I posted information about Klemp's rather ignorant views that deny
the well-established, mainstream, internationally accepted science
that proves the existence of global warming.
I think it is important to bring out just how religiously
fundamentalistic and backwards Klemp's views are, and in the instance
of global warming, it is one case in which he really is sounding more
and more like an anti-science fundamentalist.
In that light, here are some updates about global warming for anyone
out there who still doesn't know about the international consensus
among the vast majoority of climate researchers regarding the clear
threat of global warming.
Klemp is just plain weird in his views.
To get a good idea how wrong Klemp is, read the excerpt below:
Progress Report published online by the Center for American Progress.
STATE OF THE UNION
A YEAR OF ALARMING SCIENCE: Last year was the hottest ever recorded
in the United States. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "reached a
record high in 2005," the United Nations reported in November,
warning that "global average concentrations of carbon dioxide and
nitrous oxide" will be even higher in 2006. In 2000, carbon dioxide
emissions were rising less than 1 percent annually. Today they are
rising more than 2.5 percent annually, with 7.9 billion metric tons
of carbon added globally in 2005 alone (up from 6.8 billion in 2000).
The Energy Department's latest report projects America's carbon
dioxide emissions will increase by one third from 2005 to 2030.
Meanwhile, U.S. dependence on OPEC nations for oil imports "has risen
to its highest level in 15 years." In September 2006, 70 percent of
oil consumed in the United States came from foreign sources, up from
58 percent in 2000. The impact of these historic environmental
changes is already being felt, and will grow more severe in the years
to come. Arctic sea ice coverage in March 2006 "was the lowest in
winter since measurements by satellite began in the early 1970s," and
a team of NASA-funded scientists found that ice is melting so fast in
the Arctic "that the North Pole will be in the open sea in 30 years."
Research published this year found increasing evidence that "global
warming is causing stronger hurricanes," that rainfall could drop by
20 percent by the end of the century, threatening the world's
deserts "as never before"; that climate change has spurred the
recent "sudden and dramatic" increase in the number of wildfires and
the length of the wildfire season, and will directly "increase the
risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two
centuries"; one study found climate change will have a devastating
effect on America's bread basket, shifting crop production northward
A YEAR OF DANGEROUS INACTION: Despite promises at last year's State
of the Union, President Bush's 2007 budget actually proposed to spend
less on energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy
resources in inflation-adjusted dollars than was appropriated in
fiscal year 2001 -- $1.176 billion in nominal dollars in both 2001
and 2007. Even as he stalled meaningful action on climate change,
President Bush lifted the drilling ban for Alaska's Bristol
Bay, "clearing the way for the Interior Department to open the fish-
rich waters to oil and natural gas development." Likewise, the final
legislation of the 109th Congress included a measure "that would open
a large swath of the Gulf of Mexico to energy exploration." The
United State climate policies ranked 53rd among the 56 countries that
contribute at least 1 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, the
environmental group Germanwatch found. "Only China, Malaysia and
Saudi Arabia" rank lower. Energy and climate science also continued
to suffer. The Bush administration went so far as to break the law to
hide global warming data, ignoring a congressional requirement that
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
produce a report on climate change. "They're simply not complying
with the law," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said. "It's incredible." At
the same time, NASA's earth science budget has fallen 30 percent
since 2000, placing our "ability to understand and predict
hurricanes, drought and climate changes of all kinds...in danger."
The House Government Reform Committee released a series of emails
from the Department of Commerce that suggest that Bush
officials "tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the
link between global warming and hurricanes."
AMERICA LEARNS OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS: Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
was a critical and popular success, and its message is increasingly
reflected in mainstream American culture. Some 59 percent of
Americans say climate change warrants "some action" or "immediate"
steps, up from 51 percent in 1999, according to a WSJ/NBC poll. More
than half of America's hunters and fishermen "have seen first-hand
the impact of global warming," a National Wildlife Federation poll
found. Fully 71 percent "said they were concerned about diminishing
fish and wildlife populations and many had seen direct impacts of
climate change in the field," and a majority "also rejected the Bush
Administration's fossil-fuel-based energy policy and want more
conservation and clean fuels." Notorious climate skeptics like
ExxonMobil felt enough pressure to "soften" their public image on
global warming, though as one financial analyst noted, "Although the
tone has changed, the substance remains the same." The Union of
Concerned Scientists documented how ExxonMobil has borrowed tactics
from the tobacco industry to "manufacture uncertainty" about climate
change, spending $16 million on groups that question global warming.
PROGRESS AROUND THE COUNTRY, AROUND THE WORLD: Perhaps the most
significant international agreement on global warming last year came
when British Prime Minister Tony Blair "sidestepped the Bush
administration's refusal to act on climate change by signing what was
hailed as a ground-breaking agreement with California, the world's
12th largest carbon emitter, to fight global warming." This pact
followed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R-CA) signing of the
California Global Warming Solutions Act, the "first enforceable state-
wide program in the U.S. to cap all [greenhouse gas] emissions from
major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance." These
moves symbolize several recent trends in the energy policy landscape,
including the progress being made on the state and international
levels, and the growing bipartisan nature of efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases. The European Union declared this year that its
member states should commit themselves to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 20 percent compared with 1990 levels, as well as meet
20 percent of all energy demands from renewable sources, by 2020.
Also, the Supreme Court took up arguments in "perhaps the most
significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls," a
suit by 12 states against the Bush administration arguing that the
Clean Air Act requires the government to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions from vehicles. The outcome of the case will "likely
determine whether the [Environmental Protection Agency] can regulate
[greenhouse gas emissions] from power plants and other industries" as
well. In Congress, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Safe
Climate Act, the first bill ever to target global warming pollution.
--- In email@example.com
, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...>
> JUST HOW FAR OFF IS KLEMP IN HIS REMARKS?
> Considering Klemp claims to be the Master of the Universe,
> wouldn't he be wise to make accurate remarks if he is to lead
> thousands? And wouldn't a master want to foster respect and
> love for all life, including planet earth, its denizens and forms,
> since, after all, there will be generations of people to come in
> this world, should we manage to survive the irresponsibility of
> people like Klemp?
> Here's an answer to some of those questions:
> This is an edited version off post I made on another group that
> pertains to this topic:
> About Klemp's coments about global warming, which is an
> issue I have studied and followed closely over the years.
> A few facts should be pointed out to clear up a few things. The
> book in which Klemp wrote his comments about global warming
> was published in August, 2001.
> This date is well within the period in which a majority of world
> renowned climate scientists had long come to a consensus that
> there is, in fact, global warming occurring caused by
> human-generated greenhouse gasses.
> To demonstrate just how far off Klemp was for the times, I'll
> provide just a few of the many highlights of the history of
> scientists warning us about GW, which amazingly goes back to
> 1896 when a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, proposed the
> theory that burning of coal would produce co2 which would
> cause global warming. Since then, the data has been coming in
> over the years, with more certainty occurring in the `70's, with a
> fairly well established consensus beginning to form in the 80's,
> as government bodies and science organizations began to
> weigh in with statements affirming the existence of GW.
> In 1985, the first formal consensus formed in a conference
> between international groups including the World Meteorological
> Organization, The International Council of of Scientific Unions,
> and the United Nations Environment Program. The report from
> that conference issued a warning that global Warming appears
> inevitable regardless of future actions.
> In 1988, the now famed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC) was formed consisting of renowned climate
> scientists from around the globe.
> By 1990, the another formal consensus was in place, with the
> signing of GW agreements between forty two nations at the
> Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment, held
> in Washington in the spring of that year. The agreement
> addressed the full range of threats implicated by global
> warming. Also in 1990, more conferences were held by the IPPC
> involving hundreds of world climate scientists, who published
> an official report concluding human activity is causing global
> And in 1995 (skipping over many other important GW
> conferences and agreements), the UN organization IPPC, in its
> `95 conference issued another statement affirming the reality of
> human generated global warming.
> Thus, Klemp's comments, coming as the did in 2001, are far, far
> off the mark for that date to be considered merely a mistake or
> the words of an uninformed person. For those who have read
> the conservative nonsense-science offered as a rebuttal to the
> worlds great climate scientists, Klemp's words are obviously
> straight out of the neo-conservative playbook. It is far too
> to the neo-con rhetoric to be coincidence. Klemp obviously is
> well schooled in the neo-con movement's talking points.
> As to Klemp's statement that there have been natural warming
> According to my reading of the scientific literature, the last time
> the earth was going through a warming period as dramatic as
> the one that is beginning was some 40 or 50 MILLION years
> ago, when we were in a completely different geological era in the
> formation of earth's geological features, and when most
> biological forms were not yet evolved.
> Many people like to point out a warming period in Europe that
> began around 1000 c.e., but that was a local, regional warming
> that was not GLOBAL, and was of relatively short duration. It was
> not at all comparable to global warming. So no, Klemp is
> absolutely incorrect in his statement. The cycles of glaciation
> and interglacial periods are well known, and there are many
> intricacies and details that can be twisted and misrepresented
> by the anti-environment groups that wish to deceive, but these
> are not agreed to by the consensus of world scientists.
> I suggest people do some reading on this, since there is a great
> deal of Neo-Con funded misinformation around about the
> subject that is extremely distorted and misleading.
> Another of Klemp's silly assertions:
> "Many scientists who study earth changes believe that the cycles
> of warming and cooling are actually caused by solar bursts from
> the sun. There have been many studies done." This is another
> distortion of the facts. There were a couple of Danish scientists
> who asserted the solar burst explanation, but this was found to
> completely flawed by a Stanford scientist, and the theory has
> been resoundingly debunked, and is not accepted by the vast
> majority of climate scientists.
> And as to klemp's notion that:
> "People who support the idea of global warming usually bring
> up some study backed by scientists, but it's often a broad body
> of scientists that includes dentists, doctors, psychiatrists, and a
> lot of other people who have no special knowledge about earth
> temperatures. And often their words are twisted to be
> something other than what they originally said."
> This statement is unmitigated nonsense. The consensus is not
> among dentists and psychiatrists, but among world renowned
> climate scientists from nearly every major country in the world.
> One of several of my sources of the history of GW:
> Klemp's book, for those who want t verify the date it was written:
> General information about global warming:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tomleafeater"
> <tianyue@> wrote:
> > With all the political talk, I thought I'd post something from
> > of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don't think I'm
> > offend those with different political view than I have. I do
> > that there are eckists out there who don't understand what an
> > extremist Harold Klemp is in his political views. They have a
> > to hear this from an old-timer like myself.
> > HOW TO SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY IN OUR TIMES, Harold
> > Page 210:
> > "A lot of emotion goes into these issues. Save the children,
> > the poor, the planet is going to warm too much and people in
> > South Sea Islands are going to wake up knee-deep in water.
> > That happened thousands of years ago. Suddenly, for no
> > at all--certainly it wasn't from human pollution--earth's
> > temperature just went above normal. Many scientists who
> > earth changes believe that the cycles of warming and cooling
> > actually caused by solar bursts from the sun. There have been
> > many studies done. People who support the idea of global
> > warming usually bring up some study backed by scientists, but
> > it's often a broad body of scientists that includes dentists,
> > doctors, psychiatrists, and a lot of other people who have no
> > special knowledge about earth temperatures. And often their
> > words are twisted to be something other than what they
> > said."
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > In my view, based on my attendance of various talks by Harold,
> > his comments of economics and the environment, and of his
> > writing in support of Richard J. Marbury, I have come to my own
> > personal conclusion that Harold is quite conservative in his
> > political outlook. Also, the RESA in the state I once lived in
> > reported to me some of Harold's comments personally made
> > the RESA which revealed his politically conservative stance.
> > Most long time eckists I have privately conversed with know
> > though there are some who still deny it. Twitchell was fairly
> > conservative also, based on what I heard back in his time, but
> > Klemp has moved eckankar a few notches to the right in
> > out his views more vocally than Twitchell.
> > Based on this, I predict that in the future, this
> > eckankar will attract a more fundamental, down to earth type of
> > follower who has old fashioned conservative/libertarian values
> > with respect to economic, environmental, and social issues. In
> > one of the last eck meetings I attended in my local area many
> > years ago the conversation was all about resentment toward
> > law. It got to the point that eck leaders in the meeting were
> > skirting around the edge of fostering an attitude of encouraging
> > roomful of gullible chelas to actively break the law in
> > non-payment of taxes. Concerned over the prospect of chelas
> > getting in trouble over this, I remarked that we don't want to
> > encourage illegalities in the membership, and the entire room
> > became rather irritated over my comment, as innocent and well
> > meaning as it was. I remember how shocked the RESA was
> > when she learned I had voted for different political leadership
> > than she and most other eckists on the state board had voted
> > for. I was apparently one of the only non-conservatives on the
> > state board.
> > A friend of mine who once described herself as a New York
> > liberal (that's pretty liberal, folks), who was active in
> > proud of her long held integrity on a number of issues she
> > concerned herself with, completely changed in her political
> > leanings due to Harold's influence.
> > While I don't agree with everything Harold has said about
> > economics and politics, particularly with his views of the
> > environment, I do recognize Harold has a right to his political
> > opinions. I think the org should be honest and out front about
> > this and admit to the new conservatism in the movement.
> > can then make their own choices fully informed of the direction
> > he is taking eckankar.
> > On economics and judicial policy he is much further to the right
> > than most Republicans (not to be redundant in pointing this
> > -- Libertarians are, by definition, to the right of Republicans).
> > that in with Lutheran prudishness, a stern Christian work ethic,
> > Midwestern manners and reservedness (don't ever use
> > words around Klemp), as well as the typical blandness and
> > of emotional range of expression, and you get Harold Klemp.
> > Welcome to the new Eckankar -- but he'll fail with most
> > Midwesterners. They'll be revolted by Harold's brand of weird
> > quirkiness. They'll sense he's not quite normal -- something
> > Midwesterners are very uncomfortable with.
> > Has Klemp gone on record in a statement about which party
> > affiliates with? To my knowledge, he never has, but his various
> > political statements strongly suggest a Republican with a right
> > wing Libertarian slant. He has admitted to campaigning for
> > candidates before his having become Eckankar's leader of the
> > universe, so it is clear he has had an interest in politics.
> > This is a guy who thinks even Reagan and Nixon were too
> > economically liberal, thinks Roosevelt's social programs
> > contributed to creating a lazy generation of baby boomers, and
> > wants to go back to an extremely conservative judicial principle
> > an "eye for an eye."
> > Though he claims to support the concept of abortion rights (a
> > previously established Eckankar policy he inherited from his
> > predecessor, the more liberal Gross), he thinks late term
> > abortions are murder. He made no mention of making an
> > exception for women whose lives are threatened by the
> > pregnacy. He wants to end legislative law, so you can kiss
> > things as clean air legislation goodbye.
> > As noted in the quote I provided above, Klemp has bought into
> > the extremely ignorant notion that there is no global warming,
> > something that is widely recognized around round the world by
> > climate scientists. His statements in the quoted excerpt are
> > absolutely false that there isn't a consensus of world climate
> > scientists that global warming is occurring. Global Warming is
> > now widely established to be caused by man-made
> > gasses.
> > He has denounced government assistance for the
> > disenfranchised (I remember an Eckist friend who was
> > dying of MD who felt agonized and torn over accepting
> > government aid after hearing Klemp's remarks about the
> > system at a seminar) He is also a guy who admonished his
> > child for innocently wanting to pick up a few pennies she found
> > the sand, because of the karmic implications (whew, what
> > will that kid grow up with?) I've also heard from a fellow on
> > A.R.E. that Eckankar supported a gun rights legislation in MN a
> > while back.
> > If Klemp isn't a Republican, it is only because he would
> > Republicans way too liberal.
> > Liberals and moderates who are still Eckists: Wake up to the
> > that you're following a right wing nut case. An Eck Master with
> > such callous and destructive views of the planet is no spiritual
> > master.
> > Kent