grids, the heat-island bias could easily be more than 50% of any reported 20th-century warming. Thus: The temperature data bases are seriously flawed and cannot be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE climate model predictions.

- In the oceans, critical data are 'missing' and uncertainties about what we do have are real. It has been presented by some that comprehensive coverage of ocean data has only been available since 2003... and that data shows no warming. Ouch.

- Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors such as multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

- NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were among the driving forces behind the systematic declarations of 20th-century "global warming". These organizations should return to the critically vital task of data gathering - just maintain the integrity of the data collection process (and long-term storage!) and then provide data to various researchers as requested for independent analysis.

- A comprehensive external assessment of the surface temperature database records of CRU, GISS and NCDC "chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations" is critically needed IMMEDIATELY.

- Any reports which rely on the global data by both the UN's IPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP groups requires a FULL and IMPARTIAL investigation and audit.

* * * * *

Now - The following conclusions are MINE and dive into the realm of motivations and motives - which cannot be proven with any certainty - but, with that said...

First, the current proposals (supposedly) designed to address the AGW concerns - “cap-and-tax”, emissions trading, etc. - should be set aside until (a) the accuracy of the underlying supporting science can be confirmed and (b) the proposal be proven to accurately monitor and address the stated issue. IMHO, the emission trading systems currently proposed for the US and elsewhere - or as implemented in the EU - are 'phantom' trading mechanisms which offer no detectable effect on ANY aspect of climate, and (apparently) have all the identifying marks of a government-supported Ponzi scheme... The only ones likely to benefit from such systems are the traders... Why else are the larger world-wide banking institutions - e.g, the same folks that brought us the real estate collapse - be among its strongest backers?

Second, it can be reasonably argued that (1) the main climatology data centers have been and are continuing to produce fraudulent evidence in support of AGW, (2) the centers have actively concealed data and reports which contradict the AGW premise, (3) the responsible 'scientists' in charge of the centers have used the respect of their positions to personally attack the professional status and integrity of individuals and groups who question their findings, and (4) the majority of major climate experts are funded by governments (national and international), for the (apparently) express purpose of providing a 'scientific' and technical justification for the expansion of government power over individuals worldwide - not for 'solving' a climate 'problem'.

Third, the most important conclusion we can reach from all this, is that we don't really know what many of our experts have been assuring us that they *do* know - and that political leaders around the world including the President of the United States - are far more certain of the results of the available "science" than scientific evidence itself objectively warrants.

Fourth, the unjustified reliance on computer model predictions - especially when those models to not accurately reflect or track with real-world observations - needs to be scaled back immediately. Whenever you deal with a large-scale and extremely complex system like the climate, you will, by definition, have a significant level of 'uncertainty' about the model results. And when you consider the rate of change, local effects, and - most importantly - the measurable effect of mankind's actions (positive and negative) increases that level of uncertainty.

Fifth, climate scientists - on BOTH sides - should completely and fully release the data and calculations behind their analysis and predictions. They should be less hostile to those who disagree with them, and show a little humility that THEY MIGHT BE WRONG. I strongly believe increasing the openness about the scientific uncertainties surrounding climate science would have the long-term effect of increasing public confidence in the science behind it, rather than continue to undermine it. That will not eliminate the danger that some people (scientists and non-scientists) will continue to manipulate the data for their own agenda-driven ends, but the benefits from being open far outweigh the potential danger (which will come out in the wash eventually). NOTE: I think it’s healthy to properly pursue and welcome skepticism at all levels. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. Bullying tactics of any kind or form are self-destructive and childish in the extreme.

Consider... a company as large and complex as Boeing can have its stock prices drop due to lower earnings in a three-month period than was predicted by analysts. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of hours consumed by a multitude of stock researchers using independent (and proprietary) computers models dedicated to predicting those future earnings. Boeing (and these analysts) have access to incredibly accurate data about Boeing's operations and prospects - and yet they still can't get it right over such a short period of time.

Yet climate scientists seem quite content to place their trust (and ours) in the modeling results of a vastly more complex system (climate), for a time period spanning multiple decades or even centuries. They do this even when it has been proven there are real integrity issues with the source (raw) data. The impact of their predictions and associated proposals to address climate concerns have vastly more impact on the world as a whole - yet precision and accuracy, not to mention comparison of the model to real-world observable events, seems to be, at best, an afterthought... Curious.

That's enough for this rant...

- Steve

* * * * *
one source, among many: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf (Caveat: Are the authors well-known “deniers”? Yes. So what? That does not disqualify them from evaluating the available data or the evidence presented by AGW proponents. And, yes, they are trying to disprove AGW claims - that's the job the peer-reviewers are supposed to do, isn't it? Remember: it only takes ONE confirmed contrary observation from *any* source to disprove a theory.)
* * * * *

When The World Crawls Through The Church Door

Steve,

I don't often get to see my brother these days. He is still living in our home town of Marion, Indiana, and is an associate professor in the School of Business at Indiana Wesleyan University. He and I are very different when it comes to politics - I'm a liberal, he's a conservative. Anyway, I got to see him at his son's wedding up in North Carolina a couple of months ago and I really enjoyed the visit. This reminded me of a talk he had delivered at a church in Philadelphia. I'm not sure if I remember where or how I got the text but just this morning I was reading through it and decided I would like to post it here on our blog. As to why, I guess in the first place I thought you in particular would enjoy it. But another reason, possibly, is that there is so much in that talk which constitutes common ground for people at all points on the political spectrum. And after all, isn't that what this blog is all about? Enjoy...

When the legless man crawled through the front door of the church on his elbows, the preacher paused. When a scarred Rawandan woman and a wealthy Brit spontaneously jumped from their pews to lift him to his, the sermon was complete—lived out in front of the church. My friend Peter Rhetts relates this first-hand account in a speech from his years of travels as a lawyer for a missions organization. Regardless of our various religious backgrounds, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. before Gandhi, we can all lean into his enduring passion for humanity’s crises and be better for doing so.

The following are excerpts from Peter’s speech to the Tasker Street Baptist Church in Philadelphia (September 29, 2007). When I caught a glimpse of these words from a humble, soft spoken man with an inviting sparkle in his eyes, they seemed deserving of a continued audience. With his permission, lean into a conversation from deep within this wonderful ambassador for both calculated and spontaneous acts of kindness.

The following is given from the pulpit in the place of a sermon. The congregation is African American. Peter is a tall slender Caucasian. If you’re reading this as a Christian, the many references are clear. For those who are from religions or are non-religious, I’ve tried to assist through edits and clarifications. The following is a glimpse of a Christian lawyer’s challenge to other Christians based on his lifetime of travels.

PETER RHETTS: . . . I ask among this crowd - who are the missionaries? How do we identify them? Where do we find them? Do we need to go to China or perhaps India to find real missionaries we can support? Do we go to Africa, or Honduras – then we will find real missionaries? . . . might we find that the missionaries are already here?

May I take a short detour?

Those of you who are parents - have you ever decided what your child was going to be when they grew up? Mine did. They wanted two things – they wanted me to be the musician in the family and a lawyer. I fulfilled both prophecies. My parents allowed me to take a detour in my music career. To this day, I don't think my father, who is still alive, knew what he did next. Because at age 15, he allowed me to play in rock 'n roll bands at parties, special events, and eventually taverns and bars around the northeast. For the next 16 years, I had a love affair playing music in taverns and bars. But that's really of no consequence. I did become an alcoholic, and did experiment with drugs. But even that is a mundane story in today's world. What is unusual are the settings in which I played and the fellow musicians I worked with. You see – for the majority of time I played in bars, I was the minority not only in the band, but in the bar. And for those many years of living in a world different than mine - one that much of white America doesn’t know exists - I learned a few things. I learned that the chances of me suffering discrimination in this country because of my color are about zero – and I learned that if I was not white, my answer may be different. I learned that whites know a lot less about blacks, than blacks know about whites. I must carefully say that many whites watched the Dianne Carroll show in the 1960s’ and thought they were learning about black America – they weren’t. Much more than that, I learned that in spite of what all the politicians have done, or say they have done, discrimination is very much alive. And I learned something which haunts me to this day – especially now as a Christian.

What I am about to say – may I say it with all due respect. I can’t say it because I am a member of a minority in the United States and have experienced discrimination, because I am not. But I can tell you because of my experience as an attorney running with the country club types – working for them as an attorney – that speak with some conviction. You see - I have learned that the corporate board rooms of today look very similar to how they looked when Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The control of corporate wealth has not materially changed from what it was when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

Even with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was meant to bring equality to the workplace, there is still a lot to do. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about 30% of all the workers in the Unites States are minorities. While that number has risen steadily since the civil rights movement, the number of leaders and CEOs of major corporations has not. Only about 11% of all management and executive level positions in fortune 1000 companies are held by minorities. Nor have things really changed economically from when a small, diminutive lady on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, decided she wasn’t going to take orders from the bus driver – she was going to sit where she wanted in the bus. But friends, may God grant me favor in what I am about to say. You see – social discrimination – as evil as it is, is only one part of the sin. Having the ability to attend the school of your choice – travel where you want – eat in the restaurant of our choice – that is all very important. But the fact remains that corporate America to a large degree didn’t really care if Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus – because she was never going to be allowed to own the bus. Mrs. Parks had two things going against her – she was a minority and she was a woman. There are close to 20 million women in the workforce today. Of all those women, only 20 of them are CEOs of the top 1,000 corporations. I have learned the following as clear as clear can be - social advances mean very little to many of the wealthy – because they do not touch their pocket book and they do not diminish their power.

Have we been hypnotized into believing that social injustice ought to be the center of our attention by watching some of the wealthy occasionally throw some dollars that way. But watch the picture closely as people of wealth and influence appear on the talk shows emotionally pleading for the elimination of discrimination, then leave those very talk shows and go back to their rich neighborhoods and country clubs with no intention of ever materially helping a minority economically succeed. There are exceptions – but they are few and far between.

Don't think for a second that the economic disparity that exists in this country will be solved politically either because it won't. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Mayor Guliani, and Mitt Romney will never eliminate the problem. They may champion the cause, they may even lead the cause. But know this – they need the cause to exist because without it, the cause doesn’t need them. In plain English, politicians at times show little interest in helping others and more interest in helping themselves. If the problems of this country are solved, whatever they are, we won’t need politicians anymore and my friends, that’s just not going to happen. . . .

White America has been effected as well. What social advances have been achieved have hypnotized much of white mainstream America into thinking we have really advanced and we are good - it has almost become a whimsical bedtime story - it makes us feel good about each other and ourselves. It has served to perpetrate the greatest sin - turning away from God.

What is the answer? How does one address the incredible economic disparity that exists in not just this country, but around the world? Why is it that when I go to Central America, I see abject poverty among 80% of the population? Why is it I see a wealthy man drive his brand new Mercedes Benz by men, women, and children who are near death and yet does nothing about it other than drive up the mountain to his palatial estate to live a life of luxury. Why is it when I go to Kenya, I see suffering in the slums of Liberia that should not be tolerated by civilized people anywhere. Where conditions are so horrific, we are incapable of even imagining what it's like to live in such a place.
It is a fact – until Christ returns [a Christian belief about the latter days of human existence], African children will die of AIDS unless we do something.

At the Mexico City dump – perhaps the biggest garbage dump in the world – children will continue to live and die in the garbage unless we do something. And perhaps within a short distance of where I am standing today, there are homeless men, women and children who have no way out – unless we do something. Do we focus on ourselves or do we focus on them. Perhaps the sociologists are right – for some, it is easier to be concerned with self instead of the needs of others – that’s what we are taught, it’s hypnotic and causes blindness – it’s almost as if it is easier to be sick than to be well. Perhaps it is easier to need than to give. But if we buy into that, we have opened the door to the evil one to take over [a Christian reference to Satan] – and to hypnotize us to believe that we are the center of attention – that it is all about us. Don’t believe it.

I plead today for liberty – liberty from you and liberty from God. For what I am going to say – you may never have heard from anyone in this church, let alone a white man. But I am going to say it and take the risk it may bring with it. You see – until Christ returns, social injustice will never end – it will never go away. All the marches, picket lines, political causes, demonstrations – you name it – they may very well bear fruit. But if you allow the cause of racial injustice to consume you, you could very well miss out on the only true way to help yourself. And that is to deny yourself and help others who are in greater need than you. . . .

I was in Nairobi, Kenya, during a Sunday morning service at Good Shepherd Church. One of our missionaries was the pastor at the time. Well along in the service, and right after the pastor began his sermon, the front door of the church opened right by the platform. Everyone saw the person who came in. I will never forget it. It was a man who appeared to be in his 30s. He had shriveled arms and no legs. He crawled on his elbows and looked awful. Unfortunately, he could not raise himself to get in the pews. He tried and tried but just couldn’t do it. Almost on cue, two ladies from the congregation, one from war torn Rwanda and the other from the affluence of England, left their seats, went to the man, lifted him in the pew and then returned to their seats without uttering a word. The service progressed and then ended – but when those two women who did not know each other – who were from totally different parts of the world – one a refugee – one from property and affluence – when they saw the need and responded as one – for me, the service was over. And the service was over because in my heart, I had just witnessed Jesus in that place through those two, very different, but very obedient, women. Other than my family, and my salvation, that experience, that day in Nairobi, is one of the most beautiful moments I have ever experienced.

I have in my hand a picture of an 8 year old boy named Melvin. He lives in the garbage in a very large garbage dump in Central America. He lives in the garbage – and if he is fortunate, he will see tomorrow. He lost two brothers in one month – one who drank poison, thinking it was a Pepsi and the other, who was crushed by a garbage truck. Melvin can’t drink the water in the dump because if he does, it is full of so much bacteria and parasites that he may die. But he has to drink the water because without water, he will die of dehydration. If you feel a tug on your heart, it may very well be Melvin - what will your answer be for Melvin, and for so many millions of people around the world like him?

My friends – the world tells us to look out for ourselves and we will find happiness. It’s a lie. Deny yourself – take up His cross – and follow Him [a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of the Bible]. Belief in Christ and denial of self for the benefit of others is the true path to Heaven. With all that is going on in this country, I don’t know if we live in a true democracy. But I know this – our relationship with Christ is not a democracy. He has given us the way – now will we obey - do we really have any choice?

What do we have to offer? We have ourselves and the bounty God has given us as His stewards. What will we do with it? Who will receive its benefit? Philadelphia’s own Tony Campolo tells this story. A group surveyed an area of Haiti and decided to build a hospital for children. Their survey showed that the area needed a 100 bed facility. The day they opened, 400 seriously ill children showed up. Tony knew that the hospital could only take 100 kids – but that meant he had to turn away 300 and the chances of those 300 living was remote. Tony cried out to God asking Him how could He let this happen? How could He let 300 children be turned away and possibly die? God answered his plea – His answer? I didn’t let this happen, you did.

In Paul’s last letter – II Timothy [in the New Testament]– right before Paul was executed, he said this: “I have run the race – I have fought the good fight. May He [Jesus] say, when I see Him, well done my good and faithful servant – well done.” Earlier I asked you a question – who are the missionaries – and where are they? The missionaries . . . are you. You are – right this very moment – writing your letter – you are writing your story. When you see Christ – when your record is laid before you – what will Christ say about you? Right now, this very day, someone in need waits. They wait for a missionary – God’s ambassador – to help them – to bring them Jesus. As a missionary, you have a choice – how long will they wait?

Steve,

I'm not sure if I'm going to get anywhere with this, but here goes...

I was at first particularly annoyed with your list of "environmentalist quotes", chiefly because they are a perfect example of the straw man argument, with which I am sure you are familiar. Like any other endeavor, you can be sure environmentalism has its share of oddballs and extremists. Added to this, otherwise reasonable individuals have contributed to a huge body of speeches, interviews and writings - from which it is no doubt possible to select an odd observation or two which, taken out of context, can be used to make it seem they are extremists themselves.

Since several of the quotes you cited are not properly sourced, I decided to find out for myself the context in which they appeared. One quote in particular stood out. It was this doozy, by Dr. Stephen Schneider:

“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.”

Wow! Inasmuch as Dr. Schneider is quoted as a "lead author of many IPCC reports", this looks for all the world like the absolute mother lode for conspiracy theorists. You can in fact google this quote* and it brings up over 8 million hits (and by the way, our little blog is now one of them).

And the quote seems clear enough. In this case, Dr. Schneider is admitting that climatologists like him are creating "scary scenarios" - no doubt just to frighten people - then making choices between honesty and "being effective", which in turn means that scientists of his kind consider honesty and dishonesty to be interchangeable.

And it really makes you think. In the first place, since Stephen Schneider is in fact a well known climatologist, one wonders what a priceless ass he must be to let the cat out of the bag in so direct a fashion. You then wonder, who exactly was he talking to when he made this comment - and where? You get the image of Dr. Schneider discussing his deceptive game plan (surrounded perhaps by his fellow conspirators) in a secret meeting - all the while unaware that some wag had thought to bring a tape recorder - then oops! ...there goes the egg money.

You also wonder what all the little dots in the quote stand for. Let's see if we can find out.

The quote itself is from an interview with Dr. Schneider with Discover magazine in October, 1989. Here is the quote in its entirety (with my emphasis):

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Now when you unpack the whole quote (not just the edited version) you find that what Dr. Schneider was talking about in that interview was the ethical dilemma which all scientists, particularly those involved in controversial research, must face when dealing with the media. Most importantly, he is not admitting to anything, let alone deception. In fact, he specifically states his hope that scientists will choose to be effective and honest - which dramatically changes the meaning of the whole quote.

Dr. Schneider's website has a thorough and lucid discussion of this under the heading, "Mediarology". And Steve, since you posted the edited quote, I think you owe it to yourself to have a look at that discussion. I'll just condense it for you here...

The field of climatology is a huge and complicated field. In this field, scientists are sure of some things and not so sure of others. What they have developed over many years is a fairly complete picture of the the causes behind climate change. In fact, most qualified scientists involved in the field have reached a point of consensus on the effect of the human contribution. However there remain a number of gaps in that picture.

But since the science of climate change has so many important social, economic and political implications, scientists are invariably drug into the ongoing debate over these issues. For their part, when covering the subject of climate change, news media seek to balance coverage by giving equal time to skeptics.

It all sounds reasonable on the surface. But when you look closer, you find the skeptic's approach is almost always to identify some gap in the picture (or some misrepresentation of the data) to falsify the overall body of theory and evidence.

I should point out here that this mis-quote by Dr. Schneider is a perfect case in point. Someone lifted a quote from the Discover interview and edited it to make it sound like Dr. Schneider was admitting to deception. As I said earlier, when googled, the quote gets over 8 million hits.

Now I'm not about to go and review every one of those hits, but by adding a few filters, I found that it appears at all the usual websites: Science and Public Policy Institute, NewsMax (big shock there), Canada Free Press, The Heartland Institute , just to name a few. It also appears at any number of fringe right wing sites - not to mention as a citation in virtually millions of individual comments. Ironically, this very post of mine here will be just one more.

Let's do a little math here. Dr. Schneider's point was that scientists involved in controversial research are often confronted by a hostile, unscrupulous community of skeptics - many of whom have no problem distorting what they say. Is he right?

I think so. As evidence, I would offer 8 million citations of a plainly distorted quote.

Now you say as a comment on your post you are convinced these quotes "clearly define where THEY stand." Really? If this is the case, then what you are saying is that you believe an altered version of a quote clearly defines Dr. Schneider. For this reason, I suggest you are believing whatever you believe about Dr. Schneider - not because of any rational or objective consideration of the facts - but only because it is what you want to believe about him. You want to believe leading climatologists like Dr. Schneider are manipulating the evidence, so you accept without any genuine skepticism of your own, this obvious distortion of what he had to say. Moving on...

Some of the quotes you posted were made by individuals with whom I am somewhat familiar. For instance, I remember very well many of the appearances (it turns out there were 20 of them!) by Dr. Paul Ehrlich on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson back in the late sixties and early seventies. I always liked the guy. His specialty then, as I suppose it is now, was Malthusian theory. As I'm sure you are aware, almost 300 years ago Thomas Malthus developed a theory regarding population and resources which has furnished fertile grounds for debate ever since. Dr. Ehrlich was clearly an alarmist and I am not surprised some of his comments reflect that. However the debate over Malthusian theory which continues to this day is mostly about the sustainability of human populations and is only tangentially connected to the accepted definition of environmentalism.

Some of the quotes you posted were made by individuals I have never heard of - and, I am sure, neither have you. Are you willing to document how individuals like Lester Brown, David Brower, Judi Bari, "Sir James Lovelock" etal are setting the agenda for modern day environmentalism? Surely these people might have said things with which you and possibly even myself disagree. So what?

Some of the quotes are just plain crap. For instance, the quote attributed to Christine Stewart is a "he said, she said" reference from a short article in a Canadian newspaper from several years ago. There appears to be no context for this quote because the writer of the article doesn't produce any. How then you can stipulate that this quote represents Ms. Stewart's views is an absolute mystery to me.

Finally, some of the quotes, frankly, make sense:

"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

Steve, what on Earth is so scary about that?

-Chris

*note: You must google only the first phrase of the quote to bring up all 8 million hits.

Your Slip Is Showing

Steve,

For one who claims to advocate science over ideology, this last post of yours is a stunning step backwards.

Since I was certain you yourself had not read through the writings and speeches of those you quoted, I challenged myself to find out where you acquired them. Not surprisingly these quotes appear (with slight variations in the order), at several websites: "Free State Project", "Information Liberation", and "Sodahead", to name a few, all of which have everything to do with politics and virtually nothing to do with science.

Quote mining is a dicey business and I don't think I should have to explain to you why. But it only makes matters worse when you allow others to do the quote mining for you. What happens in that case is you surrender your intellectual independence to someone else. Or to put it more simply, you allow someone else to do the thinking for you.

I was at first inclined to go and find whacked out quotes by climate change denialists and post them as a response. Believe me, this isn't hard to do. I soon realized however that this is a path which leads absolutely nowhere. So I'm going to continue to put up posts on the science instead of the politics, which I find a great deal more worthwhile. How about you?

-Chris

The Agenda behind the Environmental Movement (and Climate Change)

We should be careful stewards of this wonderful planet God has blessed us with as our home.

It can be argued that, generally, we are wasteful with our natural resources and (sometimes unintentionally) limit the diversity of the biosphere. As a result, there are many, many groups and organizations calling for a 'green revolution'. This mantra has been repeated to such a great extent that it has started to appear in every walk of life and every segment of society, even to the point of being included as an integral part of television advertisements for petroleum companies.

With such a noble sounding cause as 'protecting the planet', it is easy to agree with the basic and obvious principles behind such an concept. However, the modern environmental movement (e.g., the last twenty years or so) have many stated goals that have nothing to do with protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control over the population of the human race - THEIR CONTROL. (A close look also reveals their own self-hatred, which they arrogantly assign to themselves and the world at large.)

Review the implications of the publicly stated opinions listed below. (Source References for these statements are easily found on the 'net.) Recognize that these individuals so passionately, so openly and freely believe in 'their cause', they do not hesitate to express these views...

* * * * *

= "The common enemy of humanity is man. 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 behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

= "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." - Prof. 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, President 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, former Canadian Minister of the Environment


= “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

= “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

= "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore, Climate Change activist

= "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

= "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

= "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

= "By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic." - Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

= "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, Earth in the Balance

= "In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

= "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, founder of Green Cross International

= "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 to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation." - UN Commission on Global Governance report

= "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, State of the World Forum

= "I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community." - Mikhail Gorbachev, co-author of The Earth Charter

= "Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises." - Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

= "A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income. Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

= "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, 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, 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." - UN Agenda 21

= "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." - David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

= "If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it is possible under capitalism" - Judi Bari, principal organiser of Earth First!

= "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

= "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

= "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land." - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

= "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

= "The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

= "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

= "The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

= "My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

= "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

= "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

= "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.'' - Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

= "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." - United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

= "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

= "One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,but it's just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

= "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

= "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

= "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

= "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

= “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.” - Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA

* * * * *

--- These are the words of the leadership of the Modern Environmental Movement... I choose to let them speak for themselves.