Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide

Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Living in extremely liberal Massachusetts, this writer expects (hopes?) that fellow Americans in our nation’s midsection still possess enough good sense to reject leftist policies and trends. Looking over the region not close to either east or west coast lunacies, the perception is that traditional political, economic, and cultural standards haven’t been jettisoned. States like Nebraska, for one, seem far enough away from the coasts to resist joining the mob and plunging off a cliff into political correctness and its ideological offshoots.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

But on September 8th by a vote of 6 to 1, Nebraska’s Board of Education approved new science standards that have conservatives outraged. In 2012, the education watchdog Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said of the Cornhusker state’s rules for primary and secondary schooling:

The Nebraska science standards are inadequate in nearly every way. They lack sufficient depth and breadth at every grade span, and critically important areas receive woefully inadequate attention – or are completely absent…. Taken as a whole, Nebraska’s science standards do not articulate nearly enough of what students need to know and be able to do.

Local civil engineer Henry W. Burke found that the 2017 Nebraska Science Standards standards are based on the failed Nebraska 2010 Science Standards. He fought unsuccessfully to alert DoE members about the deficiencies of these newly conceived standards. With bachelor and masters degrees and 45 years of experience in his field, he felt sufficiently qualified to register an opinion about the matter. He concluded that the state’s Department of Education was being asked to approve standards that are “more interested in promoting global warming and climate change than providing an academic understanding of science.”

After studying what was being considered by his state’s education board, Burke added a further opinion: “Global warming is presented as if it was proven science, rather than political narrative. This global warming agenda permeates the Science Standards from kindergarten through high school.” “These standards,” stated Burke, “do not present an objective, academically-based and scientifically-based approach to the topics.”

The veteran civil engineer recommended looking at his Internet posting as he addressed the matter of carbon dioxide being a significant culprit:

When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced scientific method. Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived notions and theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them. Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming.

Backed by numerous representatives of the state’s colleges and universities Omaha World-Herald reporter Joe Dejka wrote approvingly of the decision adopting the new standards. He correctly noted that, in addition to worries about global warming, students would also be exposed to insistence that evolution is a fact, rather than what many believe it to be a widely discredited theory.

The new standards for Nebraska schools will not be reviewed for another seven years. The conclusion: Nebraska has joined the left wing in the world of education. Watch for some parents to opt out and consider homeschooling.

A great home schooling alternative is our affiliate FreedomProject Academy. Learn more about the online school today!

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Solar Panel Fraud

Solar Panel Fraud
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, is a bit of a bust drawing fewer paying customers than expected. He’ll have to get friends to force showings of the film in schools. Captive audiences will be force-fed a viewing of out-and-out falsities in living color. They will have no choice but to sit there and take in a collection of misinformation.

Image from Wikimedia Commons by Mark Buckawicki, CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

One of Gore’s solutions to the non-problems his film describes is capturing energy through the use of solar panels. It sounds good until the costs and a variety of problems are considered. Career electrical engineer Art Crino claims government subsidies for different types of energy collection place solar power in the stratosphere. The handouts provided to obtain one megawatt-hour of electrical energy by burning coal, oil, or natural gas total $0.64. Gaining the same amount of electrical energy using solar panels starts off with subsidies totaling $775.64.

Taxpayer-supplied subsidies aren’t the only hidden cost faced by those seeking to capture energy from sunlight. There’s no sun shining during nighttime or when clouds and storms arrive leading to little or no gathering of energy. Partisans for solar power generation have even admitted that constantly redirecting the angle that solar collectors should be stationed is needed if peak efficiency is to be gained, a costly procedure needing constant maintenance. And the solar power promoters don’t like to be reminded that clearing away the snow after a winter storm might be necessary. Then there are costs associated with storage and transfer of energy acquired during peak hours of sunshine. And don’t forget that manufacturing and installing solar panels plus connecting them electrically and cleaning them regularly isn’t inexpensive.

The nation is being inundated with telephone salesmen seeking commitments to acquire solar power capability for single homes. It’s marvelously inexpensive they tell you while not mentioning the huge subsidies being the reason – which means you and your neighbors are really paying for it via taxation. If you aren’t bothered by unwanted telephone pleas, maybe you’ve been reading advertisements in newspapers or seeing ads on television about the wonder of solar power and its minimal cost to you.

Beyond all of this solar power promotion, you may have been victimized by the propaganda about the harm being done to the planet because “burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere.” The culprit, say the propagandists, is carbon dioxide that causes global warming (or its new label, climate change). But carbon dioxide is food for plants. It isn’t bad; it’s hugely beneficial. As for it affecting the atmosphere, climate scientist Dr. Willie Soon says the amount of carbon dioxide produced nationally by burning fossil fuels is equivalent to adding two more attendees to the 100,000 fans packed into a football stadium. In other words, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, or natural gas is of little consequence – good or bad.

The United States is sitting on enough oil, natural gas, and coal to take care of our needs for generations – even while exporting to others. A few decades ago, U.S. engineers figured out how to generate electricity by splitting the atom in a nuclear reactor. But bogus scientists and political skullduggery have combined to demonize nuclear power. If France can generate electricity via nuclear plants for 70-plus percent of its electricity needs, why does the U.S. stay mired in less than 20 percent?

And, by the way, a megawatt-hour of electrical energy generated via a nuclear power plant receives a paltry $3.14 in subsidies. Recall the figure given above where the subsidy for the same one megawatt-hour generated by solar power is a whopping $775.64.

America should continue burning fossil fuels and using nuclear power to generate electricity. Those who want solar power should certainly be free to employ it – but without the enormous subsidy it currently relies on.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Gore, the Energy Hog, Leaves Hypocritical Carbon Footprint

Gore, the Energy Hog, Leaves Hypocritical Carbon Footprint
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Former Vice President Al Gore wants to be known as America’s chief guardian of the environment. He’s the “Numero Uno” propagandist concerned about climate change and everyone’s costly energy use. Everyone that is, except his own.

Image from Wikimedia Commons by SSEE, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Senior Fellow Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research did some digging and found out that Gore is one of our nation’s heaviest users of energy. His home, a palatial 20-room mansion in the upscale Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee, gobbles up energy as if it were free of the consequences he regularly cites for others.

How overboard is the use of energy at the Gore residence? Johnson reports that during the past year, the monthly energy usage at Gore’s home averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the energy per month consumed by America’s average household is a meager 901 kWh. Gore, therefore, uses more than 20 times the nation’s norm! His energy bill per year turns out to be what a normal America residence consumes in a period lasting 21 years.

Does Mr. Gore run up such a large figure because he fills his 20 rooms with the tired, hungry, and poor yearning to be out of the elements and into cozy surroundings? Not on your life. Gore’s routine has him living alone (except for possible servants) without even the former Mrs. Gore from whom he separated in 2010. Their four offspring all reside elsewhere.

During the single month of September 2016, Gore’s home ate up 30,993 kWh. That’s as much energy as is burned up by the average American family in 34 months! Over the past year, the energy used to heat Gore’s swimming pool could have been employed to power half a dozen average U.S. households for a full year. To conclude that this man’s energy use is a bit heavy is no exaggeration.

Having previously been targeted by watchers of energy use as far back as 2007, Gore has taken some face-saving steps including installation of 33 solar panels. They produce a meager 1,092 kWh per month, an amount less than six percent of his energy use. In addition to the solar panels, he purchased energy efficient windows, new insulation, a geothermal heating system, and a new driveway where rainwater gets collected and is used to sprinkle the lawns. But his use of energy is still far above normal.

In addition to his Belle Meade home, Gore owns a farmhouse in rural Carthage, Tennessee, and a fancy residence at San Francisco’s Regis Residence Club. Each uses energy, though not nearly as much as the main Gore residence. Although the total energy usage at these properties hasn’t been made available, we can guess that it still uses ample energy.

Much of the energy for America’s home and industrial use comes from burning coal and natural gas (so-called fossil fuels) resulting in the release of Gore’s favorite target, carbon dioxide (CO2). His newest film, An Inconvenient Sequel, would have viewers believe that CO2 is polluting the entire atmosphere and setting the stage for rising sea levels, destructive weather extremes, and numerous other environmental cataclysms.

If only people would use less energy, then there would be less CO2 to continue wreaking havoc, say Gore and his allies. But the truth is that CO2 is not a poison; it’s a beneficial substance that is necessary for healthy plant life – which is food. More CO2 would result in more food, more trees, healthy animals, and even healthier humans.

All of this suggests a hidden motive for the well-publicized Gore campaign about climate change. Less hidden today than when Gore’s ill-advised crusade began are outspoken claims of fright peddlers at the UN and elsewhere who openly admit that their real goal is world government controlled by them. Gore is their front man who should be shunned, not lionized. Happily, a large and growing number of scientists are challenging Gore and his fright-peddling friends.

Help expose climate change for what it really is, a hoax aiming for world government. Share information on Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 in order to prevent it.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Al Gore’s Sequel

Al Gore’s Sequel
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Soon to be in theaters across the nation, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” will repeat, even add to, the apocalyptic claims shown in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the decade since Gore’s earlier film, however, the numbers of scientific realists who counter the stance put forth by Gore and others has grown enormously. There will, therefore, be plenty of outright denials of the former vice president’s fright-peddling insistence about warming and mankind’s role in it.

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” will soon be in theaters across the nation. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Kasey Baker CC BY 3.0)

Don’t expect any apology for misinformation in this film. And don’t look for details from an important report examining how data from weather stations have been doctored to buttress Gore’s scares. A conservative news purveyor known as PJ Media has recently shown that temperature figures making up the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) have been manipulated to favor the position favored by Gore. The culprits include the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research.

Figures used to create GAST’s summary conclusion do not coincide with actual temperature readings and have been dubbed “not a valid representation of reality.” In fact, the year 2016 was not “the hottest year on record” as claimed by NOAA. That year produced “a below average’” number of hot days that ranked it 80th from the hottest since 1895 when recording temperatures began.

NOAA’s charts and graphs portray U.S. temperature higher by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. But its own figures disproving that very claim have been altered to conform to the increased amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is “supposed” to be a dangerous substance driving temperatures upward; however, mounting numbers of climate realists and allies in other fields point to the needed and beneficial effects of CO2. And they don’t adjust temperature data to conform to their expectations regarding temperature fluctuations.

According to many climate alarmists, deniers of “inconvenient truths” are bought-and-paid-for agents of energy companies. No mention is made of the millions Al Gore and his climate allies have accumulated from government grants and green-energy subsidies. Gore alone has become a multi-millionaire.

Nor should anyone be conned into believing that any denier is a self-indicted and dangerous kook just because of the claim that “97 percent of scientists” believe the CO2 con and mankind’s pernicious role in causing its increase. There’s “consensus” among scientists say Gore and his allies. There isn’t. But, as the late physician, researcher and author Michael Crichton stated in his 2003 Caltech lecture, “In science consensus is irrelevant…. There’s no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

There happens to be a political agenda behind all of the hoopla about climate change. The Paris Agreement President Trump refused to sign turns out to be a key step toward wealth redistribution. Former head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri openly pointed to that goal. Christiana Figueres, who led the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until 2016, said the Paris Agreement provided tools to “replace capitalism.” Former UNFCCC official Ottmar Edenhofer summarized, “we de facto redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Climate realists, adamant deniers of the message put forth by Gore and others, are today’s heroes not the enemies of mankind. That their number continues to grow is welcome news.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American


Five Environmental Crises That Have Come And Gone

Five Environmental Crises That Have Come And Gone
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

What do extreme environmentalists do when their claims of looming catastrophe are shown to be unscientific or even ridiculous? They either abandon their current claim and find another cause to scare the public or they change the name of the fright they’re peddling.

The history compiled by environmentalist scaremongers isn’t something they should be proud of (image from FreeGreatPicture.com, CC0 Public Domain).

Consider this. We no longer hear of “acid rain” destroying crops and other vegetation. “Ozone depletion” was supposed to cause cataclysmic increases in human cancer and more – but there is no mention of it today. Another bygone scourge known as “deforestation” had its share of frightening publicity, but we hear it no more. Another great worry aimed at the public was “overpopulation” and it, too, is no longer being marketed as a significant threat. Then, “auto emissions” became the target of those who insisted the automobile did far more harm than good.

Now we are supposedly being victimized by “climate change,” the most dire environmental problem ever to plague mankind, according to scaremongering environmentalists and sloppy journalists. Climate change was formerly known as global warming. When competent scientists poked big holes in the global warming propaganda, its leading advocates arranged the name change. We are now told that rising temperatures caused by human activity warms the planet, will melt polar ice, cause a significant rise in sea levels, and put dry coastal areas under water.

The history compiled by environmentalist scaremongers isn’t something they should be proud of. Acid rain had been named as the killer of spruce trees in Vermont and elsewhere. When a group of scientists went to see this calamity, they had to fight their way through healthy young spruce trees in order to find those dead or dying. But their search proved fruitless because there were none. Ozone depletion was going to cause skin cancer, cataracts, and damage to mankind’s immune system. The main culprit was chlorofluorocarbons used in air conditioners, as a cleaning agent for electronic parts, and more. Soon, the claims about the ozone hole disappeared but not until expensive studies showed the concerns to be absurd.

Deforestation of the Brazilian rain forest became an environmental cause in the early 1980s. But when the UN’s World Bank was found to be the financier of a 900-mile road-building project right through the forest, pressure for terminating it succeeded and the rain forest was left to grow naturally. Overpopulation then became the environmental cause d’jour.

Famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau wrote in the November 1991 UNESCO Courier, “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” Fast forward several decades and demographers in various countries are now worried about declining birth rates. Overpopulation is no longer being discussed.

In 2014, climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, formerly of the University of Virginia and currently the leader of Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, provided data showing “no significant warming trend in surface average temperature for 18 consecutive years.” At MIT in Massachusetts, Dr. Richard Lindzen became nationally known as a “climate skeptic.” Over at Harvard University, Dr. Willie Soon has paralleled Lindzen’s skepticism and angered the climate change partisans. But numerous former believers have moved into the camp of the skeptics. They all concede that temperatures will rise and fall; they don’t concede that humans are the cause.

More than sloppy science is at work here. Even before he was Secretary of State (2013-2017), John Kerry beat the climate change drum. In 2015, he pontificated, “When science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and say ‘I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth?’” He claims climate change is a more serious threat than terrorism, poverty, and weapons of mass destruction. Because of climate change, he wants government restrictions placed on people. His goal, easily known by studying his career, is a world government run by him and others like him.

If the people become aware that the claims of climate change advocates are pure nonsense, even dangerous nonsense, Kerry and his ilk will come up with some other scheme to frighten people into giving up their freedoms. We should make sure they don’t get away with it. Join The John Birch Society today to take action!

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Changing Names To Confuse the Public

Changing Names To Confuse the Public
by JBS President John F. McManus

When the federal promoters of comprehensive new laws and regulations started running into trouble with their claims about global warming, they decided to give their pet project a new name. So, the claim known as “global warming,” resoundingly denied by increasing numbers of weather experts, became “climate change.” The switch is designed to confuse people into accepting a variety of drastic measures to combat a non-problem that will regulate how they live.

Burn coal to produce electricity? It has to stop. Outlaw the combustion engine that’s in your automobile? That’s what these environmental dictators want. Al Gore actually called for such a measure in his book “Earth in the Balance.” He urged effort toward “the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine.” Doing so would surely impact people who use automobiles. Would it affect the earth’s climate? Competent scientists say no. But now, the climate change experts are frightening people with their new terminology, not about global warming.

These are the areas that the United Nations thinks world government should control in the name of sustainable development. How many of these areas are even under the purview of the U.S. Constitution? (Image by United Nations (http://www.globalgoals.org/#the-goals) [Public domain or CC0], via Wikimedia Commons).

In 1992, the United Nations issued the massive Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan to enact controls over all human activity. The John Birch Society exposed this incredibly draconian drive toward what has been termed “sustainable development,” and people began to oppose its implementation. So a new plan that isn’t really new but a rehash of Agenda 21 has emerged. Its name is “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Will changing the name of this totalitarian plan change what was intended? Of course not! But the general public is supposed to think the new program doesn’t aim at a loss of freedom, the actual goal.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry recently produced a treaty with Iran supposed to keep that country from producing a nuclear weapon. Any treaty, of course, is supposed to require two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate. Knowing that they couldn’t get that many senators to go along, they renamed it a “deal” that requires only a majority. But it’s still a treaty. Giving this dangerous proposal a new name is designed to get approval by Congress while it fools the American people.

Social Security has been renamed a “Federal Benefit Payment.” But it’s not a “federal benefit.” It’s money forcibly extracted from wages and employers and it’s owed to the people whose money was taken from them over their lifetime.

The enormous “Food Stamp” program is a form of welfare given to tens of millions, even to illegal immigrants. It has come under fire in recent years for its enormity and widespread fraud. So its name got changed as well and is now the “Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program,” SNAP for short. Will it still make millions of people dependent on government? Yes. Will the program still be replete with vote-buying fraud? Yes indeed.

Finally we turn to the granddaddy of all the name changing and twisting of definitions: inflation. It is not and never has been rising prices, which is what the government and the mass media want everyone to believe. Instead, inflation is creation and use of more unbacked money that dilutes the value of existing money. Prices don’t go up. The value of money goes down. More of it is needed to buy anything. Those who believe inflation is rising prices likely blame the grocer, the gasoline supplier, or the landlord. In the process, the government and Federal Reserve that caused the dollar’s value to shrink get off without a worry.

Switching names and promoting false definitions has become common. The American people have to be told how they’re being conned. Then, they’ll no longer be victims of clever but sinister name changes and word games.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Leftists and UN Supporters Cheer Pope’s Message

Leftists and UN Supporters Cheer Pope’s Message
by JBS President John F. McManus

England’s National Weather Service reported several years ago that the phenomenon known as global warming ceased in 1997 and has not returned. Germany’s Dr. Hans Von Storch, a contributor to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is on record disputing any claims made by the UN about the supposed increase in global temperatures.

Pope Francis, (Korea.net / Korean Culture and Information Service (Photographer name) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Other global warming skeptics noted by William Jasper of The New American include former Georgia Institute of Technology professor Judith Curry. Once known as the “high priestess of global warming,” she is now cautioning anyone to reject alarmist claims about the earth heating up. New Zealand’s Dr. Jim Renwick, a former ally of the global warming alarmists, has backed away from his previous comments and now says, “The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two.”

University of Pennsylvania weather forecasting expert Dr. J. Scott Armstrong now says, “no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.” Climate scientists Richard Lindzen, Timothy Ball, William Happer, Freeman Dyson, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Vincent Gray, Christopher Essex, Fred Singer, and many other atmospheric and climatology scientists have been challenging global warming claims for years. They are especially critical of the increasingly discredited climate models cited by alarmists as absolute proof of a warmer earth. All of these scientists are joined by hundreds of others who are telling the public to calm down because the earth is not heating up. Many are converts from their formerly held beliefs about a warming cataclysm. Conclusions now reached by many contend that there has been no warming over the past 18 years.

But, into this discussion comes Pope Francis and his 184-page encyclical “Laudato Si” devoted in large part to blaming the human race for causing climate change (the new name for global warming). “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods,” says the Pope. Global warming believer Barack Obama cheered. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was ecstatic. The UN’s climate change experts who are busily preparing for the world body’s December convocation in Paris to address supposed climate change, gleefully welcomed the pontiff’s message while they ignored his condemnations of abortion and population control practices.

Catholics aren’t alone in wondering why the Pope relied for advice on a German self-professed atheist who believes in Mother Earth (Gaia). Microbiologist Hans Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research supplied perspective for the Pope’s encyclical. Another adviser chosen by Francis is Veerabhadran Ramanathan who practices Hinduism and contributed thoughts for the Pope about population control. Strange collaborators for the head of the Catholic Church? Indeed they are.

In September, Pope Francis will visit the United States where he is expected to bring his apocalyptic global warming and population control messages to the United Nations on one day and then to the U.S. Congress on another. Also during October, the Vatican will host a worldwide synod of bishops where some of the issues raised in “Laudato Si” will surely be discussed. The Pope is expected to continue crusading against the burning of fossil fuels even while he attacks industrialization that depends on energy created by burning fossil fuels.

It’s fairly easy to conclude that Pope Francis, who is not a scientist, needs new advisers. Sad to say, what the Pope has issued in “Laudato Si” is far from helpful according to the growing number of scientists who can be labeled global warming skeptics.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.