Like the botanist, for example who was known to have a position on a forestry issue that ran contrary to what most people believed. When I asked him if this concerned him he told me, “Politicians must get people to agree with them in order to be effective but the biggest advances in science occur when one of us breaks out of the pack.” After pausing for affect, he smugly asked, “Can you say … Darwin ?”

Another time, when I asked a chemist to review some information that drew unusual conclusions, I got another version of this quirk. “The opinion of fact may vary,” he explained, “but the facts themselves must remain the same.”

And it didn’t surprise me when I asked another of these studious types about the apparent incongruity in the claim for “consensus” in the world of science that human activity is causing global warming and he said, “The very notion of a ‘consensus' in the entire scientific world is an oxymoron on par with ‘government health care.’”

Is there really a consensus in the scientific world? I can’t say and neither, I must conclude from available evidence, can the people making the claim. I do know, however, there are an awful lot of scientists - the internet is full of them - who believe the “conventional wisdom” on global warming is patently wrong.

Logically then, based on the evidence extant and my personal experience, I must ask the question: If achieving a consensus isn’t a priority of science and no such consensus can be proven to exist, what is to be gained by making this the cornerstone of the anthropogenic global warming argument?

There seems but one logical answer. The hoopla over global warming is about politics, not science.

And perhaps now I understand why.

I recently learned that a group of lavishly funded, not-for-profit organizations had embarked on an “off the radar” plan to curtail the production – and hence the use - of carbon based fuels, all in the name of global warming. And I also learned the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) was one of those lavishly funded, not-for-profit organizations (please see numerous articles at www.cdfe.org for additional detail).

Although I was aware the NWF was using their affiliation with the

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (PFSC) to push their global warming message, I believed this was just part of some opportunistic fund raising campaign. And I recommended remedial action (“We’re (not) all in this together,” Clarion News, March 20); that the PFSC disenfranchise from the NWF

However, after learning the extent – and intent - of the plan the NWF was participating in, I issued a warning (“We’re (definitely not) all in this together, Clarion News, March 27); the NWF is an imminent threat to hunters, anglers and trappers and, to an even greater extent, an awful lot of other people as well.

The decision as to whether the PFSC will remain affiliated with – or disenfranchised from – the NWF will have been made by the time you read this. No matter which way the vote goes, though, the PFSC is about to look a whole lot different. One way or the other, it’s likely a bunch of people will leave the organization.

As disheartening as this may be, however, fracturing the membership of the PFSC may be the least of the damage the NWF has caused. They’ve already tarnished hunters’, anglers’ and trappers’ credibility as keepers and defenders of the wild by making them the poster-children of their plan.

But even that isn’t the worst of it.

Without our express permission, they have deployed us as foot soldiers in a socio-economic skirmish that will severally cripple our nation and result in life threatening hardship, even death, in many other countries.

Think for a moment what will happen if their plan to curtail the production and use of carbon based fuels succeeds. From just what they’ve done to date, we’re already seeing higher prices, and not just at the gas pump but when we pay our electric bill, buy a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread or fork over our federal, state and local taxes.

And they’ve just gotten started.

They want to force us to use nothing but alternate energy like bio, wind and solar even though these sources currently make up just one percent of our total energy usage, five percent if you add in nuclear power … which they don’t like either.

Please note, however, there’s nary a word in their plan about how they intend to make up the shortfall until alternate power becomes economically feasible.

So, can’t we grow corn and make our own fuel? Sure, and people in third world countries die of starvation by the thousands because the United States is the largest provider – by a whopping’ margin - of food-aid in the world and we won’t have an excess to spare. And it would require a whole bunch of extra farm land which would require cutting down a whole lot of tree and displacing a whole bunch of wildlife and …

Well, how about windmills? They’re OK but it would take a wind farm the size of New Jersey just to supply New York City . And, don’t forget their average run time is only about thirty-five percent. And they kill an awful lot of birds. And people are in favor of them until they have to look at them and …

How about photovoltaics? They’re all well and good, too, except none but the wealthiest could afford the equipment for personal use and the cost of trying to use it on a retail scale (residential, commercial and industrial) would make our current electric bills look like chump-change. And, currently, most of the components are manufactured overseas (where they don’t have our environmental laws) and …

So why are we doing all this, why are we inflicting this hardship on ourselves, and specifically and most drastically on those at the bottom of the economic ladder?

Why have we allowed gas and oil prices – and, by consequence, the price of everything else – to get so high that many are being forced to decide between their mortgage payment and their heating bill and losing their homes in the process?

Why are we willing to inflict a mean, hand-to-mouth existence on the poorer inhabitants of this great country and arrogantly pronouncing a death sentence on thousands upon thousands of people in third world countries?

And why is a nation that has more than enough raw fuel (coal, gas and oil) to be energy self-sufficient kowtowing to despots and dictators who despise and would like to destroy us?

Because a cabal of not-for-profit environmental ideologues, lavishly supported by like minded charitable foundations, is conducting a political campaign to stop something even science can’t agree exists.

And we – hunters, trappers and anglers – are letting them get away with it.

John Street is an inquisitive contrarian who writes, frequently with humor, about current events in fish and wildlife research as well as the ethical and societal issues that affect the outdoor life. He can be contacted at johnstreet@windstream.net