White House, September 1999
. . .When President Clinton and I created the White House
Millennium Council, we invited all Americans to join us in activities
that embody our national theme, "Honor the Past - Imagine
the Future." JumpStart2000
will encourage teams of students and their adult sponsors to
explore, to analyze and to propose solutions to the problems
facing our nation's communities. . . . Through JumpStart 2000,
young people can experience the excitement of learning science
and will recognize as well its great capacity to improve people's
lives. . . .
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Agenda 21 for
"THE NEW MILLENNIUM waits around the corner, and with
it comes a challenge to every student in the country
This call from Parade magazine (September 19) summons
students from kindergarten through the 12th grade to share in
a millennial project called "JumpStart2000: Your Chance
to Build a Better Century." Its simple. They just
or join a team of four
a trusted adult coach (not their parents), and
looking around at "the trees, the air. . . health conditions,
the economy . . . " for an environmental or social problem
to solve something that will "build a better century."
Sounds good, doesnt it? Or does it? The answer depends
on the chosen topic, the adult coach, and how well students can
separate the facts from all the politically correct government
propaganda. Parade's list of suggested topics "Problems
That Concern Us" sheds some light on the political
agenda behind this campaign:
"Too many people
not enough food
hatred and bias
too much garbage
poor access for
many to quality medical care
the constant threat of war
crowded, low-performing schools
What worries YOU most about
your worldor the world at large? And what ingenious ideas
do you have to solve the problem? Tell us!"
"Us" refers to the sponsors
which include the White House Millennium Council, the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and National Science Board (NSB), react
magazine, "and of course, Americas schools."
The official website for JumpStart2000
shows how to get
started. Pointing to a set of links, it offers this advice:
"If you visit only one site, make it this
one! With an extensive list of links to science-related Web
sites, it's the perfect stop on your way to defining a problem
and then conducting your preliminary research."
If you follow their links, you can reach a site
which lists five questions. Take time to ponder the subsequent
"scientific" experiment used to direct students to
the "right" answer:
1) What was the purpose of the first Earth Day?
2) What were the major environmental problems in this country
3) What are the major environmental problems here now?
4) What are the major environmental problems worldwide?
5) In what countries do people consume the most?
Goal: To observe and compare the impact of humans on
the natural environment.
Materials: 8 meters of string, chalk, note pad, pencil,
magnifying glass, field guide to insects if possible, thermometer
1. Choose a one meter by one meter square of cement or asphalt.
This could be a sidewalk, driveway, or school playground.
2. Cut four meters of string and mark the perimeter of the square.
Trace the square with a piece of chalk.
3. Observe the square for ten minutes, three times a day.
4. Count the number of total plants, the number of different
types of plants, the number and type of insects either on the
ground or in the air.
5. Record the ground temperature.
6. Repeat your observation for five days and keep an accurate
field journal of your notes.
7. Choose a second location which is as natural and as untouched
by humans as possible.
8. Repeat the same procedure that you used for the meter square
9. Record all of your observations for one week.
10. Create data graphs and tables to show the comparison between
the numbers of plants and animals as well as the difference in
temperature for each location.
11. What conclusions can you draw about the impact of human development
on the natural environment?
Its not hard to guess what children might conclude.
Most have never sat near the window on a cross-country flight.
They dont realize that streets and cities are little more
than dots in the vast panorama of forests, fields, deserts, lakes
and mountains. Nor do they know that a few sharp taps on most
asphalt or concrete surfaces will send a stream of ants rushing
out through cracks to scout for danger. In other words, the above
experiment doesnt even show the truth about the human impact
on the square meter of pavement not to mention the true
impact on all the rest of our natural environment.
But never mind. Truth isnt the point of this experiment.
The real goal is to involve each student in the consensus
process, in political activism, and in "serving the
community." Most such projects teach them to act collectively,
to scorn contrary opinions, and to think within politically correct
boundaries. It will be up to concerned parents and other adults
to provide the information that keep our children within factual
boundaries. Thats our millennium challenge. Hopefully,
some answers to the above questions will help.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY?
Answer: To build worldwide awareness of an environmental
crisis. While many partipated out of true love for nature, its
most powerful visionaries used it to initiate a publicity campaign
that would persuade the masses to consent to another, less publicized
objective: a system of global governance
that would manage human as well as natural resources. (For Earth
Day history, visit the official International
Earth Day site)
To understand the global politics behind the environmental
movement and the curricula it feeds to our schools, take a look
at the social ambitions that drive it. Its agenda was formed
during the sixties, when four overlapping anti-establishment
groups joined to form the Green Party in Germany: radical feminists,
Marxists (the new Left), peace-niks (the anti-war movement),
and hippies seeking spiritual enlightenment. Militant U.S. "Greens"
formed a similar agenda: radical population control, a global
welfare system (eliminating capitalism), planetary governance
(including national disarmament), and earth-centered spirituality.
This blend of four counter-culture philosophies helps explain
why earth-centered spirituality and Marxist economics pervade
environmental teaching -- and why Earth Day is now generally
celebrated on April
22, Lenin's birthday. Consider the sobering fact that William
Reilly, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency,stated
that private ownership of land is a "quaint anachronism."
2 According to former Washington
governor Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, he sought the "repeal of the
Fifth Amendment to make it easier for government to seize private
Do you see what happened? Environmental education was rooted
in political ideology, not facts. Now as then, it is taught by
manipulating a child's feeling, not by feeding their rational
mind. You can debate an issue through facts and logic, but you
can't easily change a person's feelings. When a discussion moves
beyond facts and logic, there is no common ground for rational
The nature of the particular crisis didnt matter as
much as the reach of its publicity, as long as it served to motivate
people to support or submit to the new agenda. Fear served the
purpose better than facts. So back in 1970, our media and schools
painted scary images of nuclear holocausts, starvation due to
overpopulation, and global cooling the threat of a new
ice age. Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider
summarized the agenda well:
"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound
to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but--which means that we must include
all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the
other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place,
which in this context translates into our working to reduce the
risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we
need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's
imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media
coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we
might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.1
Genuine concern for the environment is good and needful. But
when environmental education whether in classrooms or through
national projects such as JumpStart2000 substitutes pseudo-science
for factual evidence, it leaves children vulnerable to all kinds
of social myths and false solutions. When it makes political
activism a requirement for saving the earth, it turns children
into puppets serving the global agenda.
Please dont stop treasuring and caring for God's resources.
As stewards of creation, we don't have license to waste or abuse
any part of nature. We should minimize use, reuse as much as
possible, plant trees, and do all we can to show our gratefulness
for the wonders God has created. Just be aware of the facts,
so that your family can make wise decisions--and counter some
of the myths and assumptions taught to our children and their
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS HERE NOW?
Answer: According to green activists, the major
problems of the nineties have included Global Warming, polluted
air and water, and "ozone holes." The last one has
virtually disappeared from the mainstream media since the political
battle was won, the Montreal Protocol was signed, and the process
of phasing out chlorofluorocarbons began. But the mysterious
"ozone hole" illustrates the deception. For a glimpse
into the minds of some key architects of the environmental agenda,
look at this statement from the prestigious and powerful Club
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy,
then, is humanity itself." 4
The most powerful member of the Club of Rome is Maurice Strong,
5 head of the 1992 UN (Rio) Conference
on Environment and Development which produced the global action
plan, Agenda 21. Its a bit
too complicated for children, but students can catch the U.N.
vision through a picture book titled, Rescue Mission Planet
Earth: a children's edition of Agenda 21. Not only is it
written for children; it is also written by children--"in
association with the United Nations."
One of Rescue Mission Planet Earth's well-tutored authors,
14-year old Rekha Menon from India, learned to battle the mythical
"ozone hole." She blames the "First World"
for introducing destructive luxuries like refrigerators. Her
clever rhyme tells us that "fluorocarbons from the fridge
make ozone holes we cannot bridge..." 6
The surrounding text is more specific: "The Ozone layer
is an essential protective filter in the upper atmosphere that
surround the Earth. As long as human life has existed, it has
protected us from the harmful ultraviolet rays coming from the
Sun. When these rays get through the atmosphere they damage crops,
destroy living cells and cause skin cancer. During the last 20
years, ozone levels above Antarctica have decreased by nearly
40% each springtime. It's all caused mainly by our use of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFC).... The consequences are catastrophic: about 100,000 people
die each year from skin cancer.... ALL CFC-use must be stopped
immediately!" 7 (Emphasis in
What are the facts? Actually the ozone "hole"
is not a hole at all. It is a seasonal thinning discovered back
in 1956 by Dr. Gordon Dobson, 8
explains Dr. Edward Krug, who has degrees in environmental and
soil sciences and is listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering.
Each spring, after the long sunless southern winter, the ozone
layer thins over the Antarctica. Conversely, it always expands
after the southern summer when ultraviolet radiation once again
creates ozone. (The media didn't tell you that the "hole"
closes each year, did it?) The annual thinning varies from year
to year. In fact, less ozone was measured in 1985 than in 1990
though more freon (CFC) was used. 9
Do you wonder why? Scientific data indicate a strong consistent
correlation between ozone depletion and major volcanic explosions
and other natural factors. 10
Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy
of Sciences, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and
recipient of the National Medal of Science shares those concerns.
"That natural factors may be involved in the variations
in the ozone layer is clearly understood by most atmospheric
scientists. Unfortunately, this fact was omitted, presumably
intentionally, from the summary which accompanied the master
report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.... It was prepared by a special group of participants
who apparently had a personal interest in recommending tighter
environmental controls.... Moreover, the speed with which the
Montreal Protocols are being put into effect is entirely unjustified
in view of the enormous price society will pay in cost, convenience,
"To summarize, there is reason, based on sound scientific
work, to express doubt that we are in immediate danger from either
global warming or depletion of the ozone layer as envisaged by
some extreme activists in the environmental movement."
Let's take a look at the theory of Global Warming and
the common belief that it is caused by human activity. "Ever
walked into a greenhouse?" ask the authors of Rescue Mission
Planet. "It's steamy, humid and it doesn't let up. That's
how our world could be in a few decades in the grip of the 'greenhouse
effect.' Gases produced when fossil fuels are burned keep the
Sun's heat in and don't let it escape back into space. That's
good up to a point; it gets to be a problem if we keep too much
in. We fry! The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide...."
What are the facts? MIT climatologists Reginald
Newell, Jane Hsiung and Wu Zhongxiang tell us that "There
appears to be little or no global warming over the past century."
13 The popular belief in global
warming is based on computer models that fail to consider a variety
of annual and cyclical factors that effect climates around the
world far more than human activity ever could: clouds, the eleven-year
sunspot cycle, the gravitational pull of the moon, volcanic activity,
El Ninos, the sun's magnetic field, storm tracks, etc. These
and other factors interact with each other to create the patterns
and cycles of change and turbulence. In comparison to these natural
and cyclical forces, human influences becomes miniscule.
Ignoring most of those natural factors, NASA scientist James
Hansen told the U.S. Congress during the scorching summer of
1988 that he was "99% confident" the current heat wave
demonstrated the greenhouse effect. A 1989 Forbes article
full of facts that refute the myth of global warming describes
the media response--and its blinding effect on public opinion.
Even though the vast majority of the climatological community
was outraged by Hansen's unproven assertions, environmental advocate
Stephen Schneider notes in Global Warming, "Journalists
loved it. Environmentalist were ecstatic." ...By the end
of 1988, with Hansen and Schneider's enthusiastic support, global
warming was deeply embedded in the public consciousness. 14
In spite of the world's fear of carbon dioxide, science shows
that a rise in CO2, the major "greenhouse gas", would
help food production. In a report on the Greenhouse Effect, Dr.
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Institute for Biospheric Research,
explains that "a simple doubling of the air's CO2 concentration,
increases the productivity of essentially all plants by about
one-third, while decreasing the amount of water they lose through
evaporation by an equal amount. These effects essentially double
the water use efficiencies of all plants, making them more productive
and drought resistant." 15
The editors of The Economist seems to agree. "Environmentalists
are dismayed," they wrote in an April 1995 issue. "Their
efforts to scare the world over global warming seems not to have
worked.... Some areas of the world would benefit from a warmer
So why are government and media scientists so insistent that
our world will overheat? Many care more about their government
funding or their political agenda than about genuine science.
"There's a selective use of facts," said S. Fred Singer,
atmospheric and space physicist at the University of Virginia.
"Nobody tells an untruth, but nobody tells the whole truth
either. It all depends on the ideological outlook... A lot of
scientists promote the greenhouse effect because of increased
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WORLDWIDE?
Answer: They change from year to year, but we
can expect to hear more about melting ice caps and rising sea
levels, population control, disarmament, peacemaking and conflict
resolution at every level of society.
Our Troubled Skies, one of the texts in "Our Only
Earth Series, A Curriculum for Global Problem Solving" warns
students about rising sea levels caused by human activity:
"Scientists predict that various forms of air pollution
may cause global temperatures to rise, the oceans to expand and
flood coastal lowlands, interrupting natural food chains, and
cause widespread skin cancer among humans." 18
Since such a global catastrophe is sure to evoke strong feelings,
the warning is repeated in many forms and places. In Rescue
Mission Planet Earth, José Luis Bayer from Chile tells
the world's children that the "use of fossil fuel (coal,
oil, gas) results in acid rain and the greenhouse effect: hurricanes,
floods and the rising of the sea level.... The sea level is rising
at ten times its natural speed. This can result in whole countries
What are the facts? According to the World Glacier
Monitoring Service, of the hundreds of glaciers it monitors worldwide,
55% are not melting but advancing! 20 Cooling trends in
many parts of the world more than balance slight warming in other
parts. "If the earth is warming," asks Craig Rucker,
co-founder of CFACT, "why
did USDA "Plant Hardiness Zone Maps" have to be revised
from 1965 to 1990 to account for increased cooling? In other
words, some plants that could easily grow in the Carolinas in
the in 1960s can now be grown in Florida because of colder
temperatures."20 It doesnt
But let's pretend that global warming is a reality and the
earth warms by 3-8 degrees--the maximum even the most dramatic
doomsayer is likely to predict. Would the oceans rise and flood
The reason given for this frightening scenario is a major
meltdown of the polar ice caps. But the temperature around the
Antarctica usually hovers around 50 degrees Celsius below freezing.
A five degree reduction would still leave the ice intact at a
chilly -45 degrees. No melt down!
What about the Arctic icebergs to the north. Wouldn't all
those icy peaks melt into the ocean and add to the volume? A
simple family experiment would disprove that myth. Put some ice
cubes in a glass of water. Mark the water level. Let the ice
melt. Check the water level. Did it change? Of course not. Since
ice expands when it freezes, it contracts when it melts. The
ice only fills the space it originally replaced. Melting ice
has no effect on ocean level.
If anything, rising temperatures would lower the ocean level
and widen seashores. Think about it: Warm air causes evaporation--and,
in turn, brings rain, fills reservoirs, helps farmers, and shrinks
deserts (which are dry because they get little rain, not because
they are hot). "Extreme global warming," says Dr. Krug,
"...would probably induce a modest drop in sea level as
more water gets stored on land.... Not only would the world's
great desert be greened, but marginal dry lands would also be
transformed into moister pasture plus cropland. " 21
But Dr. Krug's data is shunned by the mainstream media. It
clashes with the global agenda. As columnist Thomas Sowell, Senior
Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote
some years ago,
"Has Paul Ehrlich or the Worldwatch Institute been discredited
by the repeated failures of their hysterical [environmental]
predictions? . . . Being factual does not matter to those who
are politically correct. Some of the bolder members of the anointed
have openly expressed the view that various racial charges which
turned out to be hoaxes do not bother them because these charges
serve to raise consciousness." 22
IN WHAT COUNTRIES DO PEOPLE CONSUME THE MOST?
Answer: In the Western world where standard
of living is highest, and America is considered the biggest culprit
Clean Sweep, an environmental curriculum published
by the Iowa Department of Education, is full of fun cartoons
and creative classroom exercises. But it demonstrates the same
biased information and politicized solutions found in other environmental
curriculum across the country. Take a look at one of the lessons.
The "learners" divide into two groups. One group,
the people of the earth, sit on chairs in a circle representing
the Earth. The others, the "unborn" people of the world,
wait on the sidelines "to be born." In the center of
the circle the learners have piled things like aluminum cans,
foil, plastic bags, paper clips, glass bottles, etc.
When the music plays, the children mill around looking for
natural resources. When it stops, the children sit down and collect
stickers that represent consumption of a particular resource.
To demonstrate the rising world population, new children are
"being born" and added to the group using the dwindling
resources. When all the stickers on a chair are taken, the chair
is removed. Learners without a chair must find someone willing
to share their chair or lap. Guess what happens. The world runs
out of resources.
Like the computer models used to predict climate change, the
game doesn't match reality. This exercise is designed to change
attitudes, not show real life. Therefore, it teaches neither
scientific facts nor social statistics. What it does is far more
dangerous than what it omitted: it gives children a new exaggerated
and alarming view of an imagined reality--one designed to stir
fear and anger. The children felt the imagined dangers. They
wanted to do something about them. Here's how the "Questions"
manipulate those feelings:
1. What would happen if the game continued....?
2. Was it sometimes difficult finding someone to share a chair
or lap? (Do countries have difficulty sharing resources?)
3. How did it feel to be crowded on one chair?
4. Is there a similar problem on our Earth? Are some nations
using resources more rapidly than others?
5. How could we alleviate the stresses on our natural resources?
(reducing consumption on gasoline, slowing global population
growth.... and of course recycling whenever possible.) 23
To make sure the learners understand that America is the villain
of the world, this variation and question is added: "The
U.S.A. uses over 20% of the world's resources, so the U.S.A.
could always have first chance at a chair and would not have
to share. How do the others feel toward the U.S.A. in this game?"
Do you wonder what global and economic alternative to capitalism
the Iowa Department of Education might be advocating?
RESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS. To withstand the classroom
and peer pressures to accept the scary environmental scenarios
and their global "solutions", your children need to....
science facts that (1) provide evidence against false scenarios
and (2) show genuine problems and practical solutions. In addition
to the eco-myths listed earlier, they need to know that we are
not running out of natural resources, that farmers can produce
far more food than they do today, and that "we even have
a national glut of landfill capacity."24
some of the political visions which fuel the environmental movement.
that classroom computer models don't simulate the real world.
At best they match the standard environmental philosophy. The
programmers determine what the computers will demonstrate.
that our schools and government are manipulating science to fit
political purposes, then guard against deception."Executive
Order 12498 allows scientific research to be skewed 'for conformity
with administration policy'." One result: researchers are
"forbidden to collect data on a range of sensitive topics."
25 That executive order was revoked
by President Clinton's EO 12866, which is mentioned in Section
#8 of Clinton's EO 13132 on
Federalism. Authority to control research is included under its
broad and ambiguous power to impose its federal policies everywhere.
for discernment and be willing to follow Gods way, no matter
God told man to take care of His beautiful planet. (Genesis
2:15) To do our part, we need to heed the Maker--not earthy spirits.
When he put humans in charge of his creation, 26
He wanted us to love and care for it as He would, not abuse
it. He wants us to see the world through His watchful eyes and
value all life as He does. His Word tells us how. It warns us
against mistreating animals, wasting trees, and squandering His
resources. Before the watchful eyes of the world, we need to
model grateful appreciation for God's gifts. "For from Him
and through Him and to Him are all things. To him be the glory
forever." (Romans 11:36)
1. Jonathan Schell, "Our
Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44.
2. Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental
Overkill (Washington: Regnery Gateway, 1993), 101.
4. Alexander King & Bertrand
Schneider, The First Global Revolution (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1991), 115.
5. Maurice Strong was vice-president
of Dome Petroleum (by age 25), first executive director of the
UN Environmental Programme, founder of Planetary Citizens, director
of the World Future Society, founder and co-chair of the World
Economic Forum, member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller
Foundation and Aspen Institute, and member of the UN Commission
on Global Governance. He heads the Earth Council, which works
with the UN to implement an Earth Chartera global code
of conduct based on earth-centered spirituality and globalist
values. Its publication, Earth Ethics, suggests that apes, our
"fellow animals", should be treated as "full members
of the community of equals."
6. The Children of the World, in
association with the United Nations, Rescue Mission Planet
Earth (New York: Kingfisher Books, 1994), 65.
7. Ibid., 10.
8. Dr. Gordon Dobson wrote a review
of his ozone discovery in the March 1968 issue of Applied
Optics. Cited in "Fact Sheet: A Hole in the Ozone"
by Edward Krug, Ph.D.
9. New York Times, October
10. For more information and specific
data, contact CFACT .
11. Dr. Frederick Seitz, Global
Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies: A Challenge to Scientific
Judgment (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute,
1994), 25, 27, 33.
12. Rescue Mission Planet Earth,
13. Warren T. Brooks, "The Global
Warming Panic," Forbes (December 25, 1989), 97.
14. Ibid., 98.
15. Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., "The
Greenhouse Effect: Just A Lot of Hot Air." CFACT, Washington,
16. "Stay cool," The
Economist (April 1, 1995); 11.
17. "Facts and Fiction of Global
Warming," The San Francisco Chronicle, February 4,
18. Linda MacRae-Campbell and Micki
McKisson, Our Troubled Skies (Tuscon: Zephyr Press, 1990),
19. Rescue Mission Planet Earth,
20. Quoted from a personal fax from
Craig Rucker, CFACT. For
more facts that counter eco-myths, yet expose genuine concerns,
contact CFACT and their team of respected scientists at P.O.
Box 65722, Washington, D.C. 20035. They also have a great video
for classroom use.
21. "Climate History Invalidates
Global Warming Models: Part II," Environment Betrayed
(January 1994); 8.
22. Thomas Sowell, "The right
to infiltrate," Forbes (March 13, 1995); 74.
Iowa Department of Education,
Iowa's Clean Sweep, (Des Moines: Department of Education,
23. Robert Lilienfeld and William
L. Rathje, "Six Enviro-Myths, The New York Times,
January 21, 1995.
24. "Censored Science,"
The Observer [London] , April 24, 1994.
25. Genesis 1:19, 26.
For more information on this topic, read Chapter 5 of Brave New Schools.