home polity my creed contact info books links sitemap
related articles
print email save save as pdf

Lien of OZ
Artificial Reproduction
Bible Study
Family issues
One World Government
Church Order
Sunday School
Free Will
December 25
Church & State
Body Mods

The New Global Religion; Global warming & the Kyoto Confederacy

by Lien of OZ

An Over-View

The "times"–they are a changing!

Not only are times changing but seasons and the climate. Hardly a day passes when we do not hear on the radio, see on TV or read in Newspapers and weekly journals, concern over the risks of climate change; in particular- ‘global warming.’ Yet not much more than 30 or so years ago the worry then was the predicted advent of a new glacial age.

Time Magazine 24 June, 1974 presented comments from the world’s leading meteorologists that the earth, over the previous three decades, had progressively been cooling. In the same year (1974) the US National Science Board noted that compared to the past inter-glacial ages our earth was again tending toward a new glacial period. Then on 28 April 1975 Newsweek ran a cover story– ‘The Cooling World’.

How times change (and memory dims)? The growing fear of a new ‘ice age’ is now ‘old hat’ and ‘global warming’ is in. Ideas now presented as new ‘articles of faith’ address the view that earth’s inhabitants have caused and are to blame for present climate change with which we now have to grapple. Ever increasing quantities of ‘green-house’ gases, principally carbon dioxide [CO2], are warming the earth. This is attributed to our own irresponsible consumption of fossil fuel, mainly by the industrialised west,

Strangely, some of the same scientific pundits who were forecasting a new ‘ice age’ in the 70’s are now leading proponents of ‘global warming’. Dr. Stephen Schneider [Stanford University] once postulated that increasing CO2 would lead to global cooling.

At that time he commented– " Temperatures do not increase in proportion to increasing CO2 …. even an 8 fold increase over present levels might warm the earth’s surface less than 2 OC . This is unlikely in the next several thousand years." [Ref. Bernard Switalski- OpinioNet]

Debate then raged over whether or not human created aerosols/particulates would out cool CO 2 warming.

Almost a century earlier [in 1886] Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius1 predicted that elevated CO2 would cause a global warming phenomena.

Those who purport to observe the earth’s changing climate over geological eons find common consensus 2 in that– ‘the cyclical influences of the sun over centuries are such that the earth has significant warmings and cooling’s each in step with the sun’s cycles’

Modern concerns for the earth’s environment began to accelerate following the first "World Summit" in 1972 Chaired by Maurice Strong; a member of the Brundtland Commission.

Two issues began to dominate linking (1) the environmental problem to poverty, equity and security and (2) focussing on earth’s environment as an issue around which individuals, NGO’s and Governments, would soon rally. It then became a ‘battle cry’ with an attendant call for a New World Economic Order.

Since that time there have been numerous United Nation’s reviews and the creation of the UN Environment Program [UNEP] from which developed, in 1988, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and the UNFCCC as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The latter introduced voluntary commitments to reduce ‘green-house’ gas emissions.

The question remains– " Why is the focus on man-made ‘green-house’ gases as the dominant cause of global warming and climate change.?"

The principal launching pad for human causation of ‘global warming’ stems from the thrusts initiated at the 1992 Rio Summit pioneered (again) by Maurice Strong who had then for over 2 decades been directing the UNEP. Delegates at the Rio Summit committed their nations to pursue ‘sustainable development’ for the health of the planet. This topic became a foundation for other issues relating to population control, social development, new world economics, human rights in general and women’s rights in particular.

Paul J. Georgia3 of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote that, "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is conducting a campaign of fear to convince us that energy suppression is our only salvation."

Over the period 1972 to 1992 climate scientists 4,5,6 , environmental activists and political spokespersons, pursued numerous efforts to direct attention toward co-operatively addressing ‘climate change’.

In 1990, Timothy Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation and Better World

Fund. & who for a time, became US Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs, commented– "We’ve got to ride the 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."

Richard Benedict member of US Conservation Foundation & State Department added– " A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the green-house effect." [see www.abd.org.uk/pr/338.htm]

Dr. Stephen Schneider, mentioned earlier, is now a keen advocate for the ‘green-house’ warming scenario. In addressing his own peers he is reported to have said –" We have to offer up a scary scenario, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest."

Concerning the discrepancies in the earth’s temperature record temperature record Dr. Stephen Schneider replies– "Trying to mine the record by carefully looking at every bump and wiggle is a waste of time to me. It's like trying to figure out the probability of a pair of dice by looking at the individual roles. You can't look at individual roles, you've got to look at averages, so I don't put very much stock in looking at direct evidence."


And Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth

"……the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize." [see http://www.off-road.com/green/ecoquote.html]

Perhaps a more honest view point is that of Canadian Climate Scientist, Dr. Timothy Ball.7 Recognising the reality of climate change he likens the earth to a stalled or broken-down car and comments–" If we ignore the sun, it is like we ignore the engine and if we ignore water vapour we ignore the transmission. If focusing on human produced CO2 alone we are looking at one nut on the right rear wheel."

In 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, which in part was called to review the UNFCCC and IPCC, various proposals were put forward for nations to volunteer to cut back on their rates of CO2 emissions in the hope of stabilizing ‘green-house’ gas concentrations in the bio-sphere. By moderating gas emissions the world would no longer be plagued by the uncertainty of drought, catastrophic flooding, gross food shortages or economic dislocation. All these features were largely attributed to human negligence and the absence of respect for the earth’s environment.

The KYOTO Protocol.

By 1995 the IPCC recognised that the voluntary approach was unlikely to succeed. Thus, in December of 1997 the Kyoto Treaty or Protocol was drafted. At Kyoto commitments were demanded from the industrialised, developed nations to agree to reduce their CO2 emissions caused by inefficient or excessive, exploitation of fossil fuel energy consumption.

It should be noted that developing countries such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea, while signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, are themselves exempt from emission commitments. A seemingly strange privilege since collectively it is estimated that they contribute ~30% to the world’s green-house gas production. As a nation the US is the number one culprit contributing 25%.

One cannot help but question why the persistent focus upon CO2 and other associated, industrially derived gases? Why are the influences of water vapour and cloud cover ignored in so many of the computer model predictions or forecasts of earth temperature increase? Or is this simply because these latter effects are not well understood?

It also seems strange that when ‘push comes to shove’ even the most aggressive green activists readily acknowledge that CO2 is the life blood of a greening earth. Moreover, proponents of CO2 stabilization by way of the Kyoto Treaty confess that this will have negligible influence on the global-warming phenomenon.

Kyoto is but a first step to institute the de-industrialisation of society; in particular, the Western powers. Architects of Kyoto, of which Maurice Strong is regarded as ‘the principal’, have seen the Kyoto sanctions as a means of introducing a new kind of global imperial order –or global governance. Maurice Strong as initiator and leader of the UNEP has oft been reported as commenting– " Isn’t the only hope for the planet that industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?" Furthermore, Strong, as Sec. Gen. and Director of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 stated that– "We may yet get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse. Few politicians in office are sufficiently aware of the global nature of the problems in front of them. They have little if any awareness of the interactions between the problems."

Early in the 1990’s Dixy Lee Ray5,6 author of Trashing the Planet [1990] and Environmental Overkill [1993] predicted–" We must recognise that the environmental (green) movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so called-New world order or world Government [Governance] under the aegis of the United Nations, have adopted global environmentalism as the basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power."

Initially the United States under Pres. Clinton, with particular encouragement of Vice Pres. Al Gore, signed up to the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. Subsequent US Senate ratification however, was denied when evidence of the huge economic cost to the US was presented. In addition increasing concerns over the scientific validity of Kyoto and IPCC climate predictions began to accumulate.

Countries of the European Union (EU) have enthusiastically embraced adherence to the Kyoto Protocol and the concepts [and causes] of ‘global warming’ as an ‘article of faith.’

Moreover, since the collapse of communism, environmental pollution has become the new political focus of attention. Yet further, the vacuum of religious unity has engendered ‘environmentalism’ as a new spiritual communion. Anyone daring to critically comment or attack Kyoto is regarded as heretical. Pollution is the new SIN. Sustainable development follows as the post-modern way of salvation and redemption; the latter being achieved by halting the abuse and inefficient use of fossil fuels.

World Trade Organization [WTO] and World Environment Organization [WEO]

It should be noted that enforcement of the Kyoto Treaty is further encouraged through liaison with the World Trade Organisation [WTO] and the World Environment Organisation [WEO].

‘Free trade’ supported by the WTO becomes monitored to abide according to the regulations of the WEO. These concepts in turn receive the imprimatur of the Administrator of the UN Development Program [UNDP] James Gustave Speth and yes; the President of the Earth Council Maurice Strong – Architect of the Kyoto Treaty and until very recently Chief Advisor to the UN Gen. Sec. Kofi Annan.

Global Warming & Kyoto — A Critique

One of the most remarkable features of the earth’s environment is that it sustains life (as we know it) within a mean temperature range 15-30OC. Strangely, whenever global warming is publicly reported, rarely (if ever) is any median or optimum, mean average temperature referred to. The question is never asked– If we humans could set an optimal mean temperature, what would it be?– 13,15, 18 or 25 OC ? And further, if the earth’s thermostat could be set by the will or expertise of men, would it be 1, 2, 4 OC more or less than it is this very day.

Public commentaries concerning global warming as reflected in newspaper headline eg. –‘Climate Scientists Predict Greater Global Warming" never seem to quantify this greater– greater than what?? Again rarely is any mean earth temperature quoted.

If, as is commonly accepted according to evolutionary theory, the Earth has existed for at of the order 4 million years; we have little more than hypothetical knowledge of what the climate was like for over 99% of that time. Thus, to speak of trends in global temperature, we must devise some frame of reference and find some standard of comparison. Over recent decades we do seem to be seeing a minor warming trend in the earth's average temperature. However, other hard temperature data spans only about 150 years and these records excepting for the last 40 years only cover a minor portion of the globe. Weather balloons have been used over the last 30 years and satellites for the last 18. Hence, depending on where you select start point A on your graph, and where you select point B, and the data range you choose, the impression of warming, cooling, or no change at all, can be created.

Even the IPCC reports concede:8

"The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic (human) changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle ... at the present time, weaknesses in the parameterization of cloud formation and dissipation are probably the main impediment to improvements in the simulation of cloud effects on climate."

Although we do know a significant amount about the atmosphere, there are still many things we do not know. Professor Lindzen9 comments, "There is no simple uniform relationship between the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the temperature at the surface."

Other critics of Kyoto comment that from any economic perspective, demands for adherence to the Protocol might best be described as ‘all cost’ and no benefit.

Are Human Factors Entirely to Blame?

On 10 August 1995 two years before KYOTO the NY Times ran an article…"Experts Confirm Human Role in Global Warming"– Yet within this article [deceptive] comment, credited to the IPCC, stated that global warming was unlikely to be due to natural causes. Which leaves open the question –" How much is due to human influence and how much to natural fluctuations? Is 15%; 85% or as little as 0.3% due to human causes?"

Theoretically CO2 is less powerful as a warming agent, molecule for molecule, than is methane. Furthermore, some CFCs, and another class of atmospheric components called aerosols, actually possess cooling potential, and can cause global cooling. Changes in the atmospheric levels of water vapour, the most prevalent and important greenhouse gas, are still not fully understood, and depending on the location in the atmosphere, ozone can be either a warming or a cooling gas.

Burning fossil fuels and deforestation liberate CO2 and some ozone gases into the atmosphere. Such human sources make up only 3.5 - 5.4 percent of the total CO2 entering the atmosphere in any given year. The majority of CO2 that enters the atmosphere is derived from the planet's own carbon cycle; from oceanic and terrestrial animals as a by-product of their metabolisms.

Another major green-house gas is methane which results from energy consumption, growing rice, burning crop wastes, raising meat animals and human digestion. These all release methane into the atmosphere. It is often understood that human sources might account for around 70% of the methane that enters the atmosphere each year. The rest comes from natural sources like wetlands, termites, and aquatic life. Ref. 10

Meanwhile, the idea that global warming is due entirely to human influence on CO2 production continues to gain ascendancy; often presented as ‘established scientific fact’. This, is in spite of the ‘fact’ that the ‘Kyoto Treaty’ cannot be shown to provide any substantial environmental benefit. Notwithstanding, when nations do sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, they demonstrate a political coup and a symbolic level of international co-operation. Each agreeing that the earth faces a common enemy-namely de-stabilization of our global climate.

By Russia signing on to Kyoto in Nov. 2004 the pressure continues to focus upon the US to come into line. At the present time only the USA and Australia have yet to agree to limit their green-house gas emissions in line with the Kyoto sanctions.

These sanctions were notionally enforceable from 16 Feb 2005. Other nations of the world are aggrieved with America as it is accused of contributing of the order 25% to global CO2 emission; created largely from car exhaust and power generation.

In Nov. 2000 the then French President Jacque Chirac, whose country boasts 80% energy production from pollution free nuclear power, let it be known that Kyoto did indeed ‘represent the first component of an authentic global governance.’

Man Made Climate Change?

One aspect of the ‘climate change’ debate which has not been exposed to significant public debate is the possibility that some of the ‘climate change’ features of recent times have in fact resulted directly from human manipulation. Adapting the techniques first devised by Teslar in the 1920’s focused and steerable electromagnetic beams have been developed capable of ‘zapping’ the upper atmosphere; as an advanced "ionospheric heater."

The process has been described by Nicholas Begich 11 as –"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. The electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead."

The most widely reported ‘zapping’ system is HAARP – High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program based in Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated ‘star wars’ weaponry under the US Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate. HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".

This technology is, according to Michel Chossudovsky12, capable of modifying the World's climate. Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP when fully operational, is capable of triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. Potentially, it is an instrument of conquest for selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

Chossudovsky asserts that– " It is not only greenhouse gas emissions that have the ability to trigger climate change: Washington's new world order weapons can do that too."

Whilst the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations, as part of a military and intelligence agenda, is tacitly acknowledged, the subject matter is generally a scientific taboo.

Others have suggested that HAARP could be utilised to diminish ‘green-house’ effects by enhancing the break-up and concentration, of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in the earth’s atmosphere. One primary concern being expressed is that if HAARP studies actually caused irreversible damage to the ionosphere, it would then reduce the effectiveness of the biosphere in protecting us from the solar radiation emanating from the Sun; leading to global warming.

Marc Filterman13, a former French military officer, has written that unconventional– Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar waves –were used by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union who had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.

For a wealth of further information simply plug in the acronym HAARP into your computer search engine.

Global Warming–Religion Link

Historically, we note that when the first meeting of IPCC was convened in 1988 the UNDP funded the first Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival. This was jointly sponsored by UNDP’s Global Committee of Parliamentary Leaders on Population and Development in association with the Temple of Understanding (the latter being linked to the NY. Cathedral of St. John the Divine). A leading speaker at the 1988 Global Forum was James Lovelock author of ‘The Ages of Gaia.’; amplifying the concept of the earth as a self-sustaining biological entity. The Office of the first GAIA Institute was housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and published ‘A Way of Knowing’ outlining the political implications of the New (Gaia) Biology in Association with the Lindisfarne Association. Maurice Strong together with Al Gore and Robert Muller [author –World Core Curriculum-inspired by Alice Bailey's spirit guide "the Tibetan Master, Djwhal Khul and The New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality,] all have close links with the Cathedral. Strong has functioned as Finance Director of the Lindisfarne Association and Director of the Temple of Understanding.14

Reverence and Respect for Mother Earth.15

Concern for the earth’s environment over recent decades has nurtured a new sense of reverence and respect for our ‘human dwelling place.’ This growing respect for our planet incidentally coincides with the new pseudo-scientific ideology which sees the earth itself as a self -sustaining ‘living planet’.

The ventures of ‘astronauts’ of recent times have presented a new ‘space view’ of our earth. They have been awed into concluding that our green-blue globe does indeed appear as a ‘living’ object. Such a concept was never unknown to our distant ancestors, nor more especially to the indigenous or aboriginal people of our own island continent. It is we enlightened ones who have dared to call these ideas primitive and superstitious. Why should mere humans revere the earth as sacred?

Contemporary restoration of a ‘living earth’ hypothesis started to gain attention with the publication of the concepts proposed by space scientist James Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis in the late 60’s, when they started documenting their Gaia Hypothesis.

In the 18th century however, James Hutton (1727-1797) geologist-physician and father of modern geoscience, had already put forward a view that the earth was a living being. Both Lovelock and Margulis acknowledge this as a forerunner to their Gaia hypothesis. It was

Lovelock's neighbour, who suggested he call the ‘living earth’ control system, "Gaia", after the ancient Greek Earth Goddess.

"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima". (Lovelock and Margulis 1974)

"Specifically, the Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation, state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota." The Biosphere

Another independent presentation of the Gaia Hypothesis grew out of the cultic views of Oberon Zell. He promoted the modern ideology of the Earth Mother Goddess as living, sacred and sentient– "as a soul essence that can be perceived by humans." Zell coined the name Terrebia. However, his commitment to cultic ideas inhibited this concept from mainstream acceptance. Today the Gaia hypothesis is attracting the imprimatur of many in the scientific community.

Gaia as briefly noted above finds origin in the ancient beliefs and practices of pre-Christian eras. The Goddess Gaia or deep breasted one, worshipped by early Greeks as Goddess of the Earth.

  Image for the Gaia Trust-Denmark. Gaia Education

When viewed in the context of evolutionary millennia, the idea that the earth itself is capable of regulating its gaseous biosphere and controlling its narrow mean temperature range and thus able to sustain life, becomes a compelling theory. Hence, the Gaia hypothesis is increasingly being acknowledged.

Global warming proponents and environmental scientists provide Gaia with renewed respectability. There are now a number of Gaia Institutes or associations dedicated to sustainability and environmental studies. In Australia there is the Gaia Foundation.

Dr. Stephen Schneider for instance in 1991 together with Penelope Boston edited– " Scientists on Gaia" MIT Press; Cambridge; Mass.

"What’s this?" you say– " Are scientists now acknowledging that the earth is alive?

The honest answer might well be NO! BUT…… and it is the BUT that is becoming more intriguing.

Proving the Gaia Hypothesis.16

Scientific support for the Gaia concept of a self-regulating bio-sphere is well supported by the studies documented by Lynn Margulis. She has been studying aspects of the potential self-regulating cycles created by micro-organisms which emit gaseous products according to particular environmental conditions. Another scientist Pat Zimmerman has presented data to suggest that almost half of the methane in the earth’s atmosphere is derived from wood devouring termites.

Ruminating animals plus humans add substantially to the rest. Agricultural scientists now study changing the diet of cattle, goats and sheep in efforts to reduce methane emission.

An Australian marine scientist-Graham Jones17 has found that corals of the Great Barrier reef emit a complex sulphur gas–dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which is capable of seeding water vapour and thus, coral reef cloud cover.

If then that the earth’s atmosphere is understood to be self-regulating and living, why is there such concern over green-house gases and global warming?

Environmental activists 18, increasingly anxious over uncontrolled CO2 emissions by industrialised countries, imply that consumerist humanity has itself caused a kind of ‘climate disease’; a type of ‘viral infection’; or ‘environmental cancer’ endangering the ‘living’ earth.

Identifying this ‘environmental cancer’ attracts further support for the Gaia ‘living earth’ idea. This ideology sees this as the awakening of the sentient ‘global brain’ to the realisation that ‘Mother-earth’ is very sick.19

Al Gore is a keen environmentalist and Gaia advocate, yet his public personae is that of a Southern Baptist ‘Christian’. In his book – ‘Earth in Balance’– the chapter on ‘Environmentalism of the Spirit’ he speaks of Gaia, conceding that this idea is able to evoke a spiritual response in many of those who hear of it.

With the help of Al Gore's endorsement 20,21., in 2003, environmental literature was sent to over 67,000 congregations and 100 million congregants which called for the Church to make the protection of the earth its central message. Although written in "bibleze," it nonetheless represented a deceptive attempt to create guilt thereby shifting the focus of the Church from the gospel of Christ to one of protecting Mother Earth.

For some in the wider Christian community 22 the hypotheses of Gaia, concerning the ‘ living earth’ now inspires new theologies to devise a Christian ethic for earth-healing.

Another prime ‘mover and shaker’ amongst the advocates for earth’s environment and sustainability is of course, Maurice Strong.23 He has been accorded the accolade ‘Father Earth’. He has thoroughly entrenched the ‘Gaia’ ideology into political institutions of the world. Such environmental activism has the support of UNEP and in-numerable affiliated NGO’s. Strong had regularly been reported as saying– ‘The only thing that might save the earth is a world wide spiritual awakening.’ Hence, his direct involvement with inter-religious dialogue and the inter-faith movement, so actively promoted by United Religions Initiative and Temple of Understanding [Strong here serving as a Director].

At the opening of the RIO Summit in 1992 Strong commented 24– "We must reinstate in our lives the ethic of love and respect for the Earth which must be accompanied by a revitalization of the values central to all of our principal religious and philosophical traditions..."

Blaming Christianity!

A major consequence resulting from the precepts of an ‘environmental cancer’ leading to a ‘sick earth’ is the growing criticism of Christianity; condemning it (particularly fundamental views) as an anti-environmental religion. The idea and adherence to God as transcendent and thus, apart from the earth itself, is seen as a danger. And founded upon Christian ideals, western industrialisation is then viewed as irresponsible earth dominance.

What follows next are charges attacking the conversion of indigenous peoples to Christianity. Their subsequent abandonment of the recognition and preservation, of the sacredness of large selections of forest groves and precious landscapes, is to be regarded as sacrilege.

UN documentation 25 confirming attitudes of this kind are mandated under UN sponsored ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’ and the ‘Global Bio-diversity Assessment.’ Which explicitly identifies Christianity as a ‘faith’ that has set humans ‘apart from nature’ and thereby nature has ‘lost its sacred qualities.’

The seeming incompatibility between science and religion (ie. religions other than Christianity) where the environment is concerned no longer finds clear boundaries of demarcation.

Stephen Schneider himself a climate scientist in 1992 became a leading participant in the first meeting [Washington May 1992] of a joint Appeal by Religions and Science for the Environment.

Other notable environmental and religious leaders present were– Al Gore then US. Vice Pres and Author of "Earth in Balance."; Timothy Wirth and of course, Maurice Strong as leader of UNEP and Gen. Sec of the 1992 Earth Summit.

Amongst the leading religious contingent were the Very Rev. James Park Morton; Dean of the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine.# This latter Episcopal centre in NY now houses the Gaia Institute.

This conference began a ‘courtship’ between world leaders concerned with climate change and religious leaders adhering to a respect for [or sacredness of] ‘Mother Earth’. Today their ‘marriage’ is all but consummated.

# The historic Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine "has long been a centre of New Age and radical-left 'enlightenment' Author Gary Kah reports, in his well-documented book The New World Religion, that this Cathedral also displays "a female Christ on the cross, complete with shapely hips and full breasts."

 A Female ‘parody’ of the Crucified ‘Christ’.

On 30 Aug. 2000 criticism of Christianity 26 became firmly entrenched when, at the Millennium World Peace Summit, Ted Turner, was introduced by New Age billionaire Maurice Strong. He made fun of Christianity and endorsed New Age ideas. Turner here denounced his own childhood Christian faith. Moreover, he took pleasure in the crowd’s laughter which turned into approving whoops as Turner explained he had turned away from Christianity when he discovered "It was intolerant because it taught we were the only ones going to heaven. That confused the devil out of me since that would have left heaven a very empty place." Turner is a well known media mogul and his financial wealth sponsors numerous environmental activities. It was Ted Turner who named Strong as a Director on the board of the United Nations Foundation, that the media mogul established in 1998. This Foundation has assets of $125.4 million and has made a total of $227.7 million in grants. In this and other positions, Strong encourages international agencies to steer funding support many environmental NGO’s.

Earth Charter, the Arc of Hope & A New World Religion.

Maurice Strong in collaboration with Mikhail Gorbachev have, of recent days, master-minded, the concept and documentation of an ‘Earth Charter’ as a new ‘ten commandments’ for the protection of, respect and reverence for, ‘Mother Earth’. This document itself is now housed in an Arc of Hope as a caricature of the biblical Ark of the Covenant.

Maurice Strong is Founder President of the Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev, Founder of Green Cross and the State of the World Forums.

Support for this modern Earth Charter has correspondingly advanced with a renewed validation of reverence for, our ‘Global Home’; sporening active environmentalism, embracing sustainability development and proposals, such as those embodied in the Kyoto Protocol.. Unfolding in parallel are plans to unify the World’s Religions.

Maurice Strong for instance, amongst other things, has proposed an Environmental Sabbath. Meanwhile, under the leadership of the Rev. Thomas Berry 27, as a Director (together with Strong) of the Temple of Understanding has emphasised that… " we should put the Bible away for 20 years and radically rethink our religious ideas"

Another high profile supporter of the Temple of Understanding is controversial [Australian born], ‘ethicist’ and animal rights activist; Prof. Peter Singer. He has openly declared – " We must destroy all Judeo-Christian religious tradition."

In the US the National Council of Churches [NCC] actively supports proposals of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment [NRPE] and ratification of Kyoto.

As a ‘managing centre’ for new religious syncretism the NY Cathedral of Saint John the Divine presents but a ‘mirage’ of Christian imagery. As noted above this Cathedral is home to the Gaia Institute and Temple of Understanding which in turn sponsors the United Religions Initiative [URI]. This powerful UN backed body is lead by Rev. William Swing. URI concurs with and promulgates efforts of theologian Hans Kung to create a new (religious) global ethic. Moreover, views of the kind, proposed by Kung’ find sanction in Australia by authority of the Aust. Multicultural Foundation [IMF] and the Inter-faith movement, as sponsored by URI.

A prime objective is to develop a new ‘planetary consciousness’ and to rediscover the Divinity within all life.

URI enjoys the active participation, support and net-working with, other Inter-faith organisations; chiefly—

Council for the Parliament of World Religions,

World Conference on Religion and Peace,

plus a plethora of other co-operating inter-faith groups and organisations.

The Logo for URI is most enlightening. The initials URI are surrounded by a circle of 15 miniature religious symbols, including the Wiccan pentagram. Another empty circle denotes "peoples of beliefs yet to come".

Conclusion .


Christianity Under Siege.

Biblical Christianity is clearly under siege; not just because of pressures of multiculturalism and pluralism or even inter-faith dialogue but because Biblical ideals are in conflict with the recognition of the ‘sacredness’ of a ‘living [mother] earth’] and thus, contrary to the nouvo-pantheism of the environmental sustainability age expanding across the globe. In addition the ideals of Christian ‘dominion’ in contrast to worldly human perceptions of dominance, is also in conflict with ideas of human derived climate change.

In fact when fundamental (Biblical) Christianity is charged with irresponsible stewardship of our earthly home, it is therefore at odds with the Kyoto Protocol. In addition Biblical Christianity is opposed to the new "Earth Charter" and the creation of any (new) confederation of religious belief system/s as directed under URI, UN or Inter-faith inspiration or enthusiasm.

Biblical Christianity is a threat and thus, finds itself under siege from powerful political and religious bureaucracies.




1. Ref. cited by Reid Bryson–Environmental Roulette– Global Ecology: Readings toward a rational strategy for man; Ed. John P. Holdren & Paul Ehrlich.

2. Ref Quote Dr. Sallie Balunas – Harvard Astrophysicist,

3. Edward Zehr; Weird Science: How Charlatans Influence Public Policy; Source: Washington Weekly;: Monday, July 9, 2001. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b49045a4ada.htm

4. Quotes reported by Dixy Lee Ray-in her book– "Trashing the planet." P.167,

5. Dixy Lee Ray, "Up in the air: Shattering the global warming say-so," cologic, March, 1992, p. 16.

6. Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, p. 362.

7. Canadian Scientists Dismiss Threat Of Climate Change: Is The Science Underlying The Kyoto Protocol Seriously Flawed?


8. The Science of Climate Change; IPCC, Climate Change 1995:

2nd Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change is 500 pages long with 75 pages of references.

9. Lindzen, Richard S., Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, The Cato Institue, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

10. Global Warming: Science Fact or Stupid Fiction? http://204eastsouth.com/i/glowarm2.htm

11. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html  See also the HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

12. Michel Chossudovsky; Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000.



"Owning the Weather" for Military Use; www.globalresearch.ca

27 September 2004

13. Marc Filterman , Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

14. see www.templeofunderstanding.org ; www.interfaithstudies.org ;


15. see www.gaia-inst.org and links & also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_Movement

16. see. www.motherearthnews.com on the Gaia Hypothesis.

17. see. Gaia Movement News Letter; Feb 2005

18. Al Gore, The United Nations, And The Cult Of Gaia, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eb5ea214d6.htm

19. Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Harper's Encyclopaedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 1991), 449.

20. Michael Coffman The "Plan" and the "Partnership" -- Oct. 7, 2003


21. Apocalyptic Hope; Earth - Ethic and the Ark of Hope; Religion and Environment; http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/earth.html

22. Stephen B. Scharper; The Gaia Hypothesis: Implications for a Christian Political Theology of the Environment; http://www.crosscurrents.org/Gaia.htm

23. Henry Lamb, "Meet Maurice Strong," eco-logic, (November/December 1995), 5.

24. Quoted on back cover of Ethics & Agenda 21; Moral Implications of a Global Consensus, United Nations Environment Programme, 1994. 29

25. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Chapter 8.1 Introduction: Concepts of the Economic Value of Biodiversity, 68,69

26. UN Reform; Interim Plus; October 2005; Edition Volume 5 No. 2

27. Thomas Berry; ‘Dream of the Earth’; Sierra Club Books