 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
AUTHOR’S NOTE - The following missive contains three separate documents: 1/ This author's article titled, “Following in Carnac’s footsteps;" 2/ An email response to that article titled “John Street, the Climatologist in Residence,” and; 3/ This author's response to that reader. While at first blush you might surmise this is nothing more than an esoteric argument about a bunch of little dicky birds, this author would ask that you read the following in the context of current events. Many people have wondered why Audubon is so deeply invested in our Deer Management Program. This missive provides the answer. Please pay special attention to the bold/Italicized portion of this author's response to the reader. Following in Carnac’s footsteps byJohn C. Street Some of you may be old enough to remember the skit Johnny Carson did on the Tonight Show where Ed McMahan would hand him a sealed envelope that contained a question and Johnny, wearing a turban that identified his character as a soothsaying swami, would give a hilarious answer that fit – but had nothing to do with – the question. Apparently someone at the National Audubon Society remembers Johnny Carson’s old skit as Carnac the Magnificent and is making an attempt to revive it. The problem is, although they followed Carnac’s script – giving answers that fit but have nothing to do with the question – there’s nothing funny about their skit. In a recent press release (see http://www.audubon.org, “… Many Birds are Moving North”) the National Audubon Society cited the results of forty years of Christmas Bird Counts as evidence of global warming. “It tells us,” the NAS asserted, “that those who think climate change impacts will be felt far from home and far off in the future had better think again.” Carnac the Magnificent couldn’t have done any better. There are any numbers of glaring errors evident in the “Question and Answer” sheets that accompany the NAS press release, not the least of which is their conclusion that bird movement is predicated on climate change – and climate change alone - without considering a host of other factors. This is not science. It is using anecdotal data to support a preconceived notion. If climate, and climate alone were responsible for the movement of the bird species listed in their NAS Christmas Bird Count, then the trend should have reversed (i.e., the same birds should have begun wintering further south) over the last ten years as temperatures have fallen but no such trend is revealed in the NAS press release. At a minimum, this raises suspicion as to the NAS’s motives but, even if you put their Carnac like answers aside, there’s still good reason to be suspicious. The NAS, as revealed at The Green Tracking Library (www.greentrackinglibrary.com), generates annual revenues in excess of $116 million, nearly $8.5 million of that coming in the form of grants from federal agencies and an additional (unknown total) amount from private foundations. According to information obtained from the Congressional Research Center (CRC), some of this last category of funding points directly to the reason to be suspicious. “The ‘Heritage Forest Campaign,’” as reported by the CRC, “was begun with Pew grants of $3.5 million to the National Audubon Society in 1998-1999.” As innocuous as this little snippet of information may sound, it is tantamount to a shot across the bow of America’s sovereign rights to its own land. As Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hagewrote in the seminal paper, “The United Nations’ Big Green Machine” (which can be found at www.unwatch.com), the “Heritage Campaign” is bad news for just about everyone … everyone that is except the environmental organizations pushing it. In this paper, Representative Chenoweth-Hage explained that, “If American farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, hunters, fishermen, hikers, campers, recreationists, property owners, automobile owners, and energy users could see the hidden UN tags on all of the costly and onerous regulations and restrictions they must contend with, they would be astounded — and outraged.” The “Heritage Program” (the full details of which can be found at the above mentioned web site) comes in several parts. There are HeritageForests (which already include some western National Forests), Heritage Areas (like the one being proposed for a 150 mile long corridor leading up to the Gettysburg battle fields) and HeritageRivers (which is the ultimate goal behind the US Forest Service’s attempt to take over “management” of the ClarionRiver corridor). Once a forest or an area or a river receives “Heritage” status, it is no longer simply sovereign land of the United States. For all practical – i.e., managerial - purposes, it is controlled by the United Nations through a series of treaties and agreements signed by former Presidents George H.W Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. As a result, the UN decides what can and what can not be done on the land. And, yes, just in case you’re wondering, a Heritage Area can include private land as well as public. Most people – including a majority of the NAS’s membership – are not aware that the “Heritage Program” is just one of several initiatives of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21” which also includes the “Wildlands Project.” In a nutshell, the “Wildlands Project” calls for the “rewilding” of literally hundreds of thousands of acres within the continental United States into places called “biospheres” where humans are strictly forbidden to enter. Furthermore, each of these “biospheres” are to be connected by “wildlife corridors” that look remarkably like some of those proposed Heritage Areas (the Clarion River Corridor, for instance) that are currently known as “Wild and ScenicRivers.” None of this, of course, is being done with your knowledge because the socialist leaders of the United Nations – along with their simpaticos at the National Audubon Society (along with a number of other sportsmen and environmental organizations) know that this nation’s hunters and anglers would go postal if they understood what they were being co-opted into. There are any number of reasons why the range of certain species of birds can change, things like the continued maturation of the eastern forest, the invasion of introduced species and, of course, short-term (30 to 40 year) weather cycles. However, unless the Christmas Bird Count records of the NAS begin to show a southward trend in bird ranges in keeping with the cooling trend that began in 1998, it would be safe to assume that either: A/ The short term (30 to 40 year) climate cycles having nothing to do with bird ranges or; B/ the NAS has engaged in a little bit of old fashioned “book cooking” in order to support their preconceived notions. At least with Carnac the Magnificent, we knew up front we were being spoofed. Subject: John Street, Climatologist in Residence John,
Good morning Dave, Thank you for your response to my recent column regarding the National Audubon Society. In your critique of this article, you make a valid albeit revealing point. Your point is valid in that I should not assume a reader will wade through an entire web site to obtain the source that was used to document a contention. Your point was revealing, however, in that you refer to the sources I provided as coming from my “black helicopter buddies or the Public Relations Director from EXXON/Mobile.” I shall, therefore, keep both the validity of your critique and your perspective in mind throughout this response. For clarity, I have excerpted from your email the two points of your contention (POC) and will follow them with my answer (A). POC 1: “… tie the Audubon Society in with the UN and their scheme to restrict our use of the ClarionRiver corridor as well as other land parcels in our country.” A: In 1999, The National Audubon Society received $3.5 million grant from the Pew Charitable Trust to initiate the “HeritageForest Campaign.” This was reported on the National Audubon Society web site under the title, “Minutes of the Board Meeting September 17-18, 1999. Interestingly, though, sometime during the week of March 20, 2000, these meeting minutes and mention of the “HeritageForest Campaign” were removed from the NAS web site (www.undueinfluence.com/hidden.htm) The “Heritage Forest Campaign” is a part of the “Sustainable Development” initiative that was brought into existence by the United Nations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 under the title, Agenda 21; “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations Systems, Governments and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” (www.unorg/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm) Under the “Sustainable Development” program, “Heritage Areas” (such as “Heritage Forests” and Heritage Rivers”) are designed to fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to form the core of the extensive “Wildlands Project,” a plan to eliminate human presence on ‘at least’ 50 percent of the American landscape, and to heavily control human activity on most of the rest of American land.” (“Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 www.freedomadvocates,org) POC2: “’… over the last 10 years as temperatures have fallen.’ Where? In Pennsylvania, just ClarionCounty, just the U.S. or on a global basis?” A: The primary source for my data is the Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/), however, a pretty good synopsis of this material may be found at one citation, “Global Warming is not Happening” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening.pdf). My biggest concern, Dave, is that many national sportsmen and environmental organizations are doing things the rank and file of their membership do not know about and, most likely, wouldn’t condone if they did. Did you, for instance, understand the connection between “Heritage Forests,” the “Wildlands Project” and Agenda 21 (the United Nations)? I’m a two-term past president of the Seneca Rocks chapter of the National Audubon Society and I didn’t know about it until I started looking into the “Heritage Area” campaign. To understand the basis for my fear, please read Representative Chenoweth-Hage’s illuminating article, “The United Nations’ Big Green Machine” at http://www.unwatch.com/un-green.html. and order and read a copy of “Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21” from Freedom Advocates (www.freedomadvocates.org) I sincerely hope that I have answered the questions posed in your critique and been sensitive to your perspective. You may feel free to contact me directly if you have additional questions. With best regards, John C. Street FREELANCE WRITER
|