What do you think?
Saviors of the Earth?: The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement
Vice President Al Gore and other environmental leaders push for radical changes in Americans' actions and ways of thinking. These changes, however, are not based on scientific findings but rather on pseudoscience--a manipulation of scientific data in a quest for legal power, political popularity, and Eastern mysticism. Their objective is to protect the environment, yet their laws accomplish little. In the process, the economy and ultimately we, the people pay the highest price.Coffman contends that every job in America is fundamentally linked to our natural resources. The fabric of our society would collapse without the commodities of paper, lumber, agricultural products, fish, minerals, and petroleum. Ironically, these commodities--and their sources--have become endangered by the environmental extremists in their misguided attempt to become the saviors of the earth.
319 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1994
About the author
Michael S. Coffman
5 books9 followersDr. Michael Coffman received his BS in Forestry and MS in Biology at Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff, Arizona and his Ph.D. in Forest Science at the University of Idaho at Moscow. He taught courses and conducted research in forest ecology and forest community dynamics for ten years at Michigan Technological University, a leading forestry school in the Midwest. Until 1992 Dr. Coffman was a manager for Champion International, a leading forest and paper products company in the United States. He was responsible for millions of dollars of research on global warming and became intimately involved in such national and international issues. Dr. Coffman is currently President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI). He provides professional guidance and training in defining environmental problems and conflicts, and developing solutions to specific issues as well as the hidden dangers of international treaties and agreements that threaten our Constitutional protections, especially property rights. He played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) in the U.S. Senate one hour before the ratification vote. He has written many books exposing the attack on our Constitution and personal liberties; including, Plundered, Rescuing a Broken America, and Radical Islam In The House. He has also produced numerous videos, the most recent are two in which numerous scientists explain why global warming cannot be caused by man. Dr. Coffman is frequently authors articles on national and global issues.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2024
A CRITIQUE OF ‘HYPOCRISY’ AND ‘PSEUDOSCIENCE’ IN ENVIRONMENTALISM
Author Michael S. Coffman wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, “I have always considered myself to be an environmentalist. I have dedicated my teaching and research career to studying ecosystems to find better ways to use and manage our natural resources while improving their protection… Until the mid 1970s the environmental community provided legitimate and needed input into finding the balance between use and protection. Starting in the 1970s, however, the environmental movement began to shift from ‘wise use’ to one of ‘no use’ … policies began to be justified by pseudoscience grounded in emotion rather than in true science… By 1990, theories about global warming and ozone depletion became the catastrophes of the decade… I became convinced that, as in the case of acid rain, there was little evidence for either the global warming or ozone depletion ‘catastrophes.’ … What I found … caus[ed] me to … expose the duplicity behind the agenda of environmental leadership… this book is not about some grand conspiracy but about the hypocritical power and politics of an agenda and belief system rapidly becoming the law of the land… using the politics of fear and guilt… tens of thousands of Americans are waking up and taking a stand against this deceit even as they continue to be concerned about legitimate environmental issues. It is my hope that this book will provide the needed information to wake up millions more to the questionable methods and philosophies disguised by the call to ‘save the earth’ and galvanize them into action.”
He explains, “Many people can remember photos of the ghostly death of entire forests in Europe and the eastern United States… these forests were supposedly killed by that deadly chemical soup, acid rain… Like the DDT ‘catastrophe,’ however, pseudoscience, hysteria, and emotion prevailed over science. It is not that science showed acid rain doesn’t cause damage; it does. Rather, the issue is the gross distortion of … a ‘manageable problem.’ … science revealed acid rain caused only marginal damage to some lakes and streams in the Northeast and was not causing widespread death of our forests.” (Pg. 37)
He notes, “It is interesting that [John] Muir never called himself a conservationist, because that referred to ‘wise use’ of the resources. Muir really wanted ‘no use’ and freely referred to the need to protect the environment through ‘preservation.’ For more than seventy years, a conservationist was one who applied scientific technology to provide benefits to man while protecting the environment. Sometime during the 1960s the definition for a conservationist came to be synonymous to that of a preservationist. In the process ‘environmentalism’ was born.” (Pg. 65)
He says of forests in Maine, “Never mind that these forests accounted for nearly 10 percent of the state gross product… and nearly half of the state’s high-paying jobs. Such mundane reasons apparently matter little to environmental leadership…” (Pg. 112)
He asserts, “To hear environmental leaders talk, these lives [of loggers] are a small price to pay for maintaining the biologically diverse web of life in our forests… But should extreme rhetoric and unproven theories take precedence when the destruction of lives and communities are the direct result? Apparently Americans don’t think so. A 1992 poll … revealed more than 50 percent of Americans polled believe that people should have precedence over owls, and only 34 percent believed the owls should take precedence. Had this latter group known that … EACH PAIR of owls locked up $96 million of lost timber revenues, chances are that that pro-owl percentage would have been even lower.” (Pg. 127)
He says of Findhorn in Scotland, “Findhorn residents readily admitted that the ‘overflowing garden did require a great deal of hard work. [We were] kept busy from dawn until dusk…’ With this kind of intensive effort, it would be a miracle is the garden did not produce luxuriously. Although this apparently met their food requirements, there was time for little else. After three years of backbreaking effort, participants ‘were still living on Unemployment Benefits’ to provide their meager existence---old trailers, clothing, shoes, and garden tools. Utopia at last!” (Pg. 151)
He contends, “If the unholy alliance between environmental leadership and government regulators is already putting people into prison for trivial and senseless reasons, dark days are ahead for anyone foolish enough to question the environmental crusade these leaders have launched… Perhaps the word ‘eco-gestapo’ will, in fact, describer the type of terror tactics that will be used in the future.” (Pg. 172)
He argues, “Cleaning up massively polluted sites was a good idea back in 1980. But… The process got out of control when the National Resources Defense Council [NRDC] pressured Congress in 1986 to restore Superfund sites to nearly pristine conditions, an impossible task… the NRDC… perpetrated the Alar hoax that destroyed hundreds … of apple growers in 1989. The NRDC is now publishing articles demanding that traditional science be junked in favor of shamanism.” (Pg. 195)
He states, “I’m being sarcastic, but there is a horrible truth in what I’m saying. Hypocrisy riddles the environmental movement. Environmental literature consistently demands that the middle class live more simply… Environmental solutions demand forsaking automobiles, modern … transportation, and most modern conveniences that call for the use of plastics, metals, and electricity. In other words, live the life of the Findhorn prototype.” (Pg. 198)
He concludes, “environmentalism isn’t about the facts of science; it’s about feelings. And feelings are based in values and fundamental beliefs. Although protecting constitutional rights while protecting the environment may be the ultimate objective, stewardship is a vehicle to get there. Victory does not mean ‘back to the good old days.’ Those days are gone forever As noted, solutions cannot be found in either biocentrism or homocentrism. The answer lies in stewardship, which is neither, yet both.” (Pg. 270)
This book may interest those criticizing the mainstream environmental movement.
Author Michael S. Coffman wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, “I have always considered myself to be an environmentalist. I have dedicated my teaching and research career to studying ecosystems to find better ways to use and manage our natural resources while improving their protection… Until the mid 1970s the environmental community provided legitimate and needed input into finding the balance between use and protection. Starting in the 1970s, however, the environmental movement began to shift from ‘wise use’ to one of ‘no use’ … policies began to be justified by pseudoscience grounded in emotion rather than in true science… By 1990, theories about global warming and ozone depletion became the catastrophes of the decade… I became convinced that, as in the case of acid rain, there was little evidence for either the global warming or ozone depletion ‘catastrophes.’ … What I found … caus[ed] me to … expose the duplicity behind the agenda of environmental leadership… this book is not about some grand conspiracy but about the hypocritical power and politics of an agenda and belief system rapidly becoming the law of the land… using the politics of fear and guilt… tens of thousands of Americans are waking up and taking a stand against this deceit even as they continue to be concerned about legitimate environmental issues. It is my hope that this book will provide the needed information to wake up millions more to the questionable methods and philosophies disguised by the call to ‘save the earth’ and galvanize them into action.”
He explains, “Many people can remember photos of the ghostly death of entire forests in Europe and the eastern United States… these forests were supposedly killed by that deadly chemical soup, acid rain… Like the DDT ‘catastrophe,’ however, pseudoscience, hysteria, and emotion prevailed over science. It is not that science showed acid rain doesn’t cause damage; it does. Rather, the issue is the gross distortion of … a ‘manageable problem.’ … science revealed acid rain caused only marginal damage to some lakes and streams in the Northeast and was not causing widespread death of our forests.” (Pg. 37)
He notes, “It is interesting that [John] Muir never called himself a conservationist, because that referred to ‘wise use’ of the resources. Muir really wanted ‘no use’ and freely referred to the need to protect the environment through ‘preservation.’ For more than seventy years, a conservationist was one who applied scientific technology to provide benefits to man while protecting the environment. Sometime during the 1960s the definition for a conservationist came to be synonymous to that of a preservationist. In the process ‘environmentalism’ was born.” (Pg. 65)
He says of forests in Maine, “Never mind that these forests accounted for nearly 10 percent of the state gross product… and nearly half of the state’s high-paying jobs. Such mundane reasons apparently matter little to environmental leadership…” (Pg. 112)
He asserts, “To hear environmental leaders talk, these lives [of loggers] are a small price to pay for maintaining the biologically diverse web of life in our forests… But should extreme rhetoric and unproven theories take precedence when the destruction of lives and communities are the direct result? Apparently Americans don’t think so. A 1992 poll … revealed more than 50 percent of Americans polled believe that people should have precedence over owls, and only 34 percent believed the owls should take precedence. Had this latter group known that … EACH PAIR of owls locked up $96 million of lost timber revenues, chances are that that pro-owl percentage would have been even lower.” (Pg. 127)
He says of Findhorn in Scotland, “Findhorn residents readily admitted that the ‘overflowing garden did require a great deal of hard work. [We were] kept busy from dawn until dusk…’ With this kind of intensive effort, it would be a miracle is the garden did not produce luxuriously. Although this apparently met their food requirements, there was time for little else. After three years of backbreaking effort, participants ‘were still living on Unemployment Benefits’ to provide their meager existence---old trailers, clothing, shoes, and garden tools. Utopia at last!” (Pg. 151)
He contends, “If the unholy alliance between environmental leadership and government regulators is already putting people into prison for trivial and senseless reasons, dark days are ahead for anyone foolish enough to question the environmental crusade these leaders have launched… Perhaps the word ‘eco-gestapo’ will, in fact, describer the type of terror tactics that will be used in the future.” (Pg. 172)
He argues, “Cleaning up massively polluted sites was a good idea back in 1980. But… The process got out of control when the National Resources Defense Council [NRDC] pressured Congress in 1986 to restore Superfund sites to nearly pristine conditions, an impossible task… the NRDC… perpetrated the Alar hoax that destroyed hundreds … of apple growers in 1989. The NRDC is now publishing articles demanding that traditional science be junked in favor of shamanism.” (Pg. 195)
He states, “I’m being sarcastic, but there is a horrible truth in what I’m saying. Hypocrisy riddles the environmental movement. Environmental literature consistently demands that the middle class live more simply… Environmental solutions demand forsaking automobiles, modern … transportation, and most modern conveniences that call for the use of plastics, metals, and electricity. In other words, live the life of the Findhorn prototype.” (Pg. 198)
He concludes, “environmentalism isn’t about the facts of science; it’s about feelings. And feelings are based in values and fundamental beliefs. Although protecting constitutional rights while protecting the environment may be the ultimate objective, stewardship is a vehicle to get there. Victory does not mean ‘back to the good old days.’ Those days are gone forever As noted, solutions cannot be found in either biocentrism or homocentrism. The answer lies in stewardship, which is neither, yet both.” (Pg. 270)
This book may interest those criticizing the mainstream environmental movement.
November 21, 2021
An excellent expose of the environmental movement radicals. And even though it was written many years ago, it is still relevant material; for it shows what is behind the climate change agenda. Much in this to learn from indeed.
March 1, 2016
Expose on the "Green Movement".
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews