Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Harold Klemp's Political Views -An Eck Master on Planet Earth

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    With all the political talk, I thought I d post something from some of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don t think I m trying to offend those with
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      With all the political talk, I thought I'd post something from some
      of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don't think I'm trying to
      offend those with different political view than I have. I do believe
      that there are eckists out there who don't understand what an
      extremist Harold Klemp is in his political views. They have a right
      to hear this from an old-timer like myself.


      HOW TO SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY IN OUR TIMES, Harold Klemp,
      Page 210:

      "A lot of emotion goes into these issues.  Save the children, save
      the poor, the planet is going to warm too much and people in the
      South Sea Islands are going to wake up knee-deep in water.
      That happened thousands of years ago. Suddenly, for no reason
      at all--certainly it wasn't from human pollution--earth's
      temperature just went above normal.  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. 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."

      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 to
      the RESA  which revealed his politically conservative stance.
      Most long time eckists I have privately conversed with know this,
      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 bringing
      out his views more vocally than Twitchell.

      Based on this, I predict that in the future, this conservatization of
      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 tax
      law. It got to the point that eck leaders in the meeting were
      skirting around the edge of fostering an attitude of encouraging a
      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 politics and
      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. People
      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 out
      -- Libertarians are, by definition, to the right of Republicans). Mix
      that in with Lutheran prudishness, a stern Christian work ethic,
      Midwestern manners and reservedness (don't ever use naughty
      words around Klemp), as well as the typical blandness and lack
      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 he
      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 of
      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 such
      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 greenhouse
      gasses.

      He has denounced government assistance for the
      disenfranchised (I remember an Eckist friend who was basically
      dying of MD who felt agonized and torn over accepting
      government aid after hearing Klemp's remarks about the welfare
      system at a seminar) He is also a guy who admonished his
      child for innocently wanting to pick up a few pennies she found in
      the sand, because of the karmic implications (whew, what scars
      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 consider
      Republicans way too liberal.

      Liberals and moderates who are still Eckists: Wake up to the fact
      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
    • tomleafeater
      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
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        warming.

        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 similar
        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
        periods:

        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:
        http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/381_FactShee
        t_globalwarming_timeline.pdf

        Klemp's book, for those who want t verify the date it was written:
        http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Spiritually-Our-Times/dp/1
        570431671/sr=8-1/qid=1168201654/ref=sr_1_1/104-5512952-1
        427909?ie=UTF8&s=books

        General information about global warming:

        http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm




        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
        <tianyue@...> wrote:
        >
        > With all the political talk, I thought I'd post something from
        some
        > of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don't think I'm trying
        to
        > offend those with different political view than I have. I do believe
        > that there are eckists out there who don't understand what an
        > extremist Harold Klemp is in his political views. They have a
        right
        > to hear this from an old-timer like myself.
        >
        >
        > HOW TO SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY IN OUR TIMES, Harold
        Klemp,
        > Page 210:
        >
        > "A lot of emotion goes into these issues.  Save the children,
        save
        > the poor, the planet is going to warm too much and people in
        the
        > South Sea Islands are going to wake up knee-deep in water.
        > That happened thousands of years ago. Suddenly, for no
        reason
        > at all--certainly it wasn't from human pollution--earth's
        > temperature just went above normal.  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. 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."
        >
        > 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
        to
        > the RESA  which revealed his politically conservative stance.
        > Most long time eckists I have privately conversed with know
        this,
        > 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
        bringing
        > out his views more vocally than Twitchell.
        >
        > Based on this, I predict that in the future, this conservatization
        of
        > 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
        tax
        > law. It got to the point that eck leaders in the meeting were
        > skirting around the edge of fostering an attitude of encouraging
        a
        > 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 politics and
        > 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.
        People
        > 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
        out
        > -- Libertarians are, by definition, to the right of Republicans).
        Mix
        > that in with Lutheran prudishness, a stern Christian work ethic,
        > Midwestern manners and reservedness (don't ever use
        naughty
        > words around Klemp), as well as the typical blandness and
        lack
        > 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
        he
        > 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
        of
        > 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
        such
        > 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
        greenhouse
        > gasses.
        >
        > He has denounced government assistance for the
        > disenfranchised (I remember an Eckist friend who was
        basically
        > dying of MD who felt agonized and torn over accepting
        > government aid after hearing Klemp's remarks about the
        welfare
        > system at a seminar) He is also a guy who admonished his
        > child for innocently wanting to pick up a few pennies she found
        in
        > the sand, because of the karmic implications (whew, what
        scars
        > 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
        consider
        > Republicans way too liberal.
        >
        > Liberals and moderates who are still Eckists: Wake up to the
        fact
        > 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
        >
      • tomleafeater
        I posted information about Klemp s rather ignorant views that deny the well-established, mainstream, internationally accepted science that proves the existence
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 22, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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.

          http://tinyurl.com/dnx68

          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
          into Canada.

          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 eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > 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
          > warming.
          >
          > 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
          similar
          > 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
          > periods:
          >
          > 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:
          > http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/381_FactShee
          > t_globalwarming_timeline.pdf
          >
          > Klemp's book, for those who want t verify the date it was written:
          > http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Spiritually-Our-Times/dp/1
          > 570431671/sr=8-1/qid=1168201654/ref=sr_1_1/104-5512952-1
          > 427909?ie=UTF8&s=books
          >
          > General information about global warming:
          >
          > http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
          > <tianyue@> wrote:
          > >
          > > With all the political talk, I thought I'd post something from
          > some
          > > of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don't think I'm
          trying
          > to
          > > offend those with different political view than I have. I do
          believe
          > > that there are eckists out there who don't understand what an
          > > extremist Harold Klemp is in his political views. They have a
          > right
          > > to hear this from an old-timer like myself.
          > >
          > >
          > > HOW TO SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY IN OUR TIMES, Harold
          > Klemp,
          > > Page 210:
          > >
          > > "A lot of emotion goes into these issues.  Save the children,
          > save
          > > the poor, the planet is going to warm too much and people in
          > the
          > > South Sea Islands are going to wake up knee-deep in water.
          > > That happened thousands of years ago. Suddenly, for no
          > reason
          > > at all--certainly it wasn't from human pollution--earth's
          > > temperature just went above normal.  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. 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."
          > >
          > > 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
          > to
          > > the RESA  which revealed his politically conservative stance.
          > > Most long time eckists I have privately conversed with know
          > this,
          > > 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
          > bringing
          > > out his views more vocally than Twitchell.
          > >
          > > Based on this, I predict that in the future, this
          conservatization
          > of
          > > 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
          > tax
          > > law. It got to the point that eck leaders in the meeting were
          > > skirting around the edge of fostering an attitude of encouraging
          > a
          > > 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
          politics and
          > > 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.
          > People
          > > 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
          > out
          > > -- Libertarians are, by definition, to the right of Republicans).
          > Mix
          > > that in with Lutheran prudishness, a stern Christian work ethic,
          > > Midwestern manners and reservedness (don't ever use
          > naughty
          > > words around Klemp), as well as the typical blandness and
          > lack
          > > 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
          > he
          > > 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
          > of
          > > 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
          > such
          > > 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
          > greenhouse
          > > gasses.
          > >
          > > He has denounced government assistance for the
          > > disenfranchised (I remember an Eckist friend who was
          > basically
          > > dying of MD who felt agonized and torn over accepting
          > > government aid after hearing Klemp's remarks about the
          > welfare
          > > system at a seminar) He is also a guy who admonished his
          > > child for innocently wanting to pick up a few pennies she found
          > in
          > > the sand, because of the karmic implications (whew, what
          > scars
          > > 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
          > consider
          > > Republicans way too liberal.
          > >
          > > Liberals and moderates who are still Eckists: Wake up to the
          > fact
          > > 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
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.