(1). Recommending policies for the environment.
(2). Gathering and disseminating environmental information.
(3). Catalyzing action to address major environmental threats among governments, the private sector, and civil society.
(4). Developing international laws for the environment.
(5). Developing international environmental agreements and legal instruments.
(6). Integrating economic development and environmental protection.

UNEP’s design is to dictate environmental and economic policy to the international community. Before we give an organization that kind of power over the United States economy, we should know who these people are.

There are 58 countries in the governing council of UNEP. Roughly 90% of those countries are politically unfriendly to the United States. There have been four Executive Directors of UNEP since the early 70’s. They are from Egypt, Canada, and Germany respectively. Which of those countries has the best interests of the United State at heart when discussing economic policy?

UNEP’s agenda is far more political than scientific. That is obvious from the formal education of its leaders. One of the early Executive Directors (Mostafa Tolba) was the only true scientist ever to serve in that capacity.

He was replaced by Elizabeth Dowdeswell (Canada). She had a Masters Degree in Behavioral Sciences and an undergraduate degree in Home Economics. This woman had no training whatever qualifying her to lead the world in environmental policy.

She was followed by Klaus Topfer (Germany). He was behind the scenes in developing the Kyoto Protocol. That is interesting when you consider that Mr. Topfer had a doctorate in economics. You may remember from the first article in this series that the United States Senate voted the Kyoto Protocol down by a 95-0 vote stating it would cause “serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Why would a man with a doctorate in economics design an environmental policy that would cripple the United States? Did he not know what he was doing? Were all 95 U.S. Senators completely wrong? No! The 95 Senators were not wrong, and Mr. Topfer knew exactly what he was doing.

The political, anti-United States agenda of UNEP is embarrassingly transparent. America does not need our enemies dictating our economic policies. If we need to adjust some things to help the environment, then so be it. But let’s entrust the task of developing that plan to men and women whose expertise is impeccable and whose devotion to the United States is unquestioned.

Truth Smugglers have a variety of “poison pills” in their arsenal. One of them is the statement, “every informed, intelligent person knows…” and they go on to state the view they are defending. This is a “poison pill” because it automatically frames the conversation so that any opposing idea you may express puts you in the category of being “uninformed” or “unintelligent.”  When the debate centers on facts that must be gathered from a specific area of expertise, the poison pill says, “all reputable experts in this area believe…” That “poison pill” is designed to automatically invalidate any facts you may have from another “expert” which contradicts their information.  These are general, subtle statements which are non-offensively slipped into a conversation for the purpose of winning an argument. But they actually obstruct the process of answering a question or resolving a problem.

In contrast, there are “poison pills” which are much less subtle and much more personal. They frame the issue by saying that anyone who holds an opposing view is somehow deficient in his/her ability to think or feel any differently. Take the incessant “Conservative-Liberal” wrangling for example. The labels people wear sets off the “Truth Smuggling” alarm in my brain. By wearing labels, people are saying, “I have a certain set of values and beliefs that I am going to follow, and no set of circumstances or discovery of new information is going to change my predisposed positions.” That is exactly what Liberals and Conservatives do. In order to purvey their predisposed positions against each other and smuggle truth out of any debate, they throw poison pills at one another. Conservatives accuse those who have Liberal beliefs of being mentally ill. Liberals label people who hold Conservative views of being uncompassionate fat cats who don’t care about the common man.

So, the lines are drawn by these poison pills. If I am on one side of an issue, I have ready- made accusations for the people on the other side. I don’t even have to bother with considering, evaluating, or even listening to any specific points they raise. I have smuggled the truth away, and I have added to my political power base. Mission accomplished!

In this scenario, the Truth Smuggler frames the conversation in terms of academic expertise in order to lift the conversation over the head of the opponent. There are a couple of applications of this strategy.

First, the Truth Smuggler pulls rank on his/her opponent by claiming personal expertise in some field. For instance, some Truth Smugglers use their graduate degrees to intimidate people and win arguments. We see this in university professors all the time. Some of them bully their students into accepting their viewpoints because they are in charge of that class room. They are not open to free exchange of ideas. Rather, they use their credentials and position to shut down all debate for the purpose of winning the argument.

Then there are the Truth Smugglers who have no personal credentials, so they cite positions taken by “experts” who support their views. They memorize sound bites and web sites where these “experts” have spoken on given issues. Once again, the purpose of this strategy is to raise the argument to a level where the opponent has no reply. Facts can no longer be compared and ideas can no longer be exchanged. With the introduction of “academic expertise” into the conversation, all truth finding disappears.

There are several weaknesses in this strategy. First, facts are facts. Mature adults of average intelligence can sort through facts and draw conclusions without the interpretations of “experts.” Experts are valuable in supplying the facts. But, the conclusions they draw from those facts are no more valid than mine or yours. Even “experts” in the same field who agree on what the facts are differ widely on the conclusions they draw from those facts. So, just give me the facts, and I will trust my own intellect in drawing conclusions from them.

The second weakness is really embarrassing for the academic Truth Smugglers. More times than not, their academic qualifications have nothing whatever to do with the arena of ideas on which they are commenting. The most recent and glaring example is Ward Churchill, the former professor of Ethnic Studies in Boulder. His comments regarding the many victims of the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people involved. The folks who died in the Twin Towers came from many different ethnic groups. So, his comments were completely outside the realm of his “expertise.” That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a right to an opinion. But, it does mean his opinion does not carry any more weight than yours or mine. Don’t be intimidated by a graduate degree. Don’t think that just because a person has a PH.D, his/her interpretation of or even knowledge of the facts in a given area is the definitive truth. Truth is not found in credentials. Truth is found in facts. Use the “experts” to gather the facts. Then, engage in the hard work of exchanging ideas and determining the truth for yourself from those facts.

There are harmless Truth Smugglers. The reward for them is they get to engage in a conversation in which they would otherwise be intellectually disqualified. Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth!” But that is not the problem for this type of Truth Smuggler. The problem is he/she doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to engage in the process of arriving at truth. So, he/she compensates by smuggling the truth away and making the debate a contest where the stakes have nothing to do with determining truth.

Then there are the more dangerous Truth Smugglers. These are the people who have extremely high intellectual capacities. They know how to examine facts from all sides of a conversation. They also know how to manipulate and omit facts. They do so, not to win a meaningless argument, but to gain a following. Their target is not their opponent, but the audience. If they can convince enough people that they are telling the truth, they will have a power base from which they can exert control, raise money, and manipulate the opinions and behavior of large numbers of people.

You can hear this type of Truth Smuggler on the talk shows on radio as well as on television. “Experts” who comment on certain topics are often nothing more than “Truth Smuggling” shills for a particular point of view. The political strategists from both parties who appear on these shows should be embarrassed at how obvious they are. Some religious leaders do the very same thing. They see truth as a tool to be given out in portions in the manner best suited to control the behavior of their members.

Why am I saying all of this? If you recognize the Truth Smuggler and expose him/her, the masses will quit listening, and the Truth Smuggler will go away. Even if a person champions your viewpoint, be honest enough to evaluate whether he/she is really seeking truth, or just a Truth Smuggler. Have you ever heard this person lose an argument, or stop in mid-debate and say, “You know, that’s a really good point. You might be right after all.” If not, one of two things is true of that person. Either he/she has a perfect understanding of all truth regarding that issue, or he/she is closed off to any new information and is attempting to gain something besides truth out of the conversation.

Now that we know their motivations, the next several entries will identify tactics used by Truth Smugglers.

In the previous article, we examined the IPCC which generated the recent report on global warming. The next group we need to identify is the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This group was instrumental in establishing the IPCC in 1988. The WMO is a specialized agency of the UN. Its primary focus is on weather and climate cycles.

Once again, there is no question as to the scientific expertise of the people in this organization in the areas of weather climate and water cycles. The WMO has contributed greatly to the safety of the world, especially in the area of early warning systems. But, just like the IPCC, there is an underlying purpose within the WMO to influence “policy formulation at national and international levels.” When it comes to allowing an organization to have that kind of influence on the future of our country, we really need to back up and examine who these people are.

The Secretary General of the WMO is from France. The President is from Russia. The 1st Vice President is from Iran. Let’s forget the whole discussion of the environment for a moment and ask a very simple question. If we were going to assemble a panel to formulate plans for the economic future of our country, would it consist of people from France, Russia, and Iran? If your answer is no, then ask yourself why not? The answer is obvious. Each of these countries is either an outright enemy of the United States, or has provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Regardless of their expertise, we should never entrust people from these countries with the welfare of the American economy.

So, we arrive at the same solution. Our elected officials should listen to the expertise of the WMO in gathering scientific information. But, when it comes to drawing conclusions from that information and developing an American strategy for contributing to the solution, we should trust no one to do that except our own American experts. There is more at stake than simply what the world’s environment will be 100 or 1000 years from now. That certainly needs to be addressed. But, we cannot address it while wearing blinders. Everyone is concerned about future generations. Unlike many “developing countries,” the United States of America has considerably more to leave our children than clean air. We also have a free society that allows them to be as successful and prosperous as they want to be. We gain nothing by saving the world and losing our own way of life. We must find a way to have one without sacrificing the other.