Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton

Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here

Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words

Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

http://i43.tinypic.com/xm3btj.jpg

Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:


Sponsored IT training links:
Join 1z0-053 online course to pass 642-812 exam plus get free link for 642-973 exam material.


About these ads

347 thoughts on “Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton

  1. The Lord is slightly off on his assessment of the USA constitution. A treaty is only a treaty once ratified by the senate, I believe 2/3 for memory. A president signing a treaty is merely a statement that his administration intents to follow the treaty. From memory only, this happened to the SALT II treaty.

    As to impossible to break, it would take a constitutional amendment to change. Three fourths of the states.

    IMO, unless the weather stops turning colder, this treaty will be a forgotten document in 10 years.

  2. Hi, Blondie. I’m the guy who posted the above at Fightin Words, my blog. Your comment shares the tone of a couple others I received. My thought, as I shared elsewhere, is this:

    There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.

  3. Is it me or is Lord Monckton becoming the Al Gore of our side? Our president can’t sign any treaty that will mean anything to our country without our Senates approval. I think Monckton is just riding the wave of his early success and milking it for all it’s worth.

  4. Oops…blondieBC hit the nail before I even grabbed one. There is no way 2/3rd’s of our Senate would ever agree on any treaty on “climate change” at this time.

  5. The limitation is this, Obama loses re-election, the next president can reverse by executive order. As to how the american public actually feels about this issue, i am unsure. I believe it is possible that the majority of americans will actually support this treaty.

    If the American public supports a bad idea (i.e too small a military in the 1930’s), it is a failure of the american people, not our system or our leaders. We elect our leaders, and we are responsible for there actions.

  6. So now we know where those quotes came from, that were picked up by the BBC and Daily Mail – it is likely to have been a press-release for Lord Monkton’s Wednesday conference.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/daily-mail-joins-bbc-in-writng-about-climate-skepticism/

    Shame none of these media outlets could be bothered to name their source. But then they would not want to point too many readers towards an honest news outlet.

    Here is Lord Monkton’s website:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

  7. Quote:

    >>He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
    >>course he’ll sign it.

    Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…

    .

  8. Walter Scott Hudson (00:35:34) :
    “There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced.”

    I don’t know where you are from, but the things you speak of are strictly specified in our constitution. I know that our current president is circumstancing some executive limitations by allowing appointed agencies to create dictates (laws), but they are going to have to pass judicial review if challenged.

  9. Lord Monckton’s analysis of the Copenhagen Treaty document and of Obama Administration’s intentions is correct. He and the Czech President Vaclav Klaus are doing a great job warning the American public about socialist fanatics inhabiting the White House and the Congress. The “Save the Planet” pretext is being used to rob and enslave the remaining free population of the Western countries.

    As to exactly how the friends of Chavez and Ortega in Washington are going to drag the USA into a submission to the Socialist World Government, it remains to be seen. There is no doubt that they will try everything at their disposal, including making changes in the Constitution, to achieve their goals. They understand that this may be their last and only chance to destroy freedom.

  10. Obama won’t sign anything. He is a do nothing governmental lefty. Heck, the White House made a big deal about the fact that he is now in a “decision making mode’ about what to do in Afghanistan. That what “progressives” do: They sit around and talk and talk, but nobody makes a decision. So no it is a big deal that Obama is in “decision” mode. I am sure that if he even makes one, it will be his first.

    So don’t expect much from him as he freezes his arse off at Copenhagen. He will just probably give a cute smiling speech. And then go get laid.

  11. Did the Founding Fathers of the United States say that in such cases the American people have a right to oust their leadership by use of force? I think the militias and patriotic elements of the military in this case would help oust the President and call for fresh elections.

  12. Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.

  13. And if this is what you are all really about you’ve losy me.
    I’m a conservative and as such cherish diversity of opinion and that includes people having leftwing views, they are not evil, if you all think that this is just some evil communist conspiratorial plot you are living in the fifties and sixties, the world has moved on people, if you stick to the science I’m in if you travel the political BS route I’m out as will be many people from all walks of life who come here to get a second opinion on the science debate of AGW.

  14. I normally take heed at least of what Monckton is saying, but this does sound a little outlandish and playing to the American right gallery. However, moves in Europe such as the Lisbon Treaty do point towards the development of a super state structure becoming rapidly removed from a democratic brake, as the people of Ireland recentlyfound out.Surely, the UN is currently a form of world government but is rather unwieldy and inefficient. I cannot believe that world leaders would become turkeys voting for Christmas,indeed the opposite would seem to apply- namely that self interest will always triumph with governments attempting to appear decisive without conceding very little. Give Obama some credit!

  15. Politics at WUWT.
    What’s up with that?
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful you picked the story up. I just didn’t expect it. I’ve noticed very few political articles make its way here and those that do always seem to have science to prop it up, so to speak.
    Does this mean we should expect more coverage from the political front lines leading up to Cop15 ?
    If that’s the case, WUWT readers should buy lots of popcorn, because the show is about to get a whole lot more interesting!
    -David Alan-

  16. Figthing CO2 or in alternative global warming or climate change is a old plan with other propaganda methodes and objectives. The real plan is Morgenthau Plan and was introduced in west by the URSS american spy Harry Dexter White.

    You can learn about that plan in the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, by John Dietrich.

    That plan was rejected by Allys but during the Cold War was inplanted in West and the Green Party in Germany made his first paradigm and inspiration.

    Today The Morgenthau Plan is the climate change fight or CO2 fight because to ensure that West will turn to agriculture society without industry the russian soviets knew CO2 is the main gas produced in the economic produtive system. And eliminating CO2 emissions is aliminating industry and weapons capacity, the main goal of URSS during the Cold War.

    Please learn about that plan because is so important to understand today that kind of new communism: radical environmentalism.

    anti-comuna

  17. “(q) [Adhere to] the precautionary principle [, agreed upon in Principle 15 of the Rio
    Declaration and Article 3.3 of Convention, in adaptation planning, decision-making and
    implementation, with regard to the scale and nature of adaptation actions and to prevent
    maladaptation. Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to
    postpone or scale down action on adaptation];”

    It not about the science.

  18. There is an interesting item “Big Business Teams Up With the Left to Sell Cap-and-Trade” which describes in some detail why global warming has become such a financial gold rush. Whatever you think of Fox News, this is worth reading if for no other reason than to understand what is driving this agenda:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/15/tom-borelli-cap-trade-apollo-ceres/

    …Here are some important excerpts:

    The fine print disclosures about We Can Lead, reveal that two left-wing advocacy groups – Apollo Alliance and CERES – are behind the corporate effort.

    CERES is a coalition of investors, labor and environmental organizations that pressures corporations to advance environmental policies, such as legislation to fight the perceived threat of global warming. Its board members include environmental and labor union representatives, and also state pension fund officials from the California State Teachers Retirement System (CSTRS), the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and representatives from the Connecticut State Treasurer and the New York City Comptroller’s office.

    CERES played a major role in the corporate boardroom by leveraging the shareholder standing of the pension fund coalition members to sway corporate policies.

    After years of environmental and labor activism targeting corporations, some CEOs have decided it’s easier to switch than fight. These executives realized that by supporting environmental initiatives they could avoid the headache of liberal activism while also reaping the reputational benefits of being perceived as “green.”

    Some companies also realized they could profit by advancing environmental initiatives, such as global warming legislation.

    The unification of big business with liberal activist groups on important public policy issues poses a significant threat to liberty and limited government. As we are observing, the collective power of these groups is big enough to fashion a bipartisan compromise on climate change even during a raging national debate over health care.

    We Can Lead, a broad-based corporation coalition of energy, technology and other companies, including Duke Energy, Hewlett Packard and Starbucks, is mounting a high-profile campaign to promote cap-and-trade legislation. Coalition members have paid for ads in newspapers, including an open letter to President Obama and Congress urging action on cap-and-trade legislation, stating, “We need you to swiftly enact comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution and create an economy-wide cap and trade program.”

    Power companies such as Duke Energy, FPL Group and Exelon see “green” in being green – they were the biggest winners in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that narrowly passed the House in May. Utilities won the “House bill lottery,” receiving 35% of free allowances from a generous Congress – an amount that translates into billions of dollars to the companies. General Electric also gains by a federal mandate for electricity derived from renewable energy sources which would benefit its wind turbine business.

  19. I find the responses here to Lord Monckton’s revelation depressing. If our side has a carefree, “can’t happen here” attitude towards this dangerous treaty, then what hope is there?

    I would like someone who believes in the invincibility of Constitutional limitations to explain to me please the existence of Social Security. Or Medicare. Or the countless other programs, taxes, and laws which stomp all over State and individual rights despite the very clear language and intent of the 10th Amendment. Explain to me please campaign finance reform in light of the 1st Amendment, or asset forfeiture laws in light of the 5th. How about the many czars who escape Congressional oversight despite the fact that these czars now hold real power and authority in our government?

    And would someone who thinks our Constitution still has a shred of force today please explain to me how that could be true when we have a president who is not a natural born citizen, and when the people who point this out are run out court, derided as conspiracy theorists and racists. And no, I’m not speaking about Hawaii or birth certificates. For most of this nation’s history there was no question that a “natural born citizen” was a person born on American soil to parents who where both U.S. citizens. “Natural born citizen” was a legal phrase which implied that the U.S. had complete and sole legal jurisdiction over the person, with no possible competing interests. At birth Obama held dual citizenship, the son of a man who was a British subject, regardless of his actual place of birth. He was a citizen through his mother, but he never has been and never can be a “natural born citizen” even if he had been born on the White House lawn.

    Our Constitution is in pieces. Our president has no respect for it. Our own Senators, House Representatives, and even Supreme Court justices violate it at will. Obama will sign this treaty and will enforce it through agencies, czars, and executive orders unless there is massive protest from the people and from Congress.

    Judging from the responses here, I have little hope that massive protest will ever materialize. With friends like these…

    You people don’t understand how late the hour is, or how desperate the situation has become.

  20. FWIW, the ( C ) items in the story get turned into copyright symbol by something. That is, parens C close parens (just in case wordpress grabs mine here too…) You might be able to stop that with a space between the parens and the “C”.

    Couple of points:

    Yeah, it is a trashy treaty trying for a money grab (which is why China is on board with it… money for nothing and they still get to burn coal…).

    Senate must ratify or the treaty means not much. We’ve had several treaties signed that never were ratified and so not implemented.

    The constitution says that the constitution AND ratified treaties are the highest law of the land; but does not say treaties can over ride the constitution. That, IMHO, needs a decent validation in the supreme court, but you can bet that any treaty that attempts to change a constitutional right will be litigated.

    You can sign and pass anything you want. At the end of the day the American People have to be “OK” with it or it will hit the dust bin. There have been several treaties that different parties have simply announced they would no long adhere to. In it’s core of cores, a treaty is a contract; and the basis of contract law is the “meeting of the minds”. If those minds do not meet, there is no contract and no treaty. The words “I hold in my hand this paper” and “Peace in our time” come to mind…

    Finally, while I would not want to rely on it, the simple fact is that there is not going to be any significant money to give. You must either recognize that, or let your money become devalued to nothing. We are presently on the devaluing path.

    Take a look at California. We’re on a death spiral into the ground right now. Yeah, big things take a long time to get somewhere, but we have just had a budget passed that was supposed to cure our $40 Billion deficit and it is already in the red 10 weeks or so after it was announced. That is the model for the US as a whole going “forward”…

    The US is issuing bonds so fast that even with a stock market melt down scaring folks out of it and even with real estate as a dead investment (for now) the rates on bonds are showing “issues” with sales. So at the end of the day we’re headed for bankruptcy so fast that any treaty “obligations” will be paid off with toilet paper.

    And no amount of “stimulus” will change that: Moving money from your right pocket to your left pocket does not make more of it.

    And no, I’m not indulging in hyperbole here. There are valid laws of economics that can not be changed by fiat nor by desire. These are being ignored by our government for political reasons, but that does not make them go away. As Maggie Thatcher put it “Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend”. And the Dems are spending so fast that we will be at zero very soon.

    See the housing bubble and crash caused by exactly that behaviour with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac turned into a socialist housing subsidy program by the Democrats about 20 years ago. So how well did that work out? Yes, it will take about a decade, maybe 2 if we’re un-lucky, but in the end, this too shall crash and burn.

    The demographics of the nation are such that a hugh bolus of folks – “The Boomers” are due to retire and go on the dole starting right now. Both social security and medicare are going to collapse under that load unless gutted. You can be sure that they will either raise ages for retirement, cut benefits, or pay them in dollars that buy nothing. There isn’t really any other choice.

    That is, IMHO, a major reason for the push to “national health care”; because if they don’t do it, medicare collapses. If they DO make it ‘national’ they can buy a few more years and hide the medicare costs in a new national tax system (the forced “purchase” of “insurance”).

    But in the end you can not cheat reality for long nor cook the books for long. A very large voter block with a social security check buying nothing much and medical care that consists of a notice of non-coverage due to rationing will be a very grumpy voting block. Tell them a few $Billion are going to China and India for “climate reparations” and they will be more than happy to have a voter revolt. Something similar is what put Regan into office last time the Dems went over the limit. Have those same folks freezing in a cold winter with no heating oil and sky high electric rates from coal rationing and you have the makings of a revolt / revolution.

    BTW, the demographic problem is fairly simple. The number of folks paying to support those on Medicare and Social Security is constantly shrinking. We’re having smaller families. Last I looked it was about 3, headed for 2 supporting each retiree. And a lot of the ones doing the supporting now are “Boomers” about to stop working.

    Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a “20 something” or 2, working at MacDonalds, will not be able to pay enough taxes to support a “70 something” with $2000 to $3000 a month of nursing home costs and a social security check too. You are looking at about $50,000 a year of costs just for those programs per worker “real soon now”. You can only pay the nurses and doctors with “I.O.U.s” so long (even if government bond IOUs…).

    That dismal fact does not go away just because Obama signs a piece of paper.

    So just about the time the first “reparations” are due to be paid, this whole thing will blow up.

    We are presently funding our “life style” on a Chinese Credit Card (they bought about a $Trillion of our “bonds” – aka Government Credit Card). We are now making that $Trillion worth about 3/4 and headed for 1/2 of what it was worth. Guess what, they noticed…

    So China has gone on a spending spree dumping those bonds into projects all over the world while they can. (They swapped $200 Billion of bonds for a 20 year oil contract with Brazil. One contract, 1/5 of their bonds flushed.) So just how much more do you think China will loan us on the credit card in the future?

    And that is the end game.

    China is loaning us money to buy stuff from China. China is now wanting us to give them money and not loan us any. From where to we get that money? Who will loan it to us? We have gutted our industry (and it is headed for even lower production) so we are not going to manufacture that wealth.

    From where does the real wealth come to pay anything?

    “Balance of trade” depends on our exporting something of value, something with real wealth creation behind it. Moving money around with ‘stimulus’ and taxes does not create wealth. Redistribution does not create wealth. Even “job creation” does not create wealth. (At least, not as the government does it. 2 people leaning on one shovel does not make more wealth…) That is one of the fundamental properties of economics that is being ignored. To deliver real stuff you must make real stuff.

    At the end of it all, if you are not creating real wealth all you can do is devalue the currency to make “more” of it. And that particular lie only works a little while and a little ways before the fiat money system collapses. We are on the verge of that now. There is no room for another big push.

    So like the laws of thermodynamics, we are bound to this:

    You can’t win.
    You can’t break even.
    And You can’t quit the game.

    And that means we can’t give our “winnings” to someone else as reparations. There are none to give.

  21. “the best way to eat an elephant is in small bites”, if all countries sign the treaty in Copenhagen, it is of little consequence, most commitments to date are aspirational and meaningless. Politicians will be guided by public opinion, discredit the agw opinion makers and you gain more skeptics. Monckton has done us no favours with this rush of blood, give Copenhagen as much rope as it wants and people will start to question the science much more seriously.
    I still believe this BBC ad on carbon is a no brainer for challenge, do we have a legal mind in the house?.

  22. Ladies & Gentlemen, please do not fall into that trap that “no way” would the senate vote for this treaty. Famous last words, like one of your Civil War officers, I forget which, who said something along the lines of “Don’t be ridiculous, they couldn’t possibly hit us from that dist………”!

    History is littered with “no way” treaties, agreements, understandings,rules, that got passed because of complacency, the worst of all traits. One rather extreme example, I received an email from a friend a long while back, it was the transcript of an interview with a very old man, who lived in a country that had never really known democracy. He told the tale of a man who got elected, by a not great majority. He was a bit of a crank, had a few weird ideas about how things ought to run. The old man said most thought he was a crank who wouldn’t last long, everyone would see through him & his cronies. He’d soon be gone. Then of course they didn’t see through him until it was too late, things had gone too far, control had been siezed of every part of the state. The military was given full priority over funding. Propaganda reigned supreme. So did the state police. Dissent was ruthlessly & brutally dealt with. True this is an extreme example of what I am trying to put across but I hope you see the bigger picture. I don’t suggest that the UN would be so controlling or brutal, just well meaning, well intended, every one having a group hug around the world, like they were over AIDS, DDT, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iraq, Rawanda, ignorant & stupid yet impotent, as they have been so many times before in many of their endeavours.

    The UK is all but finished. We’re flat broke, we’re in the EU, (Europe was a place where Britain leant a helping hand on many occasions to prevent tyrany & maintain freedom in whatever form it then took) we’re ruled & controlled by the EU – left leaning Comissioners rule us from the European Comission, we have a puppet European Parliament with no power whatsoever,(overpaid, over -expensed & they flaunt it) other than to cede more control to the Commission, which is unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, corrupt as they come, (money regularly goes missing) most of the commissioners are failed left-wing/left-leaning politicians from their own once proud but now mere provincial states. Our own parliament is a sham, with professional politicans who have never run anything in their lives before, not even the school tuck shop! AND they want us all to sign up to this absolute lunacy of more of the same only worse. Imagine the bureaucracy involved, millions of taxpayer funded people from all over the world dictating to everyone else about how they should live their lives based soley on a false premise! Good luck America, I truly wish you well, I am a true Ameriphile. Hollywood has predicted the end for many years now, in its futuristic films of varying kinds, they all show one thing in common though, domination & control by a higher authority, benevolent on the surface, but sinister on the inside, with all involved taking their cut from the trough at our expense!

    Oh & the country in the old man’s story? Germany. The man he was talking about, Adolf Hitler & his Nazis, but I think you already knew that. The Matrix this ain’t, it’s reallity!

  23. In the UK we didn’t think it was possible for an elected government to sell us out. But it was and they did. Let’s hope your constitutional safeguards are more reliable than the ones we thought WE had.

  24. The fact that Christopher Monckton thinks American Presidents can sign foreign treaties without reference to Congress, and the failure of WUWT to point that out to him, suggests, alas, an ominous similarity to the repeated lack of concern for the full truth that is so evident in so much “global warming/climate change” alarmism. Standards at WUWT need to be a lot higher than this.

  25. ralph (01:01:30) :

    >> He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
    >> course he’ll sign it.

    > Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…

    He got it because the leader of the Nobel comittee Thorbjørn Jagland admires Obama (three of the five members argued against). No other reason. Jagland is like Jar Jar Binks. He’s a walking disaster. A well-meaning fool who should never have been in politics. Norwegians have watched his carreer and wondered how on earth he’s got into the various positions, such as: prime minister, foreign minister, president of the parliament. His education is not that much to speak of, his work experience even less: he’s been occupied full-time in politics since his youth. If anyone can give this man a position in which he’s unlikely to do harm, Norway will be thankful.

  26. People have been talking about the coming of a world government for decades. It seems they were on the right path. There’s something very Orwellian about this.

  27. A couple of things to note.

    Clinton did sign the Kyoto. The Senate voted a resolution 95-0 to not ratify it until all developing nations also signed. Clinton did not even submit Kyoto to the Senate since the resolution clearly indicated the votes were not there to pass it. The document signed by Clinton may be worth something on Antiques Road Show but that’s about the only place.

    However, if carbon taxation is passed, Obama and the Executive can implement just about all of whatever comes out of Copenhagen. Most are not aware of the power ceded by Congress to the various departments and agencies. Consider CO2 is a pollutant and about to be regulated by the EPA. The Treasury was granted vast control over close to a trillion or so dollars. The Czars Of Obama The First are running things in their areas as extra-Constitutional officers. Some of the things the Obama administration does through these mechanisms will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. With the enormous number of pages some bills have, it would be very easy to slip in obtuse wording in even unrelated bills that would implement most of Copenhagen. Never forget these folks have been working on this for a long, long time and they’re expert at creating “unintended consequences” intentionally.

    The political reality is all about how to save as many Democrats in 2010 as possible. Take, for instance, the carbon tax bill (presuming nationalized health care passes). With Lindsey Graham jumping into the Democrat caucus with a strong “Yes on the carbon tax”, it will pass. Regardless of all the posturing and punditry about moderate Democrats the bottom line is all Senate Democrats will always vote for cloture. Period. Then of unpopular issues, like national health care, expect about nine of them to vote against the final bill. This technique allows them to claim they opposed the bill and voted against it in their next campaign. They’ll explain, if anyone ever asks them, their vote for cloture was to allow “an up or down vote, in all fairness on such an important issue”. My guess is national health care, the carbon tax, amnesty and the tax bill will pass the Senate 52-48 (presuming Byrd is rolled in) but after cloture votes of 61-39.

    Any never forget the power of payoff. Any Congressional Democrat they absolutely need to get something passed they’ll simply pay off in one way or another (think
    Wexler). Think Snowe and Specter on the stim bill. This opportunity, for them, will likely never occur in their lifetimes. How much is a Democrat Congress worth these days anyway?

    One could even predict they’ll be another three or four or more on the GOP side that will jump on board the carbon tax bill. If you through in the usual RHINOs (Snowe) they’re awfully close to the 67 votes needed to pass Copenhagen.

    It looks like freedom is dimming along with the Sun.

  28. Please look at Tips and Notes 3 29 04 when I posted the first page of an article I have written concerning the British Govt Manipulation of the AGW hypothesis. (this ties into the UK ad thread ran here)

    Short extract-more on tips and notes and much more available;

    ““Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …see the Tyndall Centre’s study on “domestic tradable quotas”… and their recent establishment on the political agenda…the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”

    (Environmental Audit Committee minutes-House Of Commons-London)

    Preface. This is a factual account of the highly politicised concept of ‘catastrophic man made climate change’. The views quoted above are supported in principle by the UK govt but said to be ahead of their time. However, the means to achieve them are now being quietly introduced into main stream thinking, through the systematic use of a political agenda that uses the alarming notion of man made climate change as the means to force through a measure of social engineering unequalled in the UK in modern times….

    Tonyb

  29. So what you in the US may be about to experience is what we in the UK have suffered from for years – eroding power. For years we have given the EU more and more power over our government. Now the EU sets laws which we have to adhere to, not the UK government, the EU. Indeed there is often conflict, and we CANNOT bring in a new law on something because it contravenes an EU law – and the EU laws have presidence. Bit by bit we sign up to more and more. Recently, a new treaty gives more powers to the EU. It’s only a matter of time before the EU even controls the UK’s defence.

    All this is why many like me want out of the EU as soon as possible. Without the UK it will collapse. So be it. It should have stayed a group of trading nations, which was the original intent. If the US moves ANY distance toward a world government then you should take to the streets, because it will come drip by drip, so the people don’t even notice. That’s what has happened in the UK.

    A friend of mine goes through life not signing anything. He says that when you start that it will never end, and no one can do anything to you if you haven’t signed. Not true, perhaps, but I’m beginning to think he has a good idea. Don’t sign up to ANYTHING.

  30. Bulldust

    Agree with your observation. ABC s Catalyst programme had one of Senator P Wongs advisors on last night. Professor Steffen, Exec Dir of the Climate Change Institute at ANU. He told the faithful that the seas were rising, the ice was melting and we were heading for a catastrophe if we didn’t stop AGW now. How; he didn’t say and nobody bothered to ask him. They didn’t ask about proof for his claims either. It’s all settled down here.

    Might I suggest we forget educating the masses. Most aren’t interested and many can’t read. We should concentrate on telling them how much an ETS is going to cost them. How much Green energy really costs and the need to go nuclear if an ETS is introduced. They should also know that geosequestration is just another pipe dream for the CSIRO. It ain’t going to work. So far KRudd hasn’t said much about the cost of his ETS because some estimates put it at $1000 per head per year. That will get their attention.

  31. I will repeat myself:

    “Only the Chamberlains of today can believe that you can fight fascism with words on a piece of blog.”

    Winnie, where are you?

  32. I think the comparison with Al Gore is a valid one. This is scaremongering in the style of Gore, and in the style of those who like to scare the UK about European Union membership.

    When the key point of AGW sceptics is that belief and actions should be based on sound evidence and common sense rather than emotion or faith, this approach is not helpful.

  33. So if he signs it, who’s going to challenge it?
    When was the last time the States voted 3/4 to overturn anything?

  34. Walter Scott Hudson (00:35:34) :

    Hi, Blondie. I’m the guy who posted the above at Fightin Words, my blog. Your comment shares the tone of a couple others I received. My thought, as I shared elsewhere, is this:

    There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Absolutely Walter….. eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…..

  35. I can think of 63 votes without a problem 60 democrats/independents 2 senators drom maine and Mccain lets see then there is a guy froom the carolinas also a Repub can’t think of his name thats 64 only need 3 more

    Medic 1532 off the air

  36. AGW Leviathan rolls on.
    …-

    “Lawyers Call for Changes in International Law to Help ‘Climate Exiles’ (More muslims in our future?)

    (CNSNews.com) – International law dealing with refugees should be amended to cover people affected by disasters attributed to climate change, environmental lawyers are arguing.

    With the United Nations and others predicting upward of 200 million people being displaced by 2050 as a result of environmental changes, the London-based Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) says they will need help dealing with “statelessness and compensation.”

    “International refugee law focuses on those who are persecuted for political, racial or religious reasons,” the organization’s director, Joy Hyvarinen, said in a statement Thursday. “It was not designed for those who are left homeless by environmental pressures.”

    As advocacy groups focus on people – mostly inhabitants of low-lying islands or coastal areas – affected by the environment, terms like “climate refugees,” “climate exiles” and “environmental refugees” have become more commonly used in recent years.

    Climatic events have long had an impact on vulnerable areas – records of summer monsoons displacing millions of people in South Asia go back centuries – but as concerns about “global warming” have grown, activists warn about rising sea levels, drought and other events they attribute to climate change.

    A new U.N. report published last month said that during 2008, more than 20 million people, mostly in Asia, were displaced by sudden-onset disasters which it attributed to climate – these including meteorological (storms), hydrological (flooding) and climatological (extreme temperature, drought, wildfire) events.

    “An increase in the number of people temporarily displaced will be an inevitable consequence of more frequent and intense extreme weather events affecting more people globally,” it said. ”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2363764/posts

  37. After reading The Great American Bubble Machine article in Rolling Stone, I’m starting to think this is more about creaming cash from private citizens/industry than it is about `Global Warming’. Actually I kind-of thought that before, but after reading the whole article, I’m ready to sign up to a direct action group, not that there are any, yet.

  38. I see no insurmountable problem. If any President, even with 2/3’s of the Senate ratifying, thinks he can sell America into slavery, then let the world learn that we will treat such treaties as toilet paper.

    Yeah, the rule of law and all that. And just how many laws are there? Ruthless people seek to bind us with our own honor and we SHOULD be bound. However, though I might be able as an adult to sell MYSELF into slavery, I don’t recognize the power of the US government to do so for me.

    Wow! A lot is riding on this climate issue.

    I do say again, Chris in Norfolk, bring on the cold! (But only as much as it takes!)

  39. You should give Lord Monkton the Congressional Gold Medal that Tony Blair never collected! It is a pity that Lord Monkton is virtually ignored by the Brit media.

    Mike O, Hants

  40. It will be interesting to see the amount of pressure Obama will put on the Senate to ratify the treaty. He already is spending political capital on what many see as an unnecessary government take over of the health system – plus, he is pushing hard for cap and trade. I doubt that he would get 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. Of course, I never dreamt that a person with so few personal accomplishments would win the Nobel Peace Prize. The only thing more shocking would be the American people electing as president a hard leftist, with no personal accomplishments in the real world, except for writing two books about himself. I guess we live in interesting times.
    As to relying on the judiciary – as an attorney with 28 years of experience appearing before the courts – well, let’s just hope that 2/3 of the Senate will not vote to ratify.

  41. Oh, Chris, there is a Biblical precedent too:

    Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. James 5:17

  42. “”(e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. “”

    And all of this will somehow result in reduced GLOBAL emissions?
    Simply by transfering assets from one country to another is a CURE?

  43. Monckton is well aware of your constitution.

    From the text…

    But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind.

    DaveE.

  44. cedarhill (04:01:23) : I agree. I fear the regulatory system and cap and trade much more than I do the Copenhagen treaty. I do not believe that 2/3 of the Senate will ratify. I do believe that most of what is desired by way of the treaty will be accomplished through cap and trade and the regulatory process, where the devil is in the details and nobody reads the law except those that write it.

  45. If this happens, then the precedent for global taxation will have been set, and more global taxes will follow. And taxes fuel the growth of any government entity. Hello New World Order.

  46. If Monckton is right that the treaty is about ceding sovereignty to a world government, then the Chinese will not sign it, never mind Obama. Not only that, I doubt the EU would sign. Why would they cede to someone else the very powers they’ve spent years scheming to win for themselves?

    We in the UK have already ceded most sovereignty to the EU which is imposed by a series of edicts issued from Brussels, called EU directives. These directives have to be passed into national law by an act of parliament which is a cunning method of disguising their origin from skeptical voters. Not many realise how many acts of parliament are actually edicts issued from unelected bureaucrats.

  47. (E M Smith, one again, you have nailed the situation.)

    As far as politics on WUWT, it’s an important piece, here, because weather GW is happening or not, weather AGW is real or not, and weather you believe either of these things or not, AGW is being used as a political and financial force; more importantly create an even greater partisan wedge. For all Obamas rhetoric on creating a bi-partisan atmosphere, the reality is just the opposite.

    This current political path is giving greater power and legitimacy to the less stable regimes around the world. Indeed, and I’m afraid to say it, but I suspect that we are at another juncture where a foreign nation will once again invade a sovereign nation, because the US has tied itself economically to a stake in the ground with a short chain. Like it or not, the greatest military might cannot act when it has subjected itself to it’s own attrition.

    Simply, the [Anthropogenic Global Warming] facts are irrelevant when politics is playing the game.

  48. One type-o in here….anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

    Although….given the almost mythological tone of the Warmers….perhaps anthropomorphic is an accurate term.

    Regardless…thank you for this post. Lord Monkton has alot of ***** continuously standing up against what will go down in one of the biggest scientific errors in human history (and the agenda behind it).

    It is now up to us to sound the alarm.

    Printing out a copy of this 200 page treaty and reading over the weekend…

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  49. “conspiracy” is such an emotional term. Why not “concerted plan” instead?

    If politicians really were interested in the public good and not their own political power, they would be investigating skeptical science, hoping that the scientific “consensus” is wrong, and celebrating the possibility that this whole AGW thing has been a false alarm.

    Instead, they are acting in exactly the opposite manner.

  50. gtrip (00:41:36) :

    Is it me or is Lord Monckton becoming the Al Gore of our side? Our president can’t sign any treaty that will mean anything to our country without our Senates approval.
    —-

    With the current Senate political configuration, you don’t think the Dems could pass such a treaty, thanks to squishy RINOs like Graham, Snowe, Collins, McCain, and the rest? We now have a political aristocracy who no longer take marching orders from we the people, but who rule us by diktat, for our own good, of course, as they know better.

    If they can pass a 1,300 page stimulous bill without reading the damn thing, why would they not pass a treaty that Obama wants? To think otherwise is to think we actually have a Constitutional Republic at the moment rather than our current Banana Republic.
    —-

    gtrip (01:01:49) :

    I don’t know where you are from, but the things you speak of are strictly specified in our constitution. I know that our current president is circumstancing some executive limitations by allowing appointed agencies to create dictates (laws), but they are going to have to pass judicial review if challenged.
    —-

    Treaties are not reviewed by the Judiciary.
    —-

    ralph (01:01:30) :

    Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…
    —-

    No wonder required. It’s all of a piece. Obama is the most unqualified President in our Nation’s history, and that’s saying something, yet he was given the D’Oh-bel Peas Prize for his ‘good intentions’. He didn’t campaign for President of the United States, he campaigned for President of the World, what with a campaign stop in Berlin and the Palestineans running phone banks to raise money for his campaign. Also see his sitting in on the UN Security Council, the first President to do such a thing.

  51. Back2back, you’ve got a good point.

    The history of American Treaties is a history of signing them and then walking away from them as soon as they don’t suit us anymore. Throughout the 19th century, the only treaties we ever stuck with were those with countries we thought might be stronger than us. We did it before, we’ll do it again.

    Any law is only as powerful as the police (or army) willing to enforce it. So, with regard to the EU – you and what army are gonna enforce that piece of paper?

  52. I find any comparison of Monckton to Gore to be highly offensive and outrageous. Even if Monckton has overstated the danger somewhat, at least as far as the U.S. constitution is concerned, the danger of loss of freedom is a very real one with enormous consequences to humanity. Al Gore isn’t just peddling his Alarmist fear- mongering garbage; he is selling an ideology based on lies, which is the basis for fascism.

  53. This should be no surprise. Our president is an internationalist. He believes the concept of national sovereignty is obsolete. needs of the international community come first.

    Consensus, and going along to get along — at almost any price — are central to this belief. It doesn’t work so well when working with other nations that do not share those beliefs.

  54. The Prime Minister of Australia can be trusted to sign anything the UN shoves in front of him. He’s a toady.

  55. I’m an AGW skeptic, but I hesitate to use the Lord Mockton for reference as the AGW should refrain from using Al Bore. These people do the case more harm than good. I put Monckton in the same class as Monbiot, politcal activist. I rather refer to scientist like McIntyre, Pielke or Spencer. The less attention to Monckton the better for our case.

  56. Every day take the time to explain to someone that you know or do not know that AGW does not exist. Educate explain that the ice caps are growing and the temperatures are falling. Explain the solar minimum. Facts help, spread facts. CO2 is not a pollutant. Lisa Jackson, Pelosi, Waxman and Obama are wrong. They are trying to do very bad things to the U.S. and the world.

  57. Famous last words, like one of your Civil War officers, I forget which, who said something along the lines of “Don’t be ridiculous, they couldn’t possibly hit us from that dist………”!

    General John Sedgewick.

    Obama can sign the treaty, but Congress must ratify it before it becomes binding — and the mob we have in office at present can’t even decide what the “health care reform” bill actually says.

  58. I read this blog looking for something to balance the global warming debate for me. From the questions you put as relevant I have to ask, are you a birther? If so it gives me great pause at taking this site seriously.

    REPLY: No and this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

  59. For all of you to know: This is not by any means surprising. My country is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. Everything is OK except they want to oblige us to cede sovereignty in environmental and human rights issues.

  60. BlondieBC

    ” … it is a failure of the american people, not our system or our leaders. ”

    Blondie hits it on the nail … again. This treaty will be signed, it will pass the senate, it will be enforced … not because of Obama, or the Senate, or Pelosi …

    It will because the Amerian Public as stooped to such levels of gullibility and stupidity, that they will support such. The American Public has lost its sense of individual responsiblity and accoutability, and as such, has adopted the entitlement mind set and “collectivists” mentality that gives rise to Communistic types of regimes.

    We’re toast folks.

  61. The first step to utopia.
    This NoKo clip is Obama’s vision of America:
    HEROIC WORKERS’ FACTORY:

  62. There are many comments in this thread criticising Anthony for posting this, on the basis that Lord Monckton is exagerrating his claim in the same way the AGW crowd does. While I agree that Lord Monckton has gone over the top (and I personally do not agree with his approach), I applaud Anthony for posting this.

    Remember, this is a re-posting from another site and is a perfectly valid subject for WUWT – much of what is posted here does not represent the opinion of the “publisher” I am sure and it is to Anthony’s credit that not only are a range of articles posted, but the restriction of comments is based only on decorum, not opinion.

    To those who say this is a science blog only, unfortunately, you can’t keep politics out of the climate debate and there have always been political issues raised here.

    The proof of this is the spirited discussion of the veracity of Lord Monckton’s comments on the US constitution here – pointing out the limitations of Presidential authority and whether these really are effective. If nothing else, many people here (such as myself) will have learned something about the US government – surely a justification of the posting in itself.

  63. Regardless of what you think the guarantees of your Constitution are, these agreements are going on behind closed doors. The public face is the Copenhagen Treaty as with all the others, including Kyoto, but the power brokers and financiers already have it sewn up.

    It would be difficult to argue otherwise that one of the most influential documents in the global warming agenda is the Stern Review. Stern is a former World Bank Chief Economist and became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.

    It came out conveniently at the time of the US mid-term elections and was designed to embarass Bush. In May last year, Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.aspx

    There is a link to the document, called Key Elements of a Global Deal. Read it, as a matter of urgency. It is the basis for the things that Monckton describes.

    Stern mentions some of the contributors to his plan: It has several contributors, with participants from HSBC, IdeaCarbon, Judge Business School at Cambridge University, Lehman Brothers and McKinsey and Company and has been inspired by a number of discussions with international policymakers, financiers and academics.

    For an interesting aricle on the Lehman Brothers and Global Warming, check here: Did global warming send Lehman Brothers broke?

    http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1438/did-global-warming-send-lehman-brothers-broke

    “There’s much debate about the causes of the global economic crisis. According to the popular media some of the chief suspects include ‘greed’, ‘obscene executive salaries’, and ‘predatory lenders’. But maybe the origins of the crisis lie somewhere else entirely. Maybe a long lunch with Nicholas Stern is to blame.

    For Lehman Brothers, global warming was a means of making money. The firm promoted trading in ‘carbon credits’ via an emissions trading scheme. In the wake of his firm’s bankruptcy Fuld was summoned to the Congress and asked to explain how it was that he appeared to have collected paychecks of US $480 million over the last decade. What Fuld could have been asked, but wasn’t, was how much extra he would have made if the United States Government had followed Lehman Brothers’s urgings and established an emissions trading scheme.

    And the connection to Nicholas Stern and the long lunch? He’s acknowledged in the report as ‘through the course of a long lunch’ having provided a ‘brilliant overview of the principal climate change issues as he had come to see them.'”

    There is mention of a company called IdeaCarbon. They have a web site, http://www.ideacarbon.com/strategic/index.html.

    They are marketing a carbon trading consultancy called CARBONfirst described here:

    IDEAcarbon’s premier strategic advice service has been created to give senior decision makers TAILORED INTELLIGENCE, (my emph) about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.

    Here is a list of consultants:
    The CARBONfirst network includes:

    Lord Stern, Advisor, IDEAGlobal and author of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change

    Ian Johnson, Chairman of IDEAcarbon, a special advisor to the UNFCCC (parent body of IPCC)

    Christiana Figueres, leading UN climate negotiator and member of the IDEAcarbon Ratings Committee

    Nitin Desai, Advisor IDEAcarbon, former Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations

    Paul Ezikiel, Advisor IDEAcarbon and recently MD At Credit Suisse where he ran the Global Carbon Trading business.

    MD of IdeaCarbon for 2007/8 was Dr Samuel Fankhauser. He is a Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. Lord Stern is Head of the LSE Grantham Centre.

    Fankhauser is also the Chief Economist at an outfit called Globe International. I bet you never heard of them before:

    http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=1:0:0:0:0

    “GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues, which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.

    Internationally, GLOBE is focussed on progressive leadership from G8 leaders and the leaders of the major emerging economies as well as formal negotiations within the United Nations. GLOBE has a particular interest in the role that International Financial Institutions can play.

    GLOBE shadows the formal G8 negotiations and allows legislators to work together outside the formal international negotiations. Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved.

    Importantly, GLOBE’s discussions can be translated into policies and practical solutions through legislation both at the national, regional and international level. Legislators also have a critical role to play in holding their own governments to account for the commitments that are made during international negotiations.”

    Fankhauser has worked on climate change issues at the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank and served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Bet you never heard of the Global Environment Facility either did you?

    http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=50

    The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a global partnership among 178 countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives.

    The GEF is also the designated financial mechanism for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) or conventions; as such the GEF assists countries in meeting their obligations under the conventions that they have signed and ratified.

    Dr Fankhauser is also a member of the UK Climate Change Committee, which is empowered to tell the government what carbon reduction targets they should strive for. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2927.asp

    The Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee is Lord Adair Turner and he introduced Lord Stern’s proposals at the LSE, also attended by Rajendra Pachauri, (IPCC Chair), Robert Zoellick, (World Bank President) and Tony Blair, a major promoter of carbon control. Turner, who spent 13 years at McKinsey, is also Chairman of the UK Financial Services Agency, in charge of regulating the Banks.

    In 2006 he joined forces with Al Gore:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2947509/CO2-study-to-be-launched-today.html
    CO2 study to be launched today By Tom Stevenson (Filed: 18/09/2006)

    The increasing importance of climate change to investors will come
    under the spotlight today when Lord Adair Turner and former
    vice-president Al Gore launch the most comprehensive analysis yet of
    the contribution to global warming of the world’s biggest companies.

    The Carbon Disclosure Project, which is backed by 225 institutional
    investors speaking for $31,000bn in funds under management, is the
    fourth of its kind since 2002 and provides the clearest picture so
    far of the annual CO2 emissions of companies such as Ford, Google,
    Exxon Mobil and BP, and their strategies for reducing emissions.

    On January 29th this year, Gore addressed the Senate;

    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/political-exasperations/3231-gore-lectures-senate-on-global-warming-again

    That evening Lord Turner attended a cocktail party hosted by Gore.
    In February he had breakfast with George Soros. Soros has just announced he he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and create an organization to advise policy makers on environmental issues, according to a Bloomberg report. http://www.mysmartrend.com/nw/14586.

    “Soros announced the investment at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate in Copenhagen yesterday. In an e-mailed message George Soros said, “I want to apply rather stringent criteria to the investments. They should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem.”

    He did not provide any details on the type or scope of investments that he may make and he will also establish the Climate Policy Initiative, which will be based in San Francisco, where he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years. ”

    Oh, did I mention that the London School of Economics is a partner in the Global Governance grouping at http://www.glogov.org, along with Potsdam, Tyndall etc.

    The Grantham Institute which Lord Stern heads was set up in Feb 2007 by US billionaire Jeremy Grantham: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/report-79626.html

    Mr. Grantham will sit on the management board of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, along with Imperial’s Rector Sir Richard Sykes who will chair the Board; Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund; and Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense.

    At the same time, Grantham set up a sister institute at Imperial College, London. A common advisory board will oversee the work of both Institutes.

    The Grantham’s total investment of over £24 million, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research.

    Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London

    “Committed to ensuring that climate research is used to advise governments and influence policy, Sir Brian was a member of the Royal Commission that first proposed a 60% target for reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. He also acted as a scientific advisor to the Stern Review, credited with pushing the issue of climate change to the centre of the political agenda in the UK, and was a member of the IPCC assessment team recently awarded the Nobel Prize.”

    Most of the members of the UK Climate Change Committee are based at or associated with Imperial College and LSE and many of them with the World Bank and IPCC. Their powers of control over UK emissions targets will soon be enshrined in law.

    So UK Climate Policy is now directly influenced by WWF International and Environmental Defense and cross-linked to IPCC. This is only the tip of the iceberg if I may use the phrase.

    You should take Lord Monckton very seriously indeed.

  64. Welcome USA to the wonderful world of the EU

    where yes means yes, and no means yes as well

    Ian (UKIP)

  65. Hmmmm-he didn’t say anything about the black helicopters or alien abductions. Doesn’t lend credence to the skeptic position.

  66. I cannot believe that you would reprint this garbage – even as a quote.

    [ SNIP, sorry, this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]

    If you wish to tailspin into the “Birther” movement that is, certainly, your prerogative, but you will lose all legitimacy in the larger political and scientific community. One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people. If such sentiment is represented here – then there really is no possibility of discourse.

  67. Prais Kim Obama Il, errr I mean King Jong Il.
    Sing it!

    Obama aint ceding nothing.
    But we’re ceding everything.

  68. “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Don’t Tread on Me!

  69. I don’t have confidence in the US Government-I’m part Cherokee.However this is not going to go down with out one heck of fight. Here in the US we have a curious breed of Democratic Pol called a “Blue Dog.”They are fiscally conservative and usually represent conservative areas.Nominally the South and Mid West,they are, for the most part squeamish when it comes to a lot of this stuff as they are worried about their seats.
    The Cap and Tax bill isn’t even on the table,in the senate-yet and may not make it before Copenhagen.Even in the Blue side of Oregon Pete DeFazio isn’t drinking that kool-aid.He’s a Warmist but somewhat luke warm, he sees this as the next big bubble to burst.Our Senatoral contingent is hopeless,but they too are looking at the polls. and polling is that people are really,really mad.latch on to your Congresscritter and Senator.You might not think you can do any good- but sometimes a Jack Russell can get the best of the Rottweiler it takes a grip on the right spot…

  70. Scientific Technological Elite

    ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal
    employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
    present and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
    should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
    public policy could itself become the captive of a
    scientifictechnological elite.’ -Dwight D. Eisenhower

    scientifictechnological elite

    The light of freedom fades and dims,
    Our rights grow cold.
    Barbarians plot their morbid whims,
    The huns take hold.
    Their cup with vile transgression brims,
    Our suffrage sold.

    Science saneness slumps and dims
    We suffer now.
    Sorcerous science soars and swims,
    As warmers bow.
    Unsacred science sings sweet hymns
    To their cash cow.

    The proud, who govern, have they won?
    Is science now their hired gun?
    Will they sink our kids in debt
    As climate scams their lies abet?

    Markey Waxman spun their web
    The truths revealed they caused to ebb.
    They lied about the heavy cost
    Of opportunities now lost.

    To fight the dread greenhouse effect
    The taxman will the fees collect.
    The sucking singularity
    Will inhale our liberty.

    The trillions that will now be spent
    Can never make a tiny dent
    In climate, whether cold or hot.
    But votes it will secure a lot.

    The votes are there to spread the wealth
    And then to snare the country’s health.
    Shall we join the clean third world
    With our socialistic flag unfurled?

    Will the people benefit?
    Who will science then permit
    To go into earth’s paradise?
    What will be the entry price?
    If you’re alive will that suffice

    Or must you die to qualify?

    The Senate now our only way
    To stop this underhanded play.
    And if we fail to stop it there
    It then becomes a state affair.

    If congress, senate and the state
    Let stand this document of hate.
    What sanctuary might we find
    Where freedom’s values are enshrined?

    And if this madness fills the globe
    Shall we live the lows of Job?
    And with persistence, sans dispair,
    Can we, in time, this earth repair?

    The time is short, to right this wrong
    Don’t let them make us ‘move along’.
    With guile and strength we all must mend
    This tattered, filthy wretched end
    So that our offspring may ascend.

  71. oakwood (04:20:28) :

    “This is scaremongering in the style of Gore, and in the style of those who like to scare the UK about European Union membership. When the key point of AGW sceptics is that belief and actions should be based on sound evidence and common sense rather than emotion or faith, this approach is not helpful.”

    Sorry to have to disagree with you old chap on your EU comment, but I for one, & I am not alone by a long way, don’t want to be forced into part of anything that is unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, run by a bunch of provincial state appointed Commissioners (unelected) who are little more than failed socialist politicans for the most part, who “decide” what laws are good for us & what are not, without due process or referral to the people, because that is precisely what it is. It buys its way through by placing large somes of money on the table until it gets what it wants. 1,000 years of history written off in less than a generation. The lives that have been scarificed making & keeping Britain Great were for nothing, & the number of times the “thin red line” has either stood alone, or rallied those wavering allies, against some little jumped up European corporal (admittedly the Kaiser was of noble blood) who wanted to conquer the world. No I’m afraid to say that our political classes have sold the people out for their own 30 pieces of silver. Britain will be forced against its will, without democratic process, fully into the EU, as part of the left’s new homogenised sterile federal USE, that is the (dis)United States of Europe, presumably as a counter to the might of the USA (fat chance, none of us speak the same language, we all have our own peculiarities & customs, & see things differently, which is great, vive la difference). So stick to global warming. Monkton is absolutely right, & why shouldn’t he fight fire with fire, just as that overweight, pompous, silver tongued, slick talking, arrogant, multi-vehicled, multi-homed, multi-millionaire, Albert Gore. At least Monkton gets the science accurate & makes sense.

    Apologies for the ad homs on dear Mr Gore, he is such an honest & genuine sweetypie, & butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth!

    Oh & Richard III (05:26:13), that delightful gem extract you posted explains everything nicely, impoverish the “west”, enrich the “east”! That’s all this is about, yar-boo sucks politics of the marxist socialists.

  72. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    So true that quote.
    Good or bad intentions=same result the majority of the time.
    America has always stood up for itself.Other countries could not dictate what Americans could or could not do,that has changed,now developed countries are dictated to by a handful of people.
    Want me to cut emissions by making my people suffer the equivalent of a recession?I can do that,where do I sign?While suffering the recession,you want me to pledge billions to governments who keep their people in poverty?I can do that,it’s our fault that these people are suffering,all the aid over the years has not been enough,we should have given more,I will offer penance for my people,please accept,and tell me what more I can do.I am always eager and willing to hear your wisdom.

    Strange times we live in.Who would have predicted after the war that one day The President of The United States of America would offer his bended knee to a group of people in Europe,or anywhere else in the world.

  73. Mike86 (06:37:28) :
    No, and they need that 2/3rd in the Senate for a treaty. The heathcare bill is not a treaty.Also all this will do is kick it to congress.We aren’t done in by a long shot…

  74. John Egan (06:26:39) :
    I cannot believe that you would reprint this garbage – even as a quote. …
    If you wish to tailspin into the “Birther” movement that is, certainly, your prerogative, but you will lose all legitimacy in the larger political and scientific community.

    Why? Shouldn’t all sides of a debate be presented, then allowed to be judged on merit?

    One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people. If such sentiment is represented here – then there really is no possibility of discourse.

    That, coming from the side that screamed that George Bush was “Selected, not elected” for eight years is hilarious.

    REPLY: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

  75. I’m sure President Obama is doing what he believes is right. That doesn’t make it right — he is merely acting upon his sincere beliefs and doing what he feels is right for this country.

    Let’s not forget that some evil things have been done by people doing what they believe is right. I won’t make comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Che Guevara except to say that those people and their henchman also believed they were doing the right thing. The Nuremberg Trials convicted and hanged many people for doing what they believed was the right thing.

    My point is
    — Don’t subscribe evil motivations to somebody just because you disagree with them.

    Collerary point
    — Just because somebody is sincere in their beliefs doesn’t make them right, or their actions moral, either.

  76. You ought to be aware that, under Article 11 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), should any of the 13 former North American colonies wish to relinquish their sovereignty, it passes to the legitimate heirs and successors of His Majesty King George III.

  77. Nothing in that treaty even comes close to creating a “new world governement”.

    Part 38 describes the government [read: governing body] of the “institutional arrangements” created to facilitate Convention related activities.

    Furthermore the verbiage of section 38 is “will” as opposed to the “shalls” seen elsewhere.

    Will is used to show intent, it is a non-binding statement.

  78. This is where the US is right now, and I hope it clarifies what is happening and what is at stake for all of us:

    The Obama administration is hoping to win new commitments to “fight global warming” from China and India in back-to-back summits in November, including the first Indian emissions trading scheme.

    The US hopes the new commitments will revive negotiations to seal a global treaty on climate change in Copenhagen in December, by setting out what action each country will take. But such bilateral deals also risk seriously weakening any Copenhagen agreement by allowing the idea of a global limit on greenhouse gas emissions to be abandoned.

    The US’s twin diplomatic push will see Barack Obama meeting China’s president Hu Jintao in Beijing on November 16-17 before playing host to India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on November 24. The visits appear timed to provide a much-needed boost to a proposed law to reduce US emissions now before the Senate, as well as to the Copenhagen talks.

    The US wants to move away from a legally binding global agreement to one where individual countries pledge cuts in their national emissions. US officials are hopeful that breakthroughs with India and China could still provide the underpinnings for at least a limited deal at Copenhagen. “China and India are both critically important to achieving our international goals on carbon reduction. We need them as part the system,” said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who serves on the foreign and environment and public works committees.

    Indian officials are looking to their prime minister’s visit to Washington to replicate an energy agreement signed between the US and China in July. India is preparing to unveil new measures to reduce its surging growth of so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions: its own version of a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, in which polluters can buy and sell emissions permits, and a new solar project. They will introduce a domestic cap-and-trade programme, but the cap will be on energy intensity, not carbon. This would limit how much carbon can be emitted for each unit of energy produced, which will slow the rise of emissions rather than cutting them back, and allow the Indian economy to continue to grow and alleviate poverty.

    Obama’s visit to Beijing amy produce concrete commitments from China on how it would reduce its large and rapidly rising emissions. China has now overtaken America as the world’s largest single polluter, producing 23% of global “greenhouse gas” emissions. India is producing an increasing share of the world’s emissions, but it is responsible for just 5%. President Hu announced at a UN summit last month that China would reduce energy intensity by “notable margins”. “If the US and China can come to some sort of view on this then I think it will unlock a lot of things,” said Björn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. “If that is not the case than i think we will not see a very comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.” The council represents 200 global companies with a combined value of $7 trillion, including household names such as Shell, Toyota, DuPont, adidas and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

    Nonetheless, as well as unlocking the Copenhagen negotiations, new moves from India and China would help Obama at home, where his Democratic allies in the Senate face a tough struggle trying to pass a climate change bill to cut US emissions.

    Democratic leaders in the US Senate will begin an intense push on October 27 to craft a final bill. But that leaves barely three full working weeks before Copenhagen to try to put that bill to a vote.

    The White House – which has been focused on trying to get a healthcare bill through Congress – persuaded Democrats to hold off on opening up debate in the Senate on climate change. The first draft – an 821-page work that calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 – has been on hold for two weeks. Now the date for a showdown has been fixed for 27 October. With Republicans predicting disastrous economic consequences from carbon taxes, and rustbelt Democrats fearing job losses in dirty industries, most commentators say there is only a slim chance of producing legislation before Copenhagen.

    Big US Companies Want Their Share of the Global Warming Bonanza.

    US business leaders say a deal between the US and China on climate change could make or break the negotiations at Copenhagen. The last round of negotiations in Thailand exposed the divide between the industrialised and developing worlds over responsibility for “causing global warming” and “compensation” for the poor countries, which will be hit the hardest.

    “If the US and China can come to some sort of view on this, then I think it will unlock a lot of things,” said Björn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. “If that is not the case than I think we will not see a very comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.”

    What is this strange new body “The World Business Council for Sustainable Development” which most people have never heard of before?

    The council represents some 200 global companies with a combined value of $7 trillion, including household names such as Shell, Toyota, DuPont, and Adidas. Other executives said the US and China could come to a larger accord through joint ventures in technology development – especially carbon capture and storage. “I have come to believe that there needs to be a ladder of co-operation between US corporations and Chinese corporations, US cities and Chinese cities,” said Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy.

  79. Its all about politics. This isn´t an environmental problem but a political problem.

    Please read:

    Rote Lügen im grünen Gewand. Der kommunistische Hintergrund der Öko-Bewegung by Torsten Mann.

    “Mann is convinced that the real aim of this charter is promoting world communism under the new “global sustainable community” label. He outlines a series of quotations from Gorbachev’s books and speeches that could prove he is right. In 1987, Gorbachev wrote in a book published in several languages: “In October 1917 we have definitely broken with the old world. We are approaching a new world, the communist world. We will never leave this road.” Worldwide ecological menaces, Gorbachev said in 1988, show that all nations are interdependent and that the world needs an incontestable authority and an international ecological court of justice. “We need a planetary ecological revolution of our minds”, Gorbachev said in 2007. This is also the program of the German Greens. Their aim is an “ecological revolution” that puts an end to the era of cheap energy and wealth growth. The program of the German Greens reproduces the plan of Henry Morgenthau drafted by Soviet secret agent Harry Dexter White in 1944 in order to destroy the German economy, Mann says. He refers to books from Green leaders Joschka Fischer and Jürgen Trittin who claim “sufficiency” and “global equity”, i.e. high prices for fuel and other commodities as well as “sustainable mobility” by car sharing and heavy road pricing must become the guiding principles of the economy. These propositions were integrated already in 1997 in Angela Merkel’s government program.”

    In http://www.gaertner-online.de/Communist%20Greens/index.html

    We can´t be naif. Its all about politics. Google the word ecosocialism, greensocialism and so on and you will understand much about this historical error.

    anti-comuna

  80. Karl’s got it right: “government” has to be read in context. You can’t just read a treaty which establishes an “institutional arrangement” and describes its executive as its “government” and start screaming “OMFG, One World Government! It’s the AntiChrist!” Well, you can, but you look pretty silly.

    Gen. Cornwallis: Last time I checked, the Treaty of Paris had ten articles. It’s quite short, you can read it for yourself.

    http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml

  81. I may be a total idiot… but the constitution, if you read it,

    Article 6

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    All such treaties must be made under the authority of the united states, and it does not affect the U.S. constitution, solely the states constitutions are overriden. Further, if it is not within the express, delegated powers granted to the government by that constitution (and alienation of those powers was not granted) it is null and void as though it was never passed.

    The government cannot make treaties affecting powers it does not possess, nor can it make treaties that cede its powers (granted and possessed by the people) to persons not under the control of those people.

  82. Oh, and Art. 1, which is the only remaining article, provides that the British Crown has ceded all claim of every sort over the rebellious colonies. So far from Paris giving us any sort of claim over the original thirteen colonies, it establishes unequivocally and irrevocably their independence from the United Kingdom.

  83. The ambitions of these elites is no less than the complete dis-enfranchisement of the commons.

    But if the commons is only interested in baseball and footie, beer and bingo, they may well succeed.

  84. Vincent (05:40:11) :

    I doubt the EU would sign. Why would they cede to someone else the very powers they’ve spent years scheming to win for themselves?

    You could not possibly be more wrong. The EU and UN are just different heads on the same monster. They’re both working together with the goal of global governance. The UN is the tool of the European socialists and has been almost from the outset.

  85. I work in an IT environment. I see daily the attacks from the internet (spam, viruses, etc) trying to invade our system and compromise our businesses. We continually have to maintain our guard and update our defenses to keep us safe.

    This is just like the current (local, state, country, world) political environment. A minority of people trying to compromise our liberty by continually attacking our system trying to weaken our liberties, restrict our freedoms and take from us what we earn all under the guise that they know what is best of us and are trying to save us. These are age old scams that was represented by snake oil salesmen, sin eaters and rain makers of past generations.

    Once you become aware of these relationships you can see it in everything that goes on.

    Our allegedly free, unbiased, news outlets are supposed to be a defense against these freedom robbing predators. Unfortunately the news organizations have been compromised and are aligned with the charlatans. I know that they know that I know that this is true but they know that I know the they know the average citizen is stupider than a box of nails and can easily be pied pipered into total submission.

    I thought I would never live to see the day when a obvious grab for money and power would produce bad science. The last time I read about that was when a society of manipulators thought that Blond Haired Blue Eyed people were the chosen race.

    Serenity now………………..

  86. You ought to be aware that, under Article 11 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), should any of the 13 former North American colonies wish to relinquish their sovereignty, it passes to the legitimate heirs and successors of His Majesty King George III.

    That’s got to be the funniest thing I’ve read all week ;).

  87. The sovereigns in the USA are the people, they cannot be ceded by the government. It is the government that serves the people not the other way around.

    People need to brush up on their Constitutional theory and history.

    I doubt Obama gets the whole consent of the governed thing.

  88. gtrip (00:41:36) :
    Is it me or is Lord Monckton becoming the Al Gore of our side? Our president can’t sign any treaty that will mean anything to our country without our Senates approval. I think Monckton is just riding the wave of his early success and milking it for all it’s worth.

    That’s being very naive, see below.

    Daniel L. Taylor (02:26:31) :
    I find the responses here to Lord Monckton’s revelation depressing. If our side has a carefree, “can’t happen here” attitude towards this dangerous treaty, then what hope is there?

    I would like someone who believes in the invincibility of Constitutional limitations to explain to me please the existence of Social Security. Or Medicare. Or the countless other programs, taxes, and laws which stomp all over State and individual rights despite the very clear language and intent of the 10th Amendment. Explain to me please campaign finance reform in light of the 1st Amendment, or asset forfeiture laws in light of the 5th. How about the many czars who escape Congressional oversight despite the fact that these czars now hold real power and authority in our government?

    Add the following important losses of individual and state’s rights to the list above:

    In the 1886 Wabash case, the Supreme Court struck down an Illinois law outlawing long-and-short haul discrimination. Nevertheless, an important result of Wabash was that the Court clearly established the exclusive power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. (See Gibbons v. Ogden.)

    Followed by:

    Interstate Commerce Act (1887)
    In 1887 Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, making the railroads the first industry subject to Federal regulation.

    April 5, 1933 – U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declares a national emergency and issues Executive Order 6102, making it illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold.

    The government defrauded my grandparents of a large portion of “real” wealth by “Executive Order”. Combine this with E.M.Smith (02:36:04), and you may get a glimpse of the big picture.

    John Egan (06:26:39) :
    One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people.

    Do you realize how foolish that statement is? One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme left to remember that they whined, and are still unwilling to accept the legitimate electoral results of the “stolen?” Bush election in Florida.

  89. anthropomorphic climate change.

    I think you mean anthropogenic … the climate can’t change to look like a human.

  90. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”

    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

    Both those doozies are compliments of Maurice Strong.

    This whole environmental/GW pile of dogma is bread from the mind of Maurice Strong, that lovely gift from Canada to the world.

    If anybody thinks it is ludicrous this could be about wealth redistribution through regulation really needs to research Strong. And believe you me, he knows how to wreck things. Just ask Ontario Hydro.

    Canadian PM Harper has a brain and I’m sure realizes the danger of this thing and I hope like hell he won’t sign.

    Right now, the US legislature is so far left, it scares me that this may have a chance to pass. Let’s hope if Bama signs the thing, any vote is delayed and the US public votes in more balanced houses in 2010 and I will continue to remember Copenhagen for the one day/night I had a blast there touring the breweries and observing the gorgeous feminine sights and not for a huge step in removing opportunity from myself and my children. That’s the biggest threat.

  91. MartinGatkins

    “You could not possibly be more wrong. The EU and UN are just different heads on the same monster. They’re both working together with the goal of global governance. The UN is the tool of the European socialists and has been almost from the outset.”

    Good point – I missed that angle.

  92. WUWT might do worse than distance itself a little further than it has from Monckton’s intervention if it wants to continue to be considered a science-driven site.

    There is widespread unease within the UK’s Conservative Party at current leader David Cameron’s “touchy-feely” Green agenda. One wonders if Monckton’s speech is aimed less at Minnesota’s “free marketeers” and more at dissident party colleagues in an effort to weaken HQ’s pro-AGW stance. (That said, US rejection of the Copenhagen nonsense would strengthen the hand of Monckton and colleagues.)

    Whatever, WUWT is running a risk that it will be seen as a bit player in a faction scrap within the Conservative Party. It stands to become an object of ridicule as a result – whatever the motives of its supporters.

    It was, as we all know, former Monckton boss, Margaret Thatcher who set up the Hadley Centre in 1990. Many saw this as part of the hunt for a “scientific” rationale for the political goals of rehabilitating nuclear power and finally destroying UK coal-mining.

    No one at that time argued that the “eco-lobby” was largely comprised of disgruntled eastern Europe emigrés and lonely souls from the wider left. It was a fatuous idea then and it is equally fatuous now.

    To go on to that these elements are part of a “world government” conspiracy is demagogic tosh that has me reaching for H L Mencken. OTOH, Monckton’s suggestion that “there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not [Obama] was born in Hawaii” is simply shameful. It gives “Peer Review” a new meaning.

    However, the fire-and-brimstone stuff does serve as a rallying point for potential votes in an intra-party scrap – Conservative Party rank-and-file are not, on the whole, recognised for deep political thinking.

    What is worrying is that the tone of WUWT’s Minnesota report suggests a measure of approval for Monckton’s intervention. This will backfire.

    In any case, crude demagogy of Monckton’s sort has no place in what purports to be a scientifically-driven discussion.

    The politics of green ideology are, to put it mildly, much more complex and much more pernicious than Monckton’s playing to the gallery suggests.

    I think it reasonable to insist that those who examine a changing political climate do so with the same intellectual rigour as WUWT (rightly) demands that others examine the natural one.

  93. Re; “PeterT (01:23:49) :
    Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.”

    Peter, there’s no arguing that he does sound like a nut. But have you checked what he’s saying? Let’s look at a few things that he’s said:

    Monckton: “I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. ”

    Here is the ‘The Global Environmental Governance Project” from Yale:

    http://environmentalgovernance.org/

    Here is the Council of Foreign Releations web page on global governance:

    http://www.cfr.org/issue/23/global_governance.html

    Here is the President of the CFR discussing global governance and sovereignty:

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html

    A direct quote from the above link:
    “Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”

    Does the CFR have any influence in our government? Well, read the following quote from Hillary Clinton:
    ” We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/19840/council_on_foreign_relations_address_by_secretary_of_state_hillary_clinton.html?breadcrumb=%2Fmedia%2Ftranscripts

    If you want to find out about the roots of the CFR, you can read about them in a book called “Tragedy and Hope” written by a Harvard professor of history, Carroll Quigley. If you read this book, you’ll find links between JPMorgan, communists, and the CFR (note that this book was published in 1966). And Quigley was a 20 yr member of the CFR, a liberal, and disliked right-wingers. This book was the most fantastic eye-opening book I’ve ever read. What I have said is just the tip of the iceberg of what’s in this book.

    And finally, Obama’s energy czar, Carol Browner was listed on Socialist International’s ‘Commission for a Sustainable Society’ (until this was reported in the media) that calls for 3 things, one of them being global governance. Here it is:

    http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133110.php

    “(1) To design and put forward proposals for democratic forms of global governance as the foundation for building a peaceful and sustainable world society overall; ”

    Here’s the second thing Monckton’s claimed: “The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t.”

    Well, this is very easy to verify. Here are some credible links and excerpts:

    -NYTimes:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/energy-environment/31iht-green31.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

    “Eliminating that infrastructure deficit for low- and middle-income countries will, by itself, cost on the order of $315 billion annually over the next 20 years, the authors argue. Girding that updated infrastructure to meet the demands of a changing climate will require $16 billion to $63 billion in additional financing each year. ”

    Here’s the Obama Admin’s Cass Sunstein discussing global redistribution hypotheticals from rich countries to poor countries:

    http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/96-5/Posner-Sunstein.PDF

    If you go to page 38 of the following UN doc, you’ll read where a modeling target of some researchers is calibrated to achieve convergence of per-capita income between certain areas.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/FOD/Ch20_FOD.pdf

    From IISC:
    ” in the coming decades the world expects to see substantial economic development including, by 2030,some US$16 trillion investment in energy infrastructure (IEA 2003). Much ofthis will be in developing countries as they develop with a view to enjoying the standard of living of today’s industrialized
    countries.”

    http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/envis/sdev/climate_which_way_forward.pdf

    From the Prince of Wales:
    “The CDM has already demonstrated the potential
    to funnel large amounts of Western capital into investment in the infrastructure that will enable developing countries to avoid the carbon intensive economic path that the developed world has taken.”

    http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Accounting%20for%20Sustainability%20PART%20II.pdf

    Here’s an IPCC doc that has a little blip about GDP convergence:
    “Weyant concluded that the SRES scenarios are probably correct when climate change or its impacts are of interest, whether PPPor MER was used. However there could be significant differences for mitigation cost projections depending on the method of GDP convergence.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/expert-meeting-2005-01.pdf

    Here’s a site that talks about income convergence between developed and developing countries:
    “Market mechanisms for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental goals provide additional revenue streams to developing countries, and contribute to the convergence of incomes between developing
    and industrialized regions. ”

    http://www.tellus.org/documents/Great_Transition.pdf

    Another UN link that talks about wealth redistribution and development in developing countries:
    “Specifically, the CDM can contribute to a developing country’s sustain-
    able development objectives through:
    • Transfer of technology and financial resources;
    • Sustainable ways of energy production;
    • Increasing energy efficiency & conservation;
    • Poverty alleviation through income and employment
    generation; and ”

    http://uneprisoe.org/CDMCapacityDev/CDMintro.pdf

    Here’s a paper from Canada that talks about redistribution:
    “Suppose, for example, Kyoto is replaced by a far more comprehensive international agreement by 2012. A so-called “contraction and convergence” scheme (scenario 3, above) “contracts” the world’s GHG emissions by 2050 to stabilize the climate, while letting developing nations increase their per-capita emissions until they “converge” with those of the industrialized world. Such a scheme would offer attractions to both the United States and the major developing nations. The former would find it appealing because of its very long-term horizon, which provides enough flexibility and time to achieve the desired goal. Developing countries could support that approach because it offers them the opportunity to grow their emissions to match the levels of industrialized countries on a per capita basis.”

    http://www.policecouncil.ca/reports/CBOCPerformanceandPotential06.pdf

    And finally, here’s another mention of income convergence from Obama’s Dr. Stranglove et al.:
    “Box 1.1. Description of IPCC Scenario B2
    The IPCC’s B2 scenario family is based on projections from 1990 to 2100 of moderate population growth (growing from 5.3 billion to 10.4 billion people), intermediate levels of economic development (world gross domestic product (GDP) grows by a factor of 11), and moderate, but relatively diverse, technological change. The B2 storyline is oriented toward environmental protection and social equity (that is, assuming a tendency to a more even distribution of per capita income, quantified by dropping the ratio of income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3 over the 21st century), and emphasizes “local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability” (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000).”

    http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/unf_website/PDF/climate%20_change_avoid_unmanagable_manage_unavoidable.pdf

    These links above are just a sample of what I’ve found over the last few years. The picture I’m getting is that we are to be taxed (via cap-and-trade or some other means) to help fund infrastructure development in third world countries. Once these countries have it, jobs will be sent to them (offshoring, mainly from the US) to help start their economies. These countries want to build things to sell to us like China is doing. The end goal seems to be a convergence of incomes both within countries and among countries by 2100. There also seems to be a goal of every nation having similar per-capita GDP’s by 2100. I doubt people in third world countries will be making 50 to 100 K by 2100. I think the scenario is a contraction of our income while theirs increases until they converge.

    And by the way, if you buy Quigley’s book, you’ll read a few times where an English group has a goal of bringing the backwards people of the world into a modern lifestyle… just like many behind AGW are doing today. This group is based in England, where it seems to me that most of the AGW schemes are coming from.

    I believe I have enough information to make the case that we are being downsized via AGW in the economic interests of foreign nations and I wonder what the general public would do if they knew what I know? I doubt they’d sit on their hands.

    And I believe Monckton is pretty much on the mark with his comments above.

  94. Tarpon, I’m with you on this. I get the feeling that the term “Public Servant” somehow offends Obama.

    Anthony,

    I your notes on the treaty at the bottome of the article, your blog software is using the copyright symbol in place of “c” in parenthesis.

    -Dave

  95. My own bet:

    — There will be a watered down “treaty” coming out of Copenhagen
    — The US will “sign” it
    — It will never be ratified by Congress, hence will never be put into effect in the US
    — Politicians will go on talking about climate change, GHG emissions will go on rising, the Copenhagen Treaty will have little effect.
    — Climate will do what it would have done without a treaty

  96. Many here are playing down the world government threat. “Nahh, it aint gonna happen.”
    DO SO AT YOUR OWN PERIL, you sleepwalkers.
    It’s happening before your very eyes!
    Lord Monckton is not overstating the danger here.
    IT’S REAL, AND I SUGGEST YOU ALL WAKE UP REAL QUICK!

    Not long ago posters here were belittling my references to the Sons Of Liberty, etc.
    But soon you will understand the threat.
    I’m withdrawing all my capital from the US until this threat blows over, if it does at all.

  97. DennisA (06:17:05) :

    Excellent analysis and data.
    Did you see my post under “The Top Ten Reasons why I think Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted” about the connections between Obama and the Marxists UN personnel running/owning all the carbon exchanges? This is and will increase as a huge source of $$ for the shadow Marxist UN/Gov. trying? to run the world via dictatorial edict rather than “Rule of Law.” It’s NOT that Obama doesn’t care about the American people, in his shallow thinking he perceives no difference between “Americans” (and applies no special status thereto) and the rest of the world. Therein lies the problem – he WILL do whatever he “thinks” is best for THE WORLD, which is whatever his UN and One World cohorts say, i.e., whatever will make THEM the most money, because he literally sees the world through rose colored glasses.

    After all, aren’t we all equal? And all of us should HAVE only what everyone else has, no more, no less – well, except those that are smart enough to run the world. Of course THEY should have more….

    Folks, we are already a long way down the path toward Global Animal Farm, and Snowball – opps, I mean Obama is knee deep in the movement.

    And as for those who question this being posted on a science blog – ANYTHING that effects, especially in a negative way, correct and honest scientific inquiry AND publication needs to – MUSY HAVE a bright light shown on it in ALL communication arenas.

    “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
    George Santayana

  98. I, also, am dismayed that WUWT would post this article.

    If I were a first-time visitor to WUWT I would, immediately, come to the conclusion that WUWT is just another ill-informed, nutter outfit, and I would leave, and not come back.

  99. Dave B,

    I don’t think that raising income and prosperity in third world countries is the real aim, if so these global governance people would be pushing free market solutions with a minimum of interference. The real objective is the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States and a means of control over production and population through regulation imposed by non elected officials with no accountability to real live constituents.

  100. Dave B. you show the problem with the UK Tory party to be parochialism. Lord Monckton was talking to the US of A, I’m sure the idiots in Tory HQ were the last thing on his mind.

  101. tarpon (07:37:07) : While I agree with you in theory, I sometimes believe it is our ruling elite in DC who “need to brush up on their Constitutional theory and history.” When you review what has happened to many of our rights, say property rights taken under the guise of government regulations by the EPA, it becomes clear that our rights have eroded through the years. And unfortunately, the “sovereigns” have done nothing to stop it.
    Look also at the way Obama has chipped away at our 1st Amendment Rights with his colloraboration with Egypt in the UN. While the resolution he introduced is not binding on the US, it certainly makes our 1st Amendment appear to be fatally flawed.
    “The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

    The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
    “Egypt’s cosponsorship of the resolution on freedom of expression is not the result of a real commitment to upholding freedom of expression,” said Jeremie Smith, Geneva director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
    “If this were the case, freedom of expression would not be systematically violated on a daily basis in Egypt,” he said.

    Others warned that the resolution appears to protect religions rather than believers and encourages journalists to abide by ill-defined codes of conduct.

    “Unfortunately, the text talks about negative racial and religious stereotyping, something which most free expression and human rights organizations will oppose,” said Agnes Callamard, executive director of London-based group Article 19.

    “The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy,” she said.

    Although the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism.”

    I never thought I’d live to see the day when a President of the USA would put forth a resolution at the UN that basically says that our First Amendment guarantees too much freedom of expression.

  102. I have to think the American people will be handing climate/cap and trade/carbon tax treaties and legislation the same rejection they gave amnesty, or was it a guest worker program.

    When it comes to policies riding a tsunami of BS the people stand up.
    That said, disparaging Monckton for his stretch on treaty signing is a stretch itself. He’s not committing the offense some here are portraying. Proportionately his misunderstanding of treaty signing and our Constitution is a minor point with some legitimacy. That being the ability of our own current politics to skirt and undermine our own Constitution.
    His warning is valid when all things are considered.

  103. I also question the wisdom of relying on the limitations of power and restrictions written in the Constitution. As an example, look at the people and government of Honduras, who correctly followed their constitution and removed from office a President who violated one of the six unchangeable tenets of their constitution. This properly deposed President, who committee an act of treason, has gathered widespread international support demanding his reinstatement.

    What their constitution states is, apparently totally irrelevant to the demands of the international community. I don’t believe our Constitution would get any more respect–it has been referred to recently as a ‘quaint historical document’. I believe the only member of congress that actually takes it seriously is Rep Ron Paul and he is ridiculed.

  104. Have any of you read Team media buddy George Monbiot’s book? Here’s the cover.

    Green Taliban + Third Way (radical centre) Politics = You tell me!

    The biggest threat to humanity has always been its own ego when fanatics run away with it using subversion and indoctrination. Doesn’t matter how well intentioned the delusion initially or what label you attach: left, right or centre; communism, fascism or globalisation. It always leads to repression, misery and conflict in the end. History repeats over and over, same old stuff.

    The usual hallmarks seem to be present. Time to root out and disperse the comrades hitting the cheap booze and wittering in corners again, maybe.

  105. The reference Monckton made to passing the treaty using majorities in both the House and Senate does have some legitimate standing and history. If a country wanted to become part of the US, it would theoretically require a treaty signed between that country and the US to be accomplished. However, an indpendent country (Texas) became a part of the US through a joint resolution requiring only a majority of both the House and Senate. The courts have upheld the legitimacy of the method used – witness Texas still being a state in the US.

    On the other hand, history is littered with broken treaties and at least one ignored Supreme Court ruling.

    Skip

  106. Moncton makes a serious claim.

    Also look at Chapter 21 of the United Nations (already signed by most countries)
    The Climate Treaty and Chapter 21 are connected.

    To understand more about what’s going on right now, her is the Chapter 21 UN site:

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Also have a look at http://green-agenda.com

    Pleae connect the dots and ak yourself why massive amounts of capital are heading east from Europe and the USA.
    The roll out of the plan is well underway and it won’t take long before human kind is treated like endangered species, well tugged away in big cities with a breeding program (read birth control) and all, but without civil rights and freedom.

    This is serious so treat it that way.

    http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/10/watch-climate-chains-here.html

    Also watch the new movie Climate Chains which you can watch here:

  107. Don´t tell me now that we are not living in interesting times….:-)
    Why do these kind of “changing times” are coincidental with changing climates..
    Far ahead in the future there will appear scholars studying these changes and relating them to different causes…and perhaps discussing them in a blog like WUWT….who knows!

  108. Monckton may not be right about Obama’s unilateral ability to take the US into the Copenhagen Treaty, but he is chillingly correct in his analysis of what is happening in Europe. The EU – a totally non-democratic body that is in the process of becoming the United States of Europe – is bludgeoining its vassal states into adopting suicidal climate change policies and the people of Europe have no option but to accept. All along, the EU has been the main international driver in the formulation and supine acceptance of AGW measures, including Koyoto, and it is still in the driving seat. The rest of the world, including Obama, is being dragged along in the slipstream.

  109. SNIP, sorry, this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

  110. SNIP, sorry, this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

  111. If any American is naive enough to believe that the WON will not sign such a treaty, if in fact this is on the up and up, you are beyond stupid. This so called leader is not a leader, he is not a President, he is a follower of his Regime and of Muslim dictates. He is also little more than a rhetorical wonder and even then, he misues words for definition correction, he misues English language skills, such as “I haven’t got,” and this guy is smart..come on now!

    It is time for impeachment and he has done many acts that are impeachable, from treason to not thinking kindly, acting kindly in the best interest of the nation and its constiuents. Call your Congressmen/women and demand impeachment proceedings start and start now before he completely takes us out of being Americans and some freedoms that are left into oligarchy and/or Communisim at its finest……………….

  112. SNIP, sorry, this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

  113. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

    Internationalists are working overtime now in our court systems. They appeal to laws from other nations in their decisions. Alarmingly, The UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, signed but not ratified, has also been cited in court decisions as a common international law.

    The checks and balances are now in critical condition as judges are not impeached.

    Please try not to fool yourself about the nature of this Leviathon.

  114. Another thought, perhaps benign, but worth posting.

    We have Botox Pelosi, power hungry, greedy, multi-millionaire female that will vote for anything that will get her name in “lights.” We have Reid, who, essentially, must be off balance wanting to go out like a “lightning rod,” hence, both will push this if it comes to that and get to to the WON for signing for which he will and zip, there goes the nation. Then we have the WON, as posted previously, that thinks he is God, envisions himself asthe leader of the whole world and in reality is little more than the Chicago thug that he was as a Senator.

    If anyone is interested, you will find a wonderful expose’ in the book EXPOSED. It is well researched so you can draw your own opinions, research their research, etc. if you prefer. If you like living in America and being an American and you want freedom, then you will likely develop a headache, stomach ache and perhaps even need to vomit at what is coming down the road for us. Nevertheless, if you know something, you can fight it and get others to fight it also.

    Please, please, all of you posting, we have a vital threat to our country even if this piece of journalism is off base. Our morals have divided this nation, now weakened, we are somewhat at the beck and call of every other country that would like to see us fail and no one wants to see that more than countries like Norway, the EU for their own political and selfish purposes.

    [SNIP - a bit over the top, please tone it down, policy issues - Anthony]

    Suggest you also study and hopefully join Goooh (get out of our house), and help work toward saving this nation..the larger this group gets, the better chance we have of doing some good for all.

  115. Folks, please let’s take the questions of presidential eligibility elsewhere. I thought Monckton refuted the question posed to him well enough in the context. But even so it has now turned into a debate of the kind I don’t want at WUWT. So I’ve removed that from the WUWT article. While I realize some might want to discuss this issue, please do it at the original blog Fightin’ Words

    http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/

    – Anthony

  116. There’s a couple of things in that Treaty.
    1.) The mention of a Secretariat (sounds highly Marxist)
    2.) REDD’s – could not find the definition in the paper
    3.) Work camps

    The rest of the paper is pretty straightforward: All the technology and money is to flow to someplace other than the US. Tells me we will have NO recovery here, as none is planned ($787B in the Stimulus is going bye-bye).

  117. Re. the UN and A21, for myself I have no objection to global cooperation and helping the poor, I just don’t see how they can make it work.

    The world is very big, very old, and very fragmented.

    Any concerted effort to push things around will suffer the law of unintended consequences.

    People assert that “we have to do something”. Well, six billion people are already doing something–living their lives–and anyone who believes they can shape this whole thing to their own vision is sorely deluded.

  118. “It looks like freedom is dimming along with the Sun.”

    The proud, who govern, think they’ve won.
    They’ve made our science come undone.
    They’ve put our offspring in a hole.
    Have they assassinated Sol?

    Will his face with sunspots fill,
    Or will his storms begin to still,
    Will minimum now bring the chill
    That springs the brutal ice age kill?

    The sun has drifted off to sleep.
    He cares not if we pray or weep.
    He’s shut his eyes in slumber deep.
    Life’s promise now is ours to keep.

  119. Anthony, I do apologize, I posted my comment before realizing the Snippage was happening.

    However, I did want to make the observation that the entire politicization of cAGW is not about science vs non-science, and it’s not about left vs right. We are seeing the age-old debate between emotion and logic. If clever people want to frame their debate in other terms, we all have to be aware of it.

    Emotion says cAGW is real, it’s happening, it’s bad, people are being displaced, huger, starvation, danger… disease, and the poor innocent children are the victims. The only way to fix it is by radically altering our entire civilization.

    Logic says cAGW is poppycock, it’s merely an excuse for other political goals to be achieved, the science has already been thoroughly discredited, and there is no reason to “do” anything.

    If you want to frame this as left vs right, go ahead. My side will win out, eventually.

    The only thing “worse than we imagined” is the depth of depravity being demonstrated by the “side” that thinks they are winning. However, when the backlash comes (and it will), it will be vicious and it will decimate those who have been pushing this stuff. I just hope we see it soon.

    I’m glad Monckton has put this observation out there. You can NOT rely on the rule of law to protect you from well-intentioned people. There are far too many examples in history to ignore, and we all know what happens to those who fail to learn from history.

  120. Anthony –

    I have no problems with you removing the materials from the article in question and the comments – in fact, I welcome it. I recognize that I am in a small minority at this website with regards to my political affiliations. And, trust me, I am in an even smaller minority when I question AGW orthodoxy at other websites.

    But, if this website is to focus primarily on issues of climate – and, specifically, on rigorous verification of climate change research findings, then it would be to the benefit of those skeptical of AGW to have a site which is not entirely exclusionary of those from the political left.

    REPLY:
    It was my mistake for not realizing that even though the issue had been refuted by Monckton in his response, somebody would take up the torch again here. If you’ll go through comments on other WUWT threads, you’ll notice that there are a number of entries from what I would label (as you have) the Political Left. I welcome all discussion, provided they aren’t done in a hostile or 4 letter derogatory way. That being said, some of the worst comments that are either just too hateful or inflammatory, that add nothing material to the discussion, don’t get posted, or get posted with snips. Like all blog operators, I’m human, with human failings. Even so, I think we have a better track records here of posting alternate viewpoints than RC, “Open Mind”, or Climate Progress. WUWT’s traffic certainly beats all of those so I must be doing something right. – Anthony

  121. Don’t write Monckton off as a paranoid basket case. Listen to what he is saying and do your own homework.

    This all started after the first world war when the ‘old money’ bankers decided that the only way they could secure their families future was by the imposing World a Government.

    The first steps put in place to achieve this goal were the formation of the Institute of International Affairs in UK and USA. Funded by ‘old money’ these organisations gathered the brightest brains together to resolve the issues which would prevent the formation of a World Government. Following the World War II, implementation the plan was accelerated and the what is now the G8 group of leading politicians were brought on board. This has been widened to bring in other major players on the world stage under the auspices of the Bilderberg Group, again funded by ‘old money’.

    Both organisations (now known as Chatham House (UK), and Council on Foreign Relations (USA) continue to provide the brains behind this intended coup-de-tat. The plan is in it’s final phase of implementation and once the ‘Copenhagen Protocol’ is in place the rest will follow quickly to minimise any possible local resistance, which is expected will come mainly from citizens (and States) within the USA.

    Just ‘Google’ the above organisations to find out more, and as in all things ‘follow the money’.

    The $1m question is “Should we be willing to give up our individual freedoms to ensure that WWIII will never happen?

  122. Hoi Polloi (06:03:11) :
    I’m an AGW skeptic, but I hesitate to use the Lord Mockton for reference as the AGW should refrain from using Al Bore. These people do the case more harm than good. I put Monckton in the same class as Monbiot, politcal activist. I rather refer to scientist like McIntyre, Pielke or Spencer. The less attention to Monckton the better for our case.

    Lord Monckton may not be the statistician genius McIntyre is, nor have the scientific acumen of Spencer, Pielke, or McIntyre….but he is no Al Gore, either.

    He is a far cut above Al Gore so your comparison is not valid.

    Even if he is going overboard with some of what he is alleging here, it pays to listen to the meat of what he is saying.

    I think we, with good reason, should beware this Copenhagen Treaty and it takes a whistleblower like him, with his breadth of knowledge and powerful oratorial skills, to sound the alarm to the world.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  123. Treaties require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

    REPLY:
    Recall that Gore signed Kyoto, without such vote. – Anthony

  124. I too think E.M.Smith (02:36:04) hit the nail on the head. There are two issues: science and politics. Ideally, these issues would be discussed separately. However, the warmists are using politics to achieve their goals. Since in the short term politics trump science, provided the anti-AGW response is clearly labeled as politics (which Anthony did when he placed this thread under the categories of “climate_change, politics”), I see nothing wrong with using politics to thwart the AGW alarmist goals. In the long run, science will triumph, but by then it may be too late for the USA, individual responsibility, and freedom–or if not too late, at least late enough to result in massive human suffering. In total, I applaud Anthony’s posting of this thread.

  125. Elise (08:37:34) :

    Unfortunately, our Constitution means no more and no less than what some court decides it means.

  126. I am amused by the comments of “I am dismayed WUWT would post this” type. AGW is about politics, first of all and above all. Debunking the pseudo-science justifying the current environmentalist power grab is important but it’s only a part of the picture.

    According to the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, modern environmentalist movement is the last refuge of the collectivist totalitarians. Lord Monckton does a good job fighting these totalitarians on their own political turf. Do you really think tobacco heir Al Gore and his buddies give a damn about science of this whole thing?

    The other amusing typical comment is “if you are a birther, you are nuts, there’s no talking to you.” Reminds me of the “debate is over, global warming is real” argument.

    I am not nuts. I am a well-informed, highly educated person fluent in several languages, able to land a plane and to play several musical instruments.

    Nevertheless, being sanae mentis et bonae memoriae, I haven’t seen any convincing proof of Barack Obama’s birth place. Maybe he was born in Hawaii. Maybe not. Nobody really knows, since no real birth certificate has been ever produced. (Several forensic experts concluded that the one published on Internet is a crude forgery.) Why the mystery? What, exactly, is he hiding? It is a legitimate question.

    “Birthers are not to be taken seriously” notion isn’t based on anything but a desire to ignore the problem instead of solving it. Calling people names is not an argument.

  127. Well, this has been interesting. At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.

  128. A friend wrote me in response to the article:

    “The US Constitution allows no such thing. The language of Article VI is commonly misinterpreted that way by ignoramuses, but the historical record regarding the original intent is emphatically clear that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the US, and no lesser law or treaty has the power to circumvent it. Which is in fact the originally intended semantics of the language in Article VI (read very carefully):

    “****This Constitution****, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution also states that the only way to change it is to officially amend it–and treaties are not, de jure, amendments.

    Unless it is officially amended, treaties are subject to the same limitation as any Act of Congress: They must a) not violate the restrictions the Constitution places on government action, and b) be justified by an explicit enumerated power granted to the government by the Constitution. The power to make treaties does not grant any power to violate the Constitution itself, any more than the power to make laws does. Laws can be declared Unconstitutional in spite of the language of Article VI–and so can treaties, for the same reasons.”

  129. Obama is the “front man”, the salesman for the Ideology of Change (aka Global Socialism). The man behind the curtain is George Soros.
    Soros wants to change the world and has enough money to do it. He has funded the effort that in less than a year brought a little known “community activist/junior senator” from Chicago into the White House. There is no doubt that he has a brilliant mind.
    Soros has funneled large sums of money into the Democratic Party. In reciprocation, the Democrats have allowed him to install a small army of true believers to execute his bidding. He has funded the campaigns of leftist politicians, MoveOn.org and a number of environmental front groups.
    The Soros vision is of a one-world Socialist government ruled by a select elite that control the global financial system. He has euphemistically christened his Utopian vision as The Open Society.
    The following paragraphs were extracted from an article that was recently published in a major business/economic oriented website. Herein are the marching orders for his surrogate-creation, Barack Hussein Obama. Especially note the paragraph regarding energy:
    “To prevent the US economy from sliding into a depression, Mr. Obama must implement a radical and comprehensive set of policies. Alongside the well-advanced fiscal stimulus package, these should include a system-wide and compulsory recapitalization of the banking system and a thorough overhaul of the mortgage system – reducing the cost of mortgages and foreclosures.
    Energy policy could also play an important role in counteracting both depression and deflation. The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.
    Finally, the international financial system must be reformed. Far from providing a level playing field, the current system favours the countries in control of the international financial institutions, notably the US, to the detriment of nations at the periphery. The periphery countries have been subject to the market discipline dictated by the Washington consensus but the US was exempt from it.
    How unfair the system is has been revealed by a crisis that originated in the US yet is doing more damage to the periphery. Assistance is needed to protect the financial systems of periphery countries, including trade finance, something that will require large contingency funds available at little notice for brief periods of time. Periphery governments will also need long-term financing to enable them to engage in counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
    In addition, banking regulations need to be internationally co-ordinated. Market regulations should be global as well. National governments also need to co-ordinate their macroeconomic policies in order to avoid wide currency swings and other disruption.”
    The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of the Open Society Institute. These are extracts from an e-book update to The New Paradigm for Financial Markets – The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means (Public Affairs Books, New York)

  130. This treaty makes an excellent case for a Regent.
    Would a King or Queen with power sign away thier own country?
    Just a thought. Of course, Royalty can go bad for an entire lifetime or more, which is why we revolted in the 1st place.
    How do you stop your government from ceding all power to another government once they start? Washington would ostensibly become merely a bureaucratic appointee outpost. Political Parties and Elections might vanish.
    The history of civilization shows that the same old suspicions would tear the new government apart after so many years. But then, once that fails, the infrastructure of soverign government is also vanished.
    Sounds like global chaos.

  131. “At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.” Dan

    What ever, Dan. Scientists have opinions too.

    Frankly, I am not too impressed by scientists. I read “Science Daily” and regularly notice junk science mixed in with the genuine article.

    There are other kinds of thinking than just the scientific method. With regard to economics, for instance, scientists seem to have a blind spot. If we have another depression induced world war, they will no doubt be designing weapons to kill the rest of us.

  132. Kate (02:24:55) : “…We Can Lead, a broad-based corporation coalition of energy, technology and other companies, including Duke Energy, Hewlett Packard and Starbucks, is mounting a high-profile campaign to promote cap-and-trade legislation….”

    Assuming this is true, here’s the lever we’ve been looking for. Let Starbucks know what you think of their political activity. Spread the word that Starbucks is supporting Cap & Tax. Let Nike know what you think, too. If you’re in any doubt about Starbucks, check

    http://www.starbucks.com/sharedplanet/ourPartnerships.aspx

    Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?

  133. An examination of the UNFCCC working document for Copenhagen can be found here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UNCopenhagenPrep.htm
    The majority of the wording deals with wealth transfer from (mainly) the US to the overpopulating/deforesting nations. Only Annex I nations will have to pay – i.e. the world’s largest emitter – China – is exempt, that way they will support it.

    The whole global warming issue was originally created to promote global governance. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm

  134. Ignorance is more powerful toll in decision making than people give it credit.

    My strength is economics. I have spoken to many people on the environmental side of the agenda. None of them know anything about how free markets, trade, globalization help the plight of poor people and in turn can help the environment. I invariably know every argument they make about how international treaties are the ‘only’ solution to ‘pollution’ moving across national borders. There is no balanced discussion on these issues of environment in classrooms or conferences.

    They than watch anti-globalization movies about how evil capitalism and western wastefulness robs culture and prosperity from other nations.

    That is why Indur’s recent guest post was so important. Fact based discussion of economics and benefits to the poor from modern technology and trade is critical. I attended one of Bill Clintons recent seminars where he stated that America has to stop sending food to Africa and start shipping know-how and seeds. The problem with that is the North American Agricultural industry makes more money when CARE buys food: http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clinton-praises-bush-on-food-aid.html

    I get a cheap chuckle out of Moncton’s Speeches and others who mock or demonize those they oppose. Maybe the Moncton’s are necessary, however, my personal public demeanour is to (try) to stick to the fundamentals. 99% of the people who back these world treaties see it as the only way to solve the problem. Even if you could prove that the other 1% were the most evil people in the world what difference would it make. This is the same argument of the far left hardcore environmentalist when they try to attach everyone who disagrees with them to evil oil and tobacco companies. Al Gore doesn’t see himself as doing anything wrong when he accuses people who read or contribute to sites like this as either evil, immoral, or stupid.

    I believe Kevin Trenberth is being honest when he makes statements like “I have found that the only scientists who disagree with the IPCC report are those who have not read it and are poorly informed.” That is his belief he would pass a lie detector on that. When you only hang out with people who agree with you it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t. He is a victim of one of the greatest examples of group-think in history. That is why calling the AGW crowd malicious is counterproductive. They truly believe they are saving the earth. Anyone accused them of being evil is laughed of as extremist rhetoric and dismissed. They also see no irony in that they do it themselves.

    Sites like this should continue to appeal to the logic of the people who are capable of learning and make people like Gore and Trenberth lonely.

  135. Dan (10:37:35) :

    Well, this has been interesting. At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.

    Your comment is also very revealing Dan, with its numerous misspellings. Your interest in the science is highly doubtful anyway, since you just happened to pick a post based on politics to comment on. Very revealing indeed.

  136. jorgekafkazar (11:11:12) : Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?

    LOL. Funny. For me, a foreigner, those one pint polyurethane cups diluted coffees and its “self service” custom it is abominable.
    To taste a good coffee it must be, at least, a “spresso” or a “cafecinho”, seated in a table and served by a waiter.
    Who knows, perhaps this is the root reason why you are in such troubles. Got to learn to live well…those “in a hurry fast drank coffees” and all that garbage food are crippling your well being and who knows even provoking climate change/global warming, and, last but not least, “el gordo’s” belly. :-)

  137. Tim Clark (08:17:44) :
    Mod: Did my post go to spam?
    REPLY: Yes it is restored, refresh and you’ll see it.

    Maybe it should have stayed there. ;~P

  138. My… The teeth gnashing in this thread looks like RC after MacIntyre spills the beans on shifty “research.” The good Lord Monckton correctly notes in the Q&A that he does not do politics. The climate debate is growing if anything, and the flimsy piece of paper that likely won’t get signed by G8 in Denmark has little real meaning. Certainly none scientifically. Politically, perhaps some good as movement away from ($700B annual) foreign oil imports is a good thing for the United States.

    But let’s look at the observable world. Seems that all major indicators from solar minimum, to SST downward drift, to regional cold records, to Antarctic’s 5 percent growth, to lack of tropo heating – it all indicates a natural message. The Earth is NOT heating catastrophically. Man’s brief moment of fossil fuel burning this last century is coming to a close. There are viable nukes and alternatives on the way, relatively easy conversion of coal to NG and rapidly lowering demand as we electrify transportation.

    Though not in keeping with WUWT empirical scrutiny – consider the cosmic meaning of this small band of skeptics standing athwart the climate train yelling, “Stop!”* And how the observable world is reacting. We probably don’t need it written in the stars to know the message is, “Stay calm, you’re not destroying the climate, they’re not castrating the Constitution – it’s natural variation.”

    The Ringmasters will argue. Their business is your froth. The more you froth, the more fannies they get in seats. Hence, the famous quote from Alexander Graham Bell in his moment of pain:

    “What hath God Froth?”

    * Thanks Wm F. B.

  139. jmbnf (11:29:26) :

    Ignorance is more powerful toll in decision making than people give it credit.

    Indeed. As for the rest of what you wrote, double-dog indeed. However, I think there are also those that are “evil” in the sense they know they are hypocritical, they know they are self-serving, and as well, they know their actions may be harmful to the very people they profess to be saving. Unfortunately, I also do not think it is an easy task to sort the true-believers from the others, or if it is even possible.

    Mark

  140. For Lord Monckton to accept a “birther” question and discuss it — that is disappointing and lowers my estimation of his judgement. (I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices. Nevertheless, there is no traction to be gained in the “birther” issue.)
    I think that many commenters fail to see the difference between the constitution-as-practiced vs. the constitution-as-written. We continually ignore the 10th amendment. Also, we wage wars without the required declaration of war. About half of the Supreme Court members see the constitution as a living / flexible document. I have no doubt that Obama will be able to enforce the treaty without the ratification process spelled out in the constitution.
    Speaking of ratification, one useful insight on Global Warming Treaties was offered by George Bush the 1st in the early 90s: If we ratify an environmental treaty, our courts will hold us to it; however, other countries can easily ignore the requirements and walk away from it.

  141. rbateman (09:43:27) :

    There’s a couple of things in that Treaty.
    1.) The mention of a Secretariat (sounds highly Marxist)

    Sounds highly bureaucratic to me.

    2.) REDD’s – could not find the definition in the paper

    The REDD’s under the bed perhaps. ;-)

  142. The New World Order has a plan to implement a global border-less government. A global border-less government requires funding with a global border-less taxation system. Tax laws will need to change. This could pose insurmountable problems because national and international tax laws are already highly complex and would surely become even more so with the imposition of a global border-less form of government.

    What is required is a totally new form of taxation. One which is not concerned with issues such as whether the taxpayer is domicile or non-domicle or weather they are migrant workers moving from one place to another and thus hard to track and even harder to tax.

    What is needed in a globalized world such as the one the New World Order of the Rothschild/Rockerfella clans have planned, is a one size fits all kind of taxation system. A border-less tax which is in essence a tax on life itself. Enter the CARBON TAX.

    This form of tax is a centuries old wet dream of the ruling elite and they are just moments away from realising such a dream. The Climate Change summit at Copenhagen this coming December is set to be the platform from which this tax on life will be imposed.

    The pseudo environmentalists will be cheering loudly, suffering under the illusion that a carbon tax will protect the environment from that nasty CO2 pollution that we are pumping into the atmosphere year in year out. Totally oblivious to the real implications of a border-less taxation system.

    Global government is a direct threat to National sovereignty which in tern is derived from individual sovereignty. Individual sovereignty simply means individual freedom, or human rights. Global government and global taxation is a direct threat to the freedom of all the peoples of the world.

    The only way to beat the New World Order is to deny them their funding. If these Nazi fools have to dig into their own pockets to fund their plans for world government, it will be far less likely to succeed. This can only be achieved by exposing the “Man Made Global Warming scam”.

    If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book

    [snip - self promotion ]

  143. Article VI of the U.S Constitution:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 27:

    A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

    In their introduction, the Children’s Rights Committee asserted that it was a “myth” that state sovereignty would be affected by the treaty. To refute this, we only need to re-read the balance of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    We have previously quoted the text of Article VI of the Constitution [see quote below] to demonstrate that treaties prevail over state constitutions and state laws. So the claim that it is a “myth” that treaties will not affect state sovereignty is an unsophisticated lie.

    http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B479C4F40-98CD-40B9-B8E5-7F1A7CF7E307%7D

  144. An Inquirer (11:51:04) :
    If we ratify an environmental treaty, our courts will hold us to it
    That is because you take it seriously and you are used to fulfill the law while third world countries are not used to. You will not figure out how it works: If a law goes against what the majority of people thinks, feels or or are accustomed to, then everybody lends a blind eye !!, believe me!.
    Of course, they will sign all the papers if needed, and follow just apparently all instructions given by, but nothing, really nothing will happend.

  145. You see already foreign and international laws are being cited in US courts.

    Even without these monstrous treaties, we should all familiarize or re-acquaint ourselves with the term “judicial tyranny.”

  146. Speaking of Monckton, I regularly visit his site.
    His latest paper Sept. 09 report:
    1.) The lifetime of C02 in atmosphere is 7%.
    2.) What we have been looking at with the GISS (NOAA) and Hadley temp graphs is actually the UHI itself.
    Figure how much of the landmass is urbanized, multiply into real global average, and you have your urban warming.
    So, it’s not really global warming at all, it’s AUW.
    That is what they did when they shut down all rural stations. They migrated thier sensors from measuring air temp to measuring asphalt/concrete temp.
    That is what thier graphs represent, cities, not the globe.
    Switcheroo.

  147. Adolfo Giurfa (12:17:38) :

    REDD=Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

    Yes, but the Environmental Lawsuits shut down all efforts at Reforestation.
    The brush grows faster than the trees, plus the dead trees from the last fires make for ever bigger forest fires. The money to Reforest comes from Salvage Sales, which are destroyed when the Env. Suits stop them long enough for the salvagable lumber to go bad.

  148. Lord Monckton obviously knows the US Constitution better than we (and very probably he) know the English Constitution (just read the original blog, look for the number 67).

  149. I’m sorry, but when I read about doubts about the legitimacy of the President and stuff about Hawaii, I switched off. Monckton might or might not be wrong. His analysis might be correct. All I read is the right wing equivalent of 9//11 truthers. I read WUWT pretty well every day, but I won’t if it becomes an outpost of wingnuts.

  150. I’ve heard in the news that his birth was announced in a Hawaii newspaper. So far as I am concerned, he’s legit until compelling proof otherwise. And no, I didn’t vote for him, and he’s worse than I expected.

  151. “Adolfo Giurfa (11:38:02) :
    To taste a good coffee it must be, at least, a “spresso” or a “cafecinho”, seated in a table and served by a waiter.”

    You should watch NCIS (episode in Africa; they import US coffee), go to Brazil (where the people drink it standing (the drinker, not the coffee)), or drink traditional American coffee while eating your steak. McCoffee is progress.

  152. I have a question. Hypothetical at this point. Suppose Monktons prediction comes to pass with all the accompanying dire consequences of global governance, taxation, etc. What, exactly, will anyone do about it besides whine a lot? Is there a willingness to go to war (civil or otherwise) in response to those consequences? Which country, or citizenry, would be willing to “go the distance” to assert their National interests?

    Keep in mind Russia’s recent reiteration of their “Preemptive” Nuclear strike doctrine, the current dispute over Arctic resources, etc.

  153. all of those who rely on a written constituion – take head of what has happened in the UK where our WRITTEN constitiution (yes we have/had one) has been ignored and broken by succesive governments.

    http://www.magnacartaplus.org/1689-rights/

    for the document on which the US constitution is based & which has no more ability to constrain governments than a piece of wet paper.

    Do NOT rely on a written constitution; but instead on some of the rights you still have.

    The UK government has ILLEGALLY :
    given away sovereignty (EU treaties)
    abolished the right of Habeus Corpus (replaced by the OPTIONAL human rights act)
    and generally allowed our guarented freedoms and rights to be trampled on; including the right not to be fined except through a court of law.

    WAKE UP – bits of paper are as useful in stopping governments as hockey sticks are proving AGW

  154. In the case of the UNCRC, most countries have in fact adopted it, including Iran. Iran signed on with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs) which exempted them from following it in cases where it conflicted with their legal system and traditions.

    We always must keep in mind that Iran and China do not have the ACLU, nor courts jammed with judicial activists who legislate from the bench. But we do. The expense and devastation of legal action based on treaties is I think a chilling thought.

    Again: “We dare not ratify this treaty under the guise that we may do as we wish afterwards. Our national respect for the rule of law, as well as our Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, requires us to view the treaty as a material part of the supreme law of the land.”

  155. Regarding Article 6, second paragraph of the US Constitution, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” While this is typically interpreted to mean that a treaty can, with 2/3 vote, be made part of the Supreme Law of the Land, it still cannot be above the Constitution or above the powers of the Supreme Court.

    That being said, if the treaty of Copenhagen is ratified, that places a foreign power in a position to declare binding law (in the form of the treaty) on the US Citizenry as long as there are no Constitutional objections by the SC. All in all, it’s a slippery and dangerous precedent and I think that there are plenty of reasons to be concerned, Lord Monctons hyperbole notwithstanding.

  156. Obama will sign this. While he dosen’t have the Constitutional power to commit the United States to something such as this, he will sign it, and it will be a battle in Congress. But while we are on the subject of the Constitution, look at how it has been ripped apart by previous administrations, and the one thing that comes to mind is the Federal Reserve.
    Look at how it was created, right under the people’s noses, and Congress WILLINGLY gave away it’s power to coin currency and to keep our economy secure, only to give it away to a secretive cabal of bankers. The Federal Reserve has created a debtor nation, and for that matter a debtor world. Your taxes don’t go to pay for programs, they go to pay the ever mounting debt that the Fed creates.
    The WTO, NAFTA, and a handful of other globalist organizations have been ratified by the U.S. government, and these international organizations supercede our own constitution. It does not matter whether you have a Republican or Democrat in office, the globalist agenda stays the same and still proceeds.
    And as for the person who commented earlier that Obama can be voted out and the next president can reverse the treaty with an Excutive Order, well, the powers granted to the president by the Constitution are very limited. Executive Orders by definiton are a way for the president to supercede the regular course of government, and for the most part, are unconstitutional.
    One president comes to mind who tried an Excutive Order to undo a globalist organization, and his name was John F. Kennedy. With Executive Order 11110, Kennedy arrested the power from the Fed giving the power back to Congress, and he was assassinated just a short while later. Mark my words, this treaty will be signed, and if it fails in Congress, if it ever goes to Congress, the world power elite will another way to establish world government.

  157. I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for having had the courage to reproduce the closing words of my recent speech to 1000 kind citizens of Minnesota, and to the many commentators whose discussion of the constitutional implications of the draft Treaty of Copenhagen has been illuminating. I had not intended to give offence by in any way exaggerating either the content or the import of the draft Treaty, which I hope my critics will read with care. The draft envisions “government” as the first purpose of the vast and many-tentacled institutional framework that is to be established; redistribution of wealth by way of reparation in respect of “climate debt” as the second purpose; and enforcement as the third purpose.

    It is important to understand that the magnitude of what is proposed goes well beyond any pre-existing international treaty. The new entity will not be a mere bureaucracy like the UN: it will be a “government”, with multiple direct rights of intervention in the economic and environmental affairs of all those states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that are unwise enough to accede to it.

    I have had some experience in the drafting and negotiating of international treaties. This one, as at present drafted, is exceptional. Whether it is ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (which I think unlikely), or enacted into domestic law by a simple majority of both Houses (in which event, at least, it is in principle repealable), it will – for the first time – give an external entity the direct and widespread right to intervene in the conduct of the US economy and the management of the US environment, on an unprecedented scale and to an unprecedented degree.

    Finally, I note that several commentators have taken me to task for deigning to reply to a questioner who asked whether a Copenhagen Treaty signed by President Obama would remain valid if he were later discovered not to have been born in the United States. I replied – surely sensibly enough – that I knew of one judge who was not sure about the President’s place of birth, but that – even if he were not entitled to sign the Treaty (a question on which I expressed no view, for it is not a matter for me) if the Treaty had been ratified by the Senate or otherwise enacted into domestic law it might still be unimpugnable.

    Precisely because the ambit and scope of the Treaty is so very wide, and precisely because its terms would take precedence over the terms of your Constitution (as Article VI, combined with the Vienna Convention on International Treaties, makes clear), Anthony Watts was quite right to make the current draft available to his readers, and also to pick up my recent speech pointing out its dangers to your democratic and independent way of life. I am most grateful to him for drawing this matter to the attention of his rapidly-growing worldwide audience. – Monckton of Brenchley

    • Monckton of Brenchley (I’m sorry, I don’t know the correct form of address)

      Whether or not the Vienna Convention obligates the US to have the US Constitution overriden is likely to be irrelevant, as it is likely the US Senate does not have the right via treaty or international convention for the assignation of those rights. Overriding the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment whatever the wording of the treaties signed. This would have to be dragged through the courts and whether or not a court case gets any traction would likely depend on who is raising the issue, but I think more of US sovereignty rights may be protected than many fear.

  158. “Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”

    [snip, take your tone elsewhere]

    Regards
    Andy

  159. Monckton of Brenchley (13:33:36) :

    Thanks for your work on this issue and thanks again to Anthony for having the courage to post a political piece on his site. Without your speech I wouldn’t have been aware of the scale of what’s happening at Copenhagen. I have now read the treaty and it is every bit of what you said and MUCH worse than I had thought.

    I doubt those who have posted critical comments here have read the proposal or in some cases have the wherewithal to understand it. In at least one case above, a commenter (who I will not identify) used your name as an excuse to pretend not to understand the words in front of their eyes.

    As one who reads blogs often, I would request that you take additional care in reporting skeptical science as minor differences are being used for discrediting the body of your efforts. There is a good deal of bad skeptical science out there, and it dilutes the main message in that the intended outcome of AGW is legislative.

    In the meantime, thank you for your service to our country and really the world. This was a useful and important speech which sure caught my attention.

  160. I just got a call from my college son and have to get him – but this is important, too…ours is a participatory government where all laws and rights are the ultimate responsibility of each individual (not collective) through a variety of inputs.

    The U.S.A. is being challenged today to a degree not often experienced, but not entirely unique. The Land of Laws must take each legal writ endorsed as seriously as any and take appropriate action regarding it, most effectively prior to it’s authorization – hence the “free press”, in this case mostly the internet.

    Please, learn, debate – then contact your representatives until you know they comprehend your opinion and consequences. If you are not pleased with the representative’s responses – become, yourself, a public servant.

    I am pleased that Monckton and others are concerned with our status. More perspectives should help us establish our own, and he has experiences.

    Is Science apart from Politics? AGW alarmism and history prove not. Have to go – email, tweet, call, fax, drop-in, mail, read/write all media, RUN & VOTE.

    I’m very concerned.

  161. Specific examples of Article VI being argued both ways:

    “Cities filed countersuits claiming that current military policy violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child’s Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, which the U.S. ratified in 2002. (This is a separate but related treaty to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the U.S. has not ratified the main CRC.) “When the government enters into an international treaty or protocol, that becomes the law of the United States,” says Yamauchi, also citing Article VI. The cities claim that the U.S. military is in violation of the Protocol’s prohibition on the recruiting of children for military service. Current federal law allows representatives of the armed services to educate high school and college students on military career options, alongside other educational and vocational recruiters at job fairs and the like. To actually enlist, however, one must be 18, or close to 18 with parental consent. This countersuit constitutes the first time since the 2002 ratification of the protocol that the federal government’s compliance with the treaty has been legally questioned.”

  162. “In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the state of Missouri challenged the constitutionality of federal interference with the state hunting laws concerning migratory birds. Federal game officials had intervened in Missouri based upon a treaty with Canada. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the treaty, and not Missouri’s state laws on hunting, was supreme. State law—including state hunting laws—must give way to treaties.”

  163. Well I haven’t read all comments but I’m sure I’ve read enough and while WUWT is one of the best blogs when it comes to challenging AGW I think I’ll pass if this is going to set a new trend. Most posters in this thread are a bunch of crackpots who are pretty much just as bad as the AGW scaremongers.

    All this treaty apparently aims to “accomplish” is throwing money at those countries who don’t pollute. In essence those countries who aren’t capable of polluting because they aren’t advanced enough. So it’s a way to “enforce” some sort of help towards third world countries. Everybody knows how it works: even if we double the amount in any of the civilised countries we’re still just donating a minor fraction of our wealth and it’s how it’s going to remain. Those people who are leading our countries aren’t interested in donating big loads of money to other countries or at least not just like that. Hell, just like with the other money we donate how do you think they’ll spend it? We give, they spend it on services delivered by us. Out of one pocket and into the other. Who cares?

    If they sign this treaty it’ll accomplish nothing and mean nothing. All this talk is pretty hilarious but in all honesty: please stop, I expected people posting here to be a bit more intelligent than that.

  164. So if Obama signs it, and later on we repeal it here, what will the world do to us? Sanction us? They have already taken most of our industry and money.
    To tell the truth, we have had more sanctions imposed on us than all the “sanctioned” countries combined.

  165. Dirk M (15:02:45) :

    Who cares? If someone stole your wallet, you’d care. If they stole your car, you’d care. If they came and took your house, you’d care.
    If they did it legally, you’d be more than just concerned.
    Besides, the money they take, the things they deprive you of are not going to deprived people elsewhere.
    Haven’t you been paying attention to the scandals of where the Billions in Aid to ‘other less fortunate countries’ has been ending up?

  166. PeterT (01:23:49) :

    Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.

    PeterT (01:34:30) :

    And if this is what you are all really about you’ve losy me.
    I’m a conservative and as such cherish diversity of opinion and that includes people having leftwing views, they are not evil, if you all think that this is just some evil communist conspiratorial plot you are living in the fifties and sixties, the world has moved on people, if you stick to the science I’m in if you travel the political BS route I’m out as will be many people from all walks of life who come here to get a second opinion on the science debate of AGW.

    Gee, peter we all wish we could buy a vowel for you, but you will need to do that for yourself. Why don’t you start by reading the treaty? But oh no you don’t need the facts to make a decision. I don’t want to hear any more about science from you – you can’t be bothered with facts? I seriously doubt you are a conservative, you have opinions without information, that’s the mark of a lib.

    It is sad that you are in denial about the fact that a whole lot of communists became environmentalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. “They got keen on green, ’cause big red was dead”.

    I don’t think that everybody that is pushing hard for misguided carbon regulation is stupid, I think they have an agenda, regardless of what the science says, they want Government control over the energy sector.

  167. I don’t think that the Senate will ratify the treaty – it won’t happen, but let’s say that it does. We also have a free trade agreement – NAFTA, but did that stop our government from preventing Mexican trucks on our highways? No.

    Come to think of it there were quite a few American Indian nations that had treaties with the US government, I say “were” because most don’t exist anymore. Treaties that aren’t in the US interest don’t quite carry the weight of “supreme law” although It’s a nice thing to tell the people you are signing a treaty with. It’s hard enough to get our Government to follow the Constitution itself, how are foriegn governments supposed to inforce a treaty?

  168. This speaks quite explicitly of wealth transfer. It is from Nicholas Stern’s presentation last year aimed at producing the blueprint for a treaty at Copenhagen.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/granthamInstitute/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf

    Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national
    emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and
    transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.

    Existing international institutions will need to evolve in order to deal with the nature and scale of the challenge, coordinate global financial flows, and support vulnerable countries in adapting to the impact of climate change. In the longer term it might be necessary to design and create new institutions.

  169. How many of you have read the draft of the treaty provided by Anthony at the top of the post?

    On page 133, concerning the provision of financial resources to promote equity and justice, Option 1, Alternative 1 states:

    “An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5–1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5–1 per cent of GDP]].”

    In the worst case scenario, for the U.S., this amounts to ~$284 billion per year. Every year.

    Historical responsibility? This amounts to nothing more than a demand that we pay reparations to other parts of the world for being more industrious, and getting farther ahead than they. We are supposed to pay other nations because they couldn’t get their acts together? This is absolutely nuts. This must be stopped.

    Any of you sitting there thinking; “Oh, that won’t happen.”, think again. If you just sit there and do nothing, you deserve whatever is foisted upon you.

    Are you concerned yet?

  170. An Inquirer (11:51:04) :

    For Lord Monckton to accept a “birther” question and discuss it — that is disappointing and lowers my estimation of his judgement. (I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices. Nevertheless, there is no traction to be gained in the “birther” issue.)

    I agree – however there is a very good answer to the question of why Obama doesn’t release his real birth certifcate. It lists his real father as Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a notorious black communist who was at the University of Hawaii at the same time as Stanley Ann Durham, his mother. It isn’t a coincidence that Obama was born 9 months after JFKs inauguration, big party that night. I don’t like conspiracy theories, but I’ve seen photos of his Mom, BHO sr, and Davis side by side. Obama doesn’t look anything like BHO Sr. , But he has a very strong resemblance to Davis.It’s the gaunt face and the eyes. Also remember that Durham never lived with BHO sr. after jr. was born. He was just a cover for Davis.

    Unfortunately, if it would come out that he’s not actually BHO jr. it would ruin his carefully constructed personal narrative, and “Dream’s from my Father” would be seen as fiction.

  171. I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices.

    I do. It’s great politics and makes the far right look really bad whenever the matter comes up. If it were me, I’d slide out and burn my birth certificate. I wouldn’t want the matter EVER to be put to rest: It’s a far-right circular firing squad.

    The birth was announced in the local papers according to O’Reilly, who is not exactly the biggest liberal on the block. Unless that is disproven, I consider the matter closed. So far as who his father is or is not, that is beside the point as to his eligibility to serve.

  172. jeez (13:45:25) :

    Whether or not the Vienna Convention obligates the US to have the US Constitution overriden is likely to be irrelevant, as it is likely the US Senate does not have the right via treaty or international convention for the assignation of those rights. Overriding the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment whatever the wording of the treaties signed. This would have to be dragged through the courts and whether or not a court case gets any traction would likely depend on who is raising the issue, but I think more of US sovereignty rights may be protected than many fear.
    ————————————————————-
    There are three Articles of the Constitution at play here: Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2, the presidential power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; Article 5, the amendment process; and Article 6, paragraph 2, the Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

    The individual’s innate rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, are not given by the Constitution, but presumeably protected by the Constitution, should not be subject to a treaty. History causes me to be uncomfortable with the belief that our government will protect our sovereign rights.

  173. smrstrauss (10:27:03) :

    Treaties require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

    REPLY: Recall that Gore signed Kyoto, without such vote. – Anthony

    Kyoto was never even submitted to the Senate for ratification, President Clinton was too smart to bang his head against wall. President Obama knows that the Copenhagen treaty is very unlikely to be ratified, the adminstration is trying to come up with some terminology like “international commitment” that would allow him to implement the agreement without the formality of treaty ratification, based just on his signature. He’s going to try an end run.

  174. While I agree with others commenting here that it would be good to keep political discussions to the minimum, I appreciate Anthony posting on this matter. I also appreciate Lord Monckton taking the time to respond to WUWT readers, and his great effort in climate debate in general.

    Many would like to focus only the numerous and serious problems with the science of global warming, but is the politicization of science that brought these problems into existence. That politics is part of the picture is inescapable. However it is my hope that those behind the AGW hoax can be defeated by the very tool they sought to corrupt for their political ends – science.

  175. I knew a frog bathing in a pan of warm water, gradually the water got hotter and hotter, and the frog said not to worry the water’s fine…

    Mighty good frog legs, tasted yum yum yum…

  176. evanmjones (16:40:35)

    The birth was announced in the local papers according to O’Reilly, who is not exactly the biggest liberal on the block. Unless that is disproven, I consider the matter closed. So far as who his father is or is not, that is beside the point as to his eligibility to serve.

    Evan, I agree he is eligibile to serve. But I’m a little confused why seeing his name in the paper is proof of anything. There was never any doubt that a Hawaiian Birth certificate was issued (and would generate a newpaper announcement). The problem was that it was issued three days after his birth, very strange. The birthers believed that he was born in Kenya, and was then brought to the US and a birth cert. requested. Regardless it would be in the paper. I am not a Birther, I am a “Daviser”. Do a search on Frank Marshell Davis. Put his picture along side Stanley Ann Durham and Pres. Obama, see what you think. Davis was a US citizen, even if BHO jr. was born in Kenya, he would still be a native born US citizen, unlike Durham, Davis was old enough to confer US citizenship on his offspring.

  177. Douglas DC (06:28:13) :

    I don’t have confidence in the US Government-I’m part Cherokee.However this is not going to go down with out one heck of fight. Here in the US we have a curious breed of Democratic Pol called a “Blue Dog.”They are fiscally conservative and usually represent conservative areas.Nominally the South and Mid West,they are, for the most part squeamish when it comes to a lot of this stuff as they are worried about their seats.
    The Cap and Tax bill isn’t even on the table,in the senate-yet and may not make it before Copenhagen.Even in the Blue side of Oregon Pete DeFazio isn’t drinking that kool-aid.He’s a Warmist but somewhat luke warm, he sees this as the next big bubble to burst.Our Senatoral contingent is hopeless,but they too are looking at the polls. and polling is that people are really,really mad.latch on to your Congresscritter and Senator.You might not think you can do any good- but sometimes a Jack Russell can get the best of the Rottweiler it takes a grip on the right spot…”

    Douglas, be aware of the “luke warm”, they are the most dangerous ones.

  178. DGallagher (17:00:28) :

    Regardless, I’d drop the matter for purposes of political strategy, if nothing else. The way I see it, the GOP is up for a big comeback–unless they blow it.

  179. Ed Scott (16:42:52) :
    The individual’s innate rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, are not given by the Constitution, but presumeably protected by the Constitution, should not be subject to a treaty.

    Ed there is no such document as “the bill of rights”, the first 10 amendments to the US constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, are referred to as “The Bill of Rights” as they specifically limit the power of the Federal Government in regards to citizens, however the enumerated rights are part of the Constitution itself.

  180. Are you concerned yet?

    Yet? The smell of this has been hanging around for quite some time.
    The unsavory doings besides the point, it’s going to cost the USA a lot more than $.25T. It will cost us any hope of recovery and rub salt into the wounds inflicted by back to back to back popped bubbles + big bailouts.
    What was it the pundits were saying last week?
    Oh yes, it’s that something boils deep down in the American psyche.
    Something unnamed.

  181. “The way I see it, the GOP is up for a big comeback–unless they blow it.” evan

    Well, Obama will be left holding the bag for the economy and bailing out the banksters, fruitlessly. Afghanistan will continue to chew up our military until it is 4 for 4 (Alexander the Great, Britain, Russia, soon the USA) so GOP armchair warriors will look like the fools they are.

    So, my prediction is Ron Paul or the Rapture.

    I can’t lose.

  182. The problem I believe is that Treaties can trump state laws, not the Bill of Rights per se. For example, Education is one important area where state laws define educational freedom and parental rights. Yet there is no actual language in the Constitution concerning these rights, so the point I am trying to make is that treaties are every bit as threatening to our sovereignty and self-rule as Article VI shows on its face.

    If I am incorrect about Treaties trumping state law, please advise.

  183. I doubt it will come to that.

    (And please let’s not get started on US involvement in the Mideast!)

  184. Let’s face the facts.

    The Chinese have managed to control 1.3 billion Chinese and slowly turned them into productive consumers.

    Our Corporates have been watching this process with envy.
    Not only because of the cheap labor, but because of the lack of legal fuzz and red tape.

    No questions asked.

    In China, construction projects that take 10 up to 15 years in the US and Europe can be realized within a single year.

    Our corporates live by the rule of “time is money”.

    That is the flexibility that makes China incredibly attractive compared to the West.

    The concept of Global Governance currently pushed by the UN and our political establishment is aimed at the transformation into such a society on a Global scale.

    The health bill, the regulation of CO2 via the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, the Nationalization of all our water and the land grabs is a pure act of communism.
    It happens although these acts are in conflict with the US Constitution.

    The honoring of Marxist thugs like Che and Castro (Hero of the Year) is part of the new cult.

    The Climate Change Hoax will be the “Green Trap” that will cover the process and the result will be that we will lose our civil rights and our freedom.

    Lord Moncton has clearly explained how, why and when the stage will be set.

    We will see Corporatism (the neat translation of fascism) rule the world and human kind will be reduced to a consuming asset, pushed, meddled and lied to, from the cradle to the grave.

    You only have to read the Lisbon Treaty to see where we are heading in Europe and watch the actions of Obama (the first Global President) to see how the world will look like in 10 years.

    This is not the world I want to live in so I will fight this to the bone.

    Our experiences introducing democracy in the world have failed with Arab Nations, Russia had it’s “Glasnost” until Putin shut it down and China is ready to take the lead as the power of the free world declines.

    Corporatism has decided for us and we are slowly put in green shackles with no place to go.

    Vaclav Klaus, the Chech President knows it and resists the full brunt of the EU and it’s corrupt leaders with all his might, refusing to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
    The American people are waking up at their Tea Parties in opposition to Obama policies, but they don’t see the big trap of Copenhagen.
    Who believes in conspiracy theories?

    But this is our future, take it or leave it.

    The USA currently is the last bastion to fall as Europe hangs on a single threat.

    If we lose in the Senate and Obama signs, there will be war.

    With this said, please keep calling those Senators, every vote counts.
    Call them every day, write them, fax them, e-mail them, make your voices heard.

    Send them a copy of Lord Moncton’s speech.

    Get organized and do what you can to stop this debacle.

    We are still in relative calm waters.
    We still can communicate and travel.
    If the power grab is successful, this will change very quickly. We will face car free zones like we now have in some of the European Cities. Traveling will be restricted and our cities will be turned into jails. Opposition will be faced with armed force before you know it. Just think. Population regulation is part of the objective…

    I have seen this happen before, just did not expect to live the day to see it happen again.

    What I want to state clearly is that any resistance to the current process performed under the current circumstances will be like a walk in the park compared to the opposition after a successful coup by the UN.
    Those who oppose these Loons are going risk their very lives.

    Just think of it.

  185. This treaty will be adhered to….with or without Senate ratification. Obama despises America……

    The “science” of global warming doesn’t even enter his consciousness……only a means to justify his ideological agenda. Senate ratification is only a slight bend in the road.

    He sees America as a rich, pampered, bully that needs to be “put in its place”. His agenda is to marginalize the United States to the point of weakness where the country will be on the same level economically, politically and militarily as every other nation on the planet in the name of “fairness”, “social justice” and “leveling the playing field”………..he’ll achieve it subtly and incrementally if he has his way.

    He does not believe in American exceptionalism. He sees himself as a “world citizen“ first and foremost, not an American.

    His agenda is not to elevate the less fortunate……..his agenda is to forcibly confiscate personal property and create uniform financial/economic mediocrity where no one has more than anyone else…….. a global, militarily, economic, political, shade of gray……..He sees the world as the haves and have nots and is determined to take from the haves and redistribute their property to the have nots…….and personally believes that he has been chosen to carry out this undertaking.

    I know this sounds harsh, dark………sinister………however, his writings, his actions and his personal choices for administrators are disturbingly prophetic regarding his goal(s).

    I pray that I’m wrong.

  186. What people in America fail to grasp, is that regardless of where he was born, he was raised during his formative years in a poor third world country. The rest of the world, especially 3rd world countries look at the US very differently. Beliefs that flow from this would be that the US is just one nation among all the nations of the world and should not have a bigger say or dominate other countries. The belief that the US “owes” the rest of the world for exploiting their resources and cheap labor. I think this is why he doesn’t want any illegal aliens prosecuted, this is why he wants to offer them citizenship and free health care. We owe them. The way he apologizes for this country without ever listing our good points.
    What the poor in America don’ t realize is compared to what he grew up around they are rich. The social justice he is talking about is global social justice.

    Yes, he spent his later years in America, under the influence of communists and radicals, but this world view of his was made in Indonesia.

  187. RE: jorgekafkazar (11:11:12) : “Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?”

    Watt is this supposed to mean? This is an amazing thread.

  188. evanmjones (17:08:28) :

    Yes, I agree, it makes no difference from a political standpoint. However i do believe that it is the explanation for why it hasn’t been released, and why those, like the Hawaiian Governor, who has seen the document say that he meets the constitutional requirements.

    It’s not his citizenship that is bogus, it’s the whole son of a Kenyan herdsman story that’s a crock, I can understand why he wouldn’t address the issue.

  189. Zeke (17:41:20) :

    If I am incorrect about Treaties trumping state law, please advise.

    In theory, it should never be an issue. The Constitution grants the Federal Government power over defense and foreign relations, as well as the power to regulate interstate commerce. All other powers are retained by the states or people. In other words, the only purpose of the Federal government is to do those things that states can’t do themselves, independent of the other states. There was a clear demarcation between the powers of the Federal and State governments. Also remember that the Senate (which must ratify treaties) wasn’t elected by the people of each state, Senators were selected by the state governments, and as such, Senators represented the individual state governments, rather than the people. That’s gone now, state governments have no representation at the Federal level.

    That was the theory. In practice, the Federal Government has taken over so many aspects of governence, that the States have had most of their power “stolen”. Many of these changes initially took place in the FDR’s New deal. Now almost anything qualifies as interstate commerce and it is very rare that the Supreme Court steps in and tells Congress that they don’t have authority to do whatever they want.

    A few years ago, SCOTUS threw out a Federal law that made it a crime to have a gun within 500 feet of a school. The court ruled that the Constitution did not grant the Federal Government the power to pass such a law, only States could do so. The Government argued that effective commerce requires educated people, and that a gun in the area could possibly interfere with children’s education, and that the commerce clause gave the Federal Government the authority. The court ruled that if such an argument was valid, then the commerce clause would give the Fed. Gov. control over every aspects of peoples lives.

    In fact, the Congress feels that it does have authority over everything, they have torn up the Constitution so completely that the entire premise of limited Government is gone. It get’s worse all the time. JFK was more conservative than the average Republican Congressman at this point.

  190. A world government has been the overall goal of the UN since the 70’s.
    Global warming was just a convenient excuse (until it inconveniently stopped) to seemingly unite everyone against a common enemy.

    No matter what evidence is produced to disprove the AGW theory, the movement hurtles on like a runaway train, with ever more outrageous claims and propaganda.

    I’ve followed this issue for a number of years and thought I understood all of the factors at play. But I didn’t realise just how widely all of the political processes were being influenced and corrupted by the environmentalist movements until I read http://www.green-agenda.com .

    Not a conspiracy theory. Just a conspiracy.

  191. My beliefs are this: If you can’t make your point in a paragraph or two, then your point is not worth listening to. Multiple words do not make one smart.

    Comments should be restricted to four paragraphs at most. If you want to quote a story then just link it. Life us way too short to listen to the freaks of society.

  192. I don’t mind that my comments regarding birther theory were snipped for being off-topic, but in that case I’d like to see all the other ones snipped, too. Otherwise I’d like my comments to be reinstated, thanks.

  193. Thumbs up to Anthony for posting the closing remarks of Lord Christopher Monckton’s presentation at the Minnesota Free Market Institute. I see Joe D’Aleo at http://icecap.us/ and the folks at carbon climate.info have done the same.

    Thumbs up to Ron de Haan for his recent post. Forget fascism and any form of socialism in my opinion… though occasionally attractive… to true capitalism communism, as is used in China, is most attractive. Laissez-faire capitalism as used in the US surely has proven its shortcomings.

    With all this I’m reminded of the remarkable history of the Rothschilds and a quote of John F. Hylan in 1911 “the real menace of our republic is the invisible government…At the head ‘international bankers.'” This site has it close to what I recall having researched if you want to take a look. Hope its all for naught!

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6177

    History of the Rothschilds

  194. A Strategic View:

    Nobody knows if Lord Monckton is over-reacting or not.

    But if Monckton is over-reacting, no harm done.

    However, if everyone assumes Monckton is over-reacting and he is not, enormous harm is the result.

    So great concern about the terms and impacts of the Copenhagen Treaty is the only logical path.

    So call your Congressman, Senator or MP and tell them to reject this intrusive, dangerous Treaty.

    ___________________________

  195. TA (20:48:55) :
    I don’t mind that my comments regarding birther theory were snipped for being off-topic, but in that case I’d like to see all the other ones snipped, too. Otherwise I’d like my comments to be reinstated, thanks.

    Typical. I actually think that Anthony may have posted this to “out” the nuts that post on this blog and show them for what they are.

    The internet has failed American History. Will it also fail scientific discovery? Are we spiraling down the abyss when it comes to truth?

    I think so.

  196. Deech56 (18:54:51) :

    RE: jorgekafkazar (11:11:12) : “Has your coffee tasted like watermelons lately?”

    I think they mean that watermellons are green on the the outside and red in the centre i.e. alluding that such prople are environmentalists on the outside but really communists by nature.

    Such sweeping statements really irritate me. Most environmentalists have a concern for the planet not a desire to rule the world. I consider myself reasonably greeen and I get quite annoyed that I am labeled a lefty for this. Sure there are some people that have both social and environmental concerns and what is wrong with this?

    The trouble is that hysteria has taken over in the far green corner and by the look of it, Monckton is doing similar nonsense for the sceptics. Stick to the science if you want to challenge AGW.

  197. Tom in Texas (20:58:36) :
    “Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?”

    Green on the outside, red on the inside.

    See above.

  198. Dave vs Hal (21:26:27) :
    I consider myself reasonably greeen and I get quite annoyed that I am labeled a lefty for this.

    Well then Dave vs Hal; tell us all what being greeen means. Since you are greeen, you should have no problem enlightening us.

  199. More proof positive of what I’ve blogged about before with the ever growing differences of the United States and America. In the United States, where crap is king, and credit, credit, credit, is their mantra, they figure that they are free to do whatever will put more money into their pockets, even at our expense. Meanwhile, we in America, who are generally stupid enough to believe that the government here is legitimate, we actually believe that we have some rights, and that we have someone who will look out for those rights, and support us when we say “NO MORE”. To me there is no more United States OF America, just the United States AND America. I learned several years ago that if there is no one in your corner (i.e. you haven’t bought them), you have no rights. They gave them to us 220 years ago, but they didn’t leave us the one thing that would allow us the ability to fend off the suspension of our rights: Real power to remove those who have been elected without resorting to the congress and senate, who see anything of the sort as a threat to their own corruption. Let me make this clear: I do NOT advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government! That said, Obama can do whatever he damn well pleases to us as a country because the only people with any real ability to remove him or any other demagogue are the people who are already showing (via healthcare, taxing us while not taxing certain corporations, giving themselves annual raises while not raising the minnimum wage for ten years) that they value something other than the will of the American people. If we say “NO” to the treaty, and he says “So what”, the only thing we can do is harrass our “elected officials”, who haven’t listened to our pleas for health care reform, haven’t listened to our pleas for better schools, and would rather spend (literally) more than $1 BILLION a day to play in the dirt on Mars, than to give that money back to the American people or to provide health care to every American. Obama’s own Alma Mater released a study recently that stated that 44,000 Americans die every year due to lack of access to quality healthcare. If the Congress thinks nothing of killing 120 Americans a day to keep the health insurer’s wallets fat, do you really believe they give a damn about the desire of the American people to remain a sovereign nation? No folks, the only question now is weather there will be a second American Revolution against a government that lives in a far off land (Washington D.C.-you’d think it was on another planet the way they act toward American needs), tax the hell out of us, tell us that the tax money is there’s to do with as they please, and then give sweetheart deals to their friends, at taxpayer expense. The previous precedent for that was the East India Tea Company. Now it’s the Banks, the Automakers, and the insurance companies. The biggest problem here is that instead of having 50% of 300 million Americans being loyalists and the other half lacking, for the most part competence to defend our freedoms, we have about 20% who prefer anything Obama says, 20% who oppose whatever he says, and 60% who don’t want to be bothered with any of it, hoping that someone else will fight the battles so that they can have their damn cappucinnos and credit cards. I always wanted my daughter to grow up in the United States OF America, not the United Stated OR America. I pray that soon enough those of us who value our FREEDOM and this country, with GOD’s good graces, wrest it back from the democrats and republicans whose sole purpose is to make themselves comfortable, even at the deaths of their own brethren. Let’s face it, if they were to impeach Obama and remove him from office for treason, for signing away American sovereignty, that would pave the way for the removal of alomst every Senator and Representative we have on account of blatant corruption. They’ll never do it. Heaven help us, because the bastards in D.C. won’t.

  200. inquietude76 (21:51:59) :

    Too many words without paragraphs. Why do you think that paragraphs were invented in the first place? Think about it man….think!!

  201. You idiots who think Obama and his marxist co-conspirators have any good intentions at all are simply stupid. The goal of Obama and his marxist co-conspirators is to put the USA in the role of servant and redirect our country’s output to the rest of the world, while limiting our citizens to a minimalist standard of living.

  202. Anthony, you will most likely not post this, but please take a look at least.

    Monckton brings up the birth certificate theory during his introduction of the lecture (about 2 minutes into the film)

    it is misleading to claim, that he is “debunking” the theory!

  203. Great…another tax form to fill out every year.

    Could be good business for Liberty Tax preparers and other CPAs though…The World Income Tax.

    How about electing a World President? Can you imagine the debates? 20 languages? 50 parties…

  204. Hey Blondie, apparently you don’t have a clue what this “climate change” issue is really about. “Transfer of wealth from developed countries to developing countries”. Please do even a little research into the background and existing writings of Obama, his marxist czars, advisors and co-conspirators.

    Brendan, if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention, or just don’t give a shit.

  205. Next year, you have parliament elections, right? Just vote the [snip] out guys.
    As some British gentleman told, “when the parliament sits together, lives and property of all men are under threat”.

    Reply: It is possible to write without using profanity. My treatment of profanity, misspelled profanity, concealed profanity, or other versions may get more harsh depending on my mood. ~ charles the moderator

  206. Isn’t it the Congress – according to the Constitution – that has the last say in lawmaking – not the Senate?

    Then again – having the rarely changellenged right to write Executive Orders – the President can do pretty much what he “wants” (read: “what he’s been told to”) – and the rest – both the -Congress and Senate will simply follow – f.ex:

    Executive Order 10995 provides for the takeover of the communications
    media.

    Executive Order 10997 provides for the takeover of all electric, power,
    petroleum, gas, fuels, and minerals.

    Executive Order 10988 provides for the takeover of food resources and
    farms.

    Executive Order 10999 provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation, control of highways, seaports, etc.

    Executive Order 11000 provides for mobilization of all civilians into
    work brigades under the Government supervision.

    Executive Order 11001 provides for Governmental takeover of all
    health, education and welfare functions.

    Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a
    national registration of all persons.

    Executive Order 11003 provides for the Government to take over
    airports and aircraft.

    Executive Order 11004 provides for the Housing and Finance Authority
    to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish
    new locations for populations.

    Executive Order 11005 provides for the Government to take over
    railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

    All of these were combined into Executive Order 11490 and that was
    signed by President Carter on July 20,1979.

    So, if the President declares a national emergency because of whatever reason, whether it’s for one year, five years, five minutes or forever, it doesn’t make any difference. FEMA then can implement all these Executive orders, take over all local, state, and national government suspend the Constitution and do whatever they want to do.

    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian [private?] national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” – Barry Soetoro

    PS. Curious George wrote: “Keep in mind Russia’s recent reiteration of their “Preemptive” Nuclear strike doctrine, the current dispute over Arctic resources, etc.”

    Worth keeping in mind also – The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend “The Western Way of Life”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048

  207. Ron de Haan (18:00:26) :

    Let’s face the facts.

    Here’s a unique if old idea: divide and conquer!

  208. “[Oh c'mon! Don't you think this post was a bit over the top? ~ ctm]”

    I’m disappointed, Charles. Why not let the reader judge my words? I thought WUWT welcomed all views. And why are you trying to protect the secret service?

    Reply: Disappointed? Are you kidding me? You post about the possibility of Barack Obama being JKF’s illegitimate love-child and expect a free ride? I don’t care what side of the political fence you find yourself, this has no place here. Readers, I’m not making this up. Brendan H, you will not be allowed to rebut this with continued raving on this topic. ~ charles the moderator.

  209. For what it’s worth, the video of Lord Monckton warning of the impending treaty has gone viral. What the people make of it is what will matter in the end. I intend to watch the responses on several sites today where I know it was posted late yesterday and the first responses, if they are indicative of anything, suggest this alone has had the most reaction by far from normally quiet blog spaces. I suggest any comments regarding the validity of what was stated should be predicated upon the reaction of the public which will occur in short order.

  210. Re Lord Monckton

    Some of the adverse comments about Christopher Monckton are simply the usual ad hominen. His association with Baroness Thatcher makes him the spawn of the devil in some eyes. Yes he uses colourful and I might say eloquent language but I can say from personal experience that his knowledge of the science is exceptional, particularly the flaws in the IPCC’s calculations for temperature response to increased CO2.

    Some of your US readers may think he exagerrates the threat. I am not qualified to comment on the US constitution but he is absolutely right about the insidious nature of the Copenhagen Treaty and the EU which has become an undemocratic and unelected dictatorship.

    It is true that many on the left support the crude AGW alarmist rant, with some notable and noble exceptions. However, in the UK what is worse is the insidious contamination of all aspects of public life including business. Many business leaders, whether or not they accept the AGW nonsense, smell the money and the tax dollars. Earlier this morning, on TV we had a advert from a supposed non-polictical charity, Oxfam telling us that CC costs lives citing floods in Bangladesh. No evidence just lies and assertions.

    In the UK we have passed legislation which condemns us to LEGALLY BINDING targets to reduce CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050. This is based upon the flimsy AGW theory and Sternian cost benefit analysis. Earlier this week we had the absurd Penn Hadow and the even more absurd Wadham from Cambridge telling us on the basis of two sets of shoddy measurements that the Arctic summer ice would be gone in 10 years. All reported without any crictical analysis by the BBC and the rest of the MSM.

    However, the glimmer of hope is that in the build up to Copenhagen the fear of failure is making the alarmist claims become more and more hysterical whilst at the same time the evidence of the fraud becomes greater and greater. But this will make the ultimate climb down ever more difficult.

    As to Monckton addressing the Conservative party, I think not. Cameron is a lost cause and subscribes to the Goreacle. If the Conservatives are elected, we have to hope that some of the more saner voices in the cabinet can restrain his green nonesense.

    Finally, Baroness Thatcher set up Hadley to research climate change not to make up its mind in advance as it now does.

    Regards

    Paul

  211. Listen up America. In Britain we will almost certainly lose our nation in the next 6 months, as the Lisbon treaty will be forced through – against the wishes of the people ( France and Denmark voted no and were ignored; the Irish voted no once, then were told to vote again and were illegally bullied into a yes; we were promised a referendum by all 3 major parties and we haven’t had one ). We will be a province in the EU state. This is real, and will happen to you unless you fight.

  212. Now is the time for the citizens of these United States to defend the Constitution that was writ with the blood and lost lives of our forefathers. It is amazing to dismiss our roots as flawed and therefore poisoning our country to this day. I see the current leadership today, and do not find anyone worthy to carry George Washington’s coat, or be known as “the father of our country”. We will not stand for the trampling of our constitutional rights by our own inept elected officials.

  213. The carbon dioxide Taliban are still raving. Notice how they call it “carbon” because they can’t manage the whole phrase “carbon dioxide”.

    The Telegraph reports today Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary (who needs to save his job in the face of scientific facts) declaring “President Obama must personally intervene to ensure the world reaches an ambitous deal to stop catastrophic global warming”.

    Read all about it here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6346833/President-Obama-must-come-to-Copenhagen-to-save-climate-change-talks-says-Ed-Miliband.html

    In the UK, we call him “milliamp” because of his constant attempts to destroy most of our power generating industry.

    “Mr Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said it would help if world leaders attend the conference to ensure all countries take action on cutting carbon emissions.

    Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, has already pledged to attend and President Obama is likely to be in the area having picked up his Nobel Peace Prize at around the same time.

    Mr Miliband pointed out that the key decision to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), at the G8 Summit in July, only happened because it was pushed by world leaders rather than just negotiators.”

    …So there you have it. Gordon Brown has assumed God-like powers to decide what global temperatures will be allowed to do; and this from a man who can’t control his Cabinet, his backbench MPs, or make any corrupt MPs repay the money they embezzled from British taxpayers.

    “Mr Miliband said the Government was “determined to throw everything” at getting a successful deal.

    “The day will concentrate minds, the MEF is bringing pieces together. We are throwing everything at it. We are determined to get a deal at Copenhagen. Rich countries must agree to legally binding mid-term targets to cut carbon emissions. At the moment this will be in the range of 25 and 40 per cent by 2020. This will be particularly difficult for the US where the President Obama is struggling to get through the necessary legislation.”

    …Notice also that there is no comment box on that page.

  214. Dave vs Hal: Being “green” and being an environmentalist are two completely different things. Being “green” actually often runs counter to, and runs roughshod over true environmental concerns. I would re-think your “green” claims if I were you.

  215. Quick analysis of Monkton, can he be trusted?:

    0 K being absolute zero,

    Oxygen is ice below 54.36 K

    Nitrogen is ice below 63.15 K

    CO2 is ice below 194.65 K

    Which of these three gasses is the LEAST POWERFUL absorber of heat?

    Answer: CO2 by a long way. N and O are both four times more powerful at absorbing heat than CO2.

    Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up 99% of the atmosphere.
    CO2 makes up only 0.03811%.

    How much will CO2 influence atmospheric temperature compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen combined?

    Answer: Compared with N and O the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures at these levels is totally insignificant. In other words CO2 has no baring on atmospheric temperature worth talking about.

    Do you think Monkton is ignorant of these facts?

    Answer: Of course not.

    Monkton has danced a merry dance around these simple truths which if he had addressed from the start would have sunk this AGW fraud many years ago.

    Conclusion: Monkton is a New World Order Gatekeeper.

    If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book

    [snip - self promotion ]

  216. DGallagher (16:47:18) :

    smrstrauss (10:27:03) :

    Treaties require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

    REPLY: Recall that Gore signed Kyoto, without such vote. – Anthony

    Kyoto was never even submitted to the Senate for ratification, President Clinton was too smart to bang his head against wall. President Obama knows that the Copenhagen treaty is very unlikely to be ratified, the adminstration is trying to come up with some terminology like “international commitment” that would allow him to implement the agreement without the formality of treaty ratification, based just on his signature. He’s going to try an end run.
    —————————————
    Here is a possible course of action of a “left” end run: An Executive Agreement doesnt have to be made known and may only last while that president is in office.

  217. Those of you who think Monckton is exagerating, need to reflect on the fact that measured against the millenia of human history, democracy has been but a fleeting interlude, an aberration, if you like. The one thing history teaches us is that the natural state of society has been totalitarianism, and it is towards totalitarianism that the organs of the state are continually drawn. It is only the vigilance of the people, and the resolve of some exceptional statesmen (Churchill comes to mind) that prevents this inward contraction. This dialectic of opposing forces is constant and the result is expressed in the degree of personal freedoms that each enjoys, or not.

    Therefore, whether the minutiae of Monckton’s analysis is correct or not, does not matter. It is a simple truth, the darker side of civilization, the side we thought (if we think at all) that we had banished to the dustbin of history for ever. But are we really that unique those of us blessed to be living in the era of democracy? Do we really believe that having reached the sunny uplands we can never agains loose our way? Maybe we have all grown too complacent.

    Those who believe that totalitarianism can never return, are blinded by the pre-conceived notion of what they imagine totalitarianism to be. The one incredible property it has is its ability to morph and adapt to fit the host society.

    The totalitariansim of the Soviet’s was harsh and brutal, because that was the nature of the society it took over – very few questioned it. American totalitariansim would be very different. Individuals would be tools for consumption, kept docile with crass entertainment. In the UK, I foresee a society controlled by a myriad of pointless rules and regulations, where each daily task, such as disposing of garbage, washing the car or watching tv would have some regulation attached, piously enforced by a vast army of environmental police. As befits the UK profile, sanctions for non compliance would be financial, not custodial.

    One can muse all day about how each nation would look under totalitarianism, but so chameleon will it be, that it may scarce be recognised for what it is.

  218. “That was the theory. In practice, the Federal Government has taken over so many aspects of governence, that the States have had most of their power “stolen”. Many of these changes initially took place in the FDR’s New deal. Now almost anything qualifies as interstate commerce and it is very rare that the Supreme Court steps in and tells Congress that they don’t have authority to do whatever they want.” ~DGallagher (19:50:57)

    Illuminating post–I do appreciate the sound of a lonely Federalist howling at the moon as much as anyone. :)

    You are probably following the story, but some may not know that more than 10 governors have signed resolutions affirming their 10th amendment rights (including former Gov. Palin AK, Gov. Perry TX and a Dem from TN), and have let the Administration know that bailouts, healthcare reform, and cap and trade are a massive Federal overreach of power not given to it in the Constitution.

    Cheers! Zeke the Sneak

  219. As for treaties being the supreme law of the land, which Lord Monckton mentioned in his speech, I want to give an example of my legal question.

    In the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, it is stated that children should never have access to a gun. This conflicts with our own 2nd Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The treaty should not trump the Constitution in that case based on the Supreme Court decision Reid v Covert 1957.

    However, the same UNCRC also grants that all children must be educated in a manner consistent with the UN’s standards, and it gives the state the final authority to act in what is the “best interest of the child.” There is no actual language in the Constitution which discusses the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children. This has court precedent and is also decided at the state level. Therefore, I believe that the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child could trump state laws and the right of parents to direct the education of their own children is threatened.

  220. This video produced by George Hunt exposes how the progenitors of the hijacked environmental movement, people like Maurice Strong, the Rothschild family and David Rockefeller, always intended the scam to achieve global population reduction along with a global carbon tax based on a cap and trade system controlled by them.

    Some of the video in this clip is choppy, but the audio is fine.

  221. Blondie posted an opinion that Americans got what they deserved in the last election because the American people “voted” Obama in office. Who is kidding whom? None of my conservative friends liked McCain. McCain is a flaming liberal anyway. The New World Order already decides who is going to be nominated and stacks the deck. Its like professional wrestling in the States. Its all pre-planned. The match is no real contest, its all a show. Same for elections in the USA. Obama was supposed to win! Every black person I know proudly voted for Obama because he was a black man and for NO other reason. Racist or not? If I had voted for McCain and Palin just because they were white and bragged about it…I would be called a bloody racist! Meanwhile, I can think of many other black people I would vote for President, starting with Condie Rice, Alan Keyes, and David Chappell. Right now it appears as Communism has won the day with the election of Obama. Gee, and he may not even have been born a US citizen. Amazing what communists can accomplish with help of the American Left Media. NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, etc. et al.

  222. Charles: “You post about the possibility of Barack Obama being JKF’s illegitimate love-child and expect a free ride?”

    You’ve already given a free ride to one poster to question Obama’s paternity. Now we’re just quibbling over the suspect.

  223. And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

    Since it is signed by only one person, albeit the president, it won’t carry enough weight for the average American to pay attention to its powers. The average Amrican will still rather abide t=by the Constitution of the U.S. and not this paper signed in a foreign country without their knowledge. The president is a servant not a dictator.

    I don’t think Barak Obama, or George Bush, or any other single man can override “We the people…”.

    :-)

  224. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back.

    I have a huge amount of respect for you Lord Monckton, and I am so happy for what you do about global warming, but I’m going to have to disagree with you. The U.S. has not paid any attention to the law of the UN in the past. This single paper won’t carry any authority in the minds of Americans either. There is no reason, whatsoever, for Americans to fear this document.

  225. I heard an interesting description of Barak Obama. It said that he is not anti-American. Rather, he is post-American. He acts as if American sovereignty is already gone and the world is a post-American world.

    But I think not all Americans will want to go along with that.

    “History is often not kind to those who rush it.”

  226. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

    Papers are signed and then not adhered to all the time. This one will not even be known about, let alone not adhered to.

  227. forgive me if I’m wrong, but in 2005 George Bush signed an agreement to turn us into the North American Union in something like 2010, didn’t he? which would erase our boarders? which in turn could void our constitution?

  228. Would it not be treason for the President to hand over the country to a foreign power?

    If the Senate ratified it (diabolical 17th Amendment) would not the States have a right to re-form the Union, and the federal regulars the duty to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?

  229. I just skimmed through this comment-thread, and I have yet to see anyone address one very real point:

    There is no Copenhagen Treaty yet..

    There is a draft of a treaty. There is a “blueprint” of a treaty. There are a whole lot of NGOs and other lefties spazzing out over what they hope will be in the treaty. But there is no actual treaty yet. It’s entirely possible — in fact, it’s quite likely — that there never will be.

    Yes, write your senators and congressmen. Yes, prepare now to fight whatever monstrosity does come out of the Copenhagen conference. But it is not a done deal yet. To act like it is a done deal will do you no good if in fact the conference collapses, as I expect it to do.

  230. I have now watched the full presentation. I already held Lord Monckton in very high esteem and this has now been increased exponentially. The discussion here has tended to fix on the final few minutes but, in an extremely accessible (I am no scientist), amusing and even lighthearted manner he, point by point, substantiated point by point, took the whole AGW argument apart, exposing it for the baseless falsehood it is. It was simply amazing and should be required viewing for anyone interested in the facts.

    No wonder he is so reviled by the warmists, with even some here imbibing their bile. He shows them up the charlatans they are.

  231. Brendan H (15:42:06)

    That wasn’t me who approved and I’m not going to bother going back and finding it.

  232. I recommend watching the video of Monckton’s presentation posted previously. It brings together all the refutations under one umbrella. In Monckton’s view, the AGW hypothesised was unequivocally refuted this year with Lindzen’s paper on the earth’s radiation budget. However, I particularly like the way he demolished the 2,500 scientists myth, reducing them to a mere 50 that contributed to chapter 9, and then noting that there were 60 scientists in the review that rejected the AGW position.

    One criticism though, why can’t we see the charts in the video? They seem to have been blacked out.

  233. Gene Nemetz:

    “The U.S. has not paid any attention to the law of the UN in the past. This single paper won’t carry any authority in the minds of Americans either. There is no reason, whatsoever, for Americans to fear this document.”

    I think this is wishfull thinking. The point Monckton was making, and he stresses this explicitly, is that the new World Government treaty will not be like the UN because it will have competency in areas which are currently sovereign to the United States. It will also have powers of enforcement, although the details on this are lacking – probably massive fines.

    What can Americans do if a cap & trade bill is passed that raises revenue off the backs of consumers, most of which ends up overseas?

    What can Americans do if a law is passed to add 5cents in the dollar income tax to meet the new “climate debt” obligations?

    What can Americans do if a law is passed to “price” all roads that are currently freeways, forcing all vehicles to be fitted with transponders that track their movement and automatically generate monthly bills?

    What can Americans do if a law is passed that prevents owners from selling their home unless it is brought up to some minimum energy standard as verified by an energy inspector?

    What can Americans do if a law is passed that sets the level of property tax depending on how much CO2 is emitted?

    What if a law is passed that allows building “green” power infrastructure to shortcut the existing planning and consent regulations?

    What if a law is passed to prohibit new coal fired power stations unless equiped with CCS?

    I could go on, but I think the message is clear. I speak from experience because most of these examples have either happened in the UK or are being discussed. The UK government are simply handed directives from the EU which are written into UK law. The penalty for non compliance, as always, are massive fines. So if you think this is some joke, then lots of luck buddy.

    You can’t say you haven’t been warned.

  234. “What can Americans do …”

    Plenty. Once AGW is discredited then other attempts at tyranny will start to crumble. Questions will be raised about the government school system, the mass media, etc.

    We are not Britain.

  235. When someone says, “Stick to the science,” I think of all the research grants NOT given because the abstract fails to support the “official” global warming cause. Science – freedom of thought – the very core of all that has made western civilization uniquely great, has been compromised. And all of us with it.

  236. Considering the so called Constitutional Amendment establishing the Federal Reserve was NEVER ratified yet still put in force establishing the Privately Owned Corporation called Te Federal Reserve allowing them the powers (specifically forbidden in the Constitution) to print money and TAX the American People, there’s ample reason to believe those who think this treaty won’t be enFORCED are flat out bumbling idiots who are dangerously ignorant naive and outright stupid.

  237. Back2bat: “We are not Britain”

    Yeh, Britain. The Mother of Parliaments. The nation that stood (for a while alone) against Nazism. And we’ve gone down.

    To fight this, you need to understand how it happens. It’s a process that runs over decades. The first european treaty ( the Coal and Steel Community ) was signed in 1951. The British pople was suckered in 1973 We were told it was just a free trade agreement – the Common Market. But we were being lied to. The politicians know that it was a project for political union. So, that’s 50 years from the first treaty – plus the conspiratorial planning that had happened in advance.

    Wolfwalker “ it’s not signed yet, and might not be signed”. In the long term doesn’t matter to them. They’ll get something – some concession. – some foothold. Then they’ll be back for more, later. On a different issue if they have to (banking, say). Stop Obama from signing, and then vote him out at the end of his term. Well done! But they’ll wait for Obama mk.II. See the timescales in paragraph above. These people are like the Borg – they just coming. So unless the American people (not just a few geeks) wise up, you’ll loose you country. 2020 – 2030 – whenever, you’ll loose.

  238. To fight this, you need to understand how it happens. It’s a process that runs over decades. The first european treaty ( the Coal and Steel Community ) was signed in 1951. The British pople was suckered in 1973 We were told it was just a free trade agreement – the Common Market. But we were being lied to. The politicians know that it was a project for political union. So, that’s 50 years from the first treaty – plus the conspiratorial planning that had happened in advance.

    Wolfwalker “ it’s not signed yet, and might not be signed”. In the long term doesn’t matter to them. They’ll get something – some concession. – some foothold. Then they’ll be back for more, later. On a different issue if they have to (banking, say). Stop Obama from signing, and then vote him out at the end of his term. Well done! But they’ll wait for Obama mk.II. See the timescales in paragraph above. These people are like the Borg – they just coming. So unless the American people (not just a few geeks) wise up, you’ll loose you country. 2020 – 2030 – whenever, you’ll loose.

  239. Forgive me, if I’m wrong but, In 2005 didn’t George W Bush sign the North America Union treaty didn’t he, and with that erases our borders with Canada and Mexico ?

  240. As a matter of American Law, Lord Monckton is partly right. A ratified treaty becomes law in the US upon ratification. If 40 senators block that ratification it does not. In addition, even if the US has signed a treaty, the Senate may vote to withdraw from it.

    This is not to downplay the problem but to put the exact law in perspective.

  241. Mac (02:18:14) :

    Monckton is a political embarrassment. Stick to the science and not the rantings of a Thatcherite clown.

    Of course, if you can’t debate the proposition just slag off the messenger!!

  242. Back2Bat:
    you need to search and find the senate bill S 1959 which is called Thought Crime Prevention Bill or Endgame as Bush called it, it states that the President can effect Martial Law WITHOUT consesus from Congress. The U.S. military is at his Power this is the “Change” he spoke of. Think about it.

  243. Might I say this “The dreams of Psychopaths are other peoples nightmares”.

    The primary characteristics of Psychopathy are as follows.

    1. Self obsession.
    2. An inability to empathise with others.
    3. Indifference to consequences of actions on others.
    4. An inflated sense of entitlement.
    5. Habitual Deception

    There is no known cure, and Psychopaths view themselves as healthy and the rest of us as weak, valuable only if useful and completely disposable.

    The point of Liberty is to protect the rest of us from the predators.

  244. Charles: “Brendan H (15:42:06)
    That wasn’t me who approved and I’m not going to bother going back and finding it.”

    Let me help. The post I referred to was timed at: (16:19:14), dated 16/10/09.

    Reply: Don’t care. Subject closed. ~ ctm

  245. [b]Doomcreeper[/b]
    [i]Back2Bat:
    you need to search and find the senate bill S 1959 which is called Thought Crime Prevention Bill or Endgame as Bush called it, it states that the President can effect Martial Law WITHOUT consesus from Congress. The U.S. military is at his Power this is the “Change” he spoke of. Think about it.[/i]

    This bill never made it out of committee (Aug, 2007). And since it was introduced in the 110th Congress and not passed, it was cleared from the books at the beginning of the 111th Congress. It is currently not law in the US.

  246. I am encouraged by the group “Oath Keepers” consisting of policemen and servicemen who swore an oath to defend The Constitution. Look em up.

    So yes, we are not Britain. Praise the Lord.

  247. Obama is a puppet of the Rockefeller’s and the European elites. The man was handpicked to be the next President of the United States and groomed for the job by Zgniew, Mr. Kissinger and the Rockefeller scum bags.

    Council of Foreign Relations
    Tri-lateral Commission
    Bilderberg Group
    Club of Rome
    Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs

    etc etc etc

    Political wings of the central bankers which they have used for the past 100 years to manipulate world affairs and exploit developing nations.

    Money = Power and if you folks haven’t been paying attention, the central bankers have no shortage of money…

  248. Holskald:

    yes, the bill was passed on Oct 23,2007 came into effect on oct 24th.
    with a 404 vote margin by Dems and Rep, like I said google it and find on http://www.rougegovenment.com. the sponsor of the bill which falls under the patriot act was Susan Collins (R) Maine

  249. OT, of course. I’m not really certain why the very notion of questioning Obama’s citizenship status offends so many people. Particularly in this context, where Lord Monckton was clearly saying it humorously. If you recall, objections were raised about McCain’s citizenship as well (he was born in the Philippines), which he answered by fully documenting his status.

    Obama has never bothered to do that, and there are about 19 ways the course of his status has been a bit odd, having traveled on foreign passports (theoretically, passports are proof of citizenship), school registrations, &c. I’m not sure where he was born, but, I don’t think too many other people can claim to _know_ either, as little proof has been offered.

    The hostility not to asserting whether he is or is not a citizen, but simply to asking if he is, is what I do not really follow.

  250. I am not up on the legal aspects of all this in terms of the degree to which the US would not be able to get out of a treaty once in.

    From Article 6 Section 2:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”

    Practically speaking, though, once something goes through and given the degree of increased centralised power both intra and inter States/Nations, it looks like the one-world government agenda is picking up, they almost have EU sown up and soon America will fall in line.

    I can’t tell what it all means ultimately. However one thing is clear: increasing centralisation – no matter how it is labelled politically – tends to mean that ever larger populations end up pooling their tax and other contributions into the same lake; this means that whoever controls access to this centralised pool of funds and influence has correspondingly more power and influence. Again, to what end I cannot tell, but it seems there are always a class of people in any society for whom such power is the be all and end all of their existence.

    But then, as they take ever-increasing share of the communal pie because nobody has the power to stop them, at some point the whole thing becomes so dysfunctional and/or oppressive that others gang up to bring them all down and the whole thing starts all over again.

  251. Google “The Report from Iron Mountain”. Published in 1967. Gov. think tank on how to keep people subject to gov. in a one world order. Answer-Create a credible environmental threat to the planet, not necessarily true, just believable.

    The plan today, in full action. Spread the word.

  252. People need to wake up to the reality of this day. Obama is out to destroy our soveriegnty. His every action is this. This is our paradigm. It is not a matter of politics between right and left as we know it. It is intentional destruction through bankruptcy and growth of government as he signs our rights away.
    campconservatism.com to make a difference.

  253. To all the IDIOTS whose comments preceed mine, if you truly believe Obama can’t get things passed without the support of the Senate and House, you better look again at all he has done to this point of his “REIGN”! We have more government interferrance than we’ve ever had in history. We are giving up our freedoms and country piece by piece and we’re all too stupid to recogonize the probllem. Once, everything our forefathers fought to give to us, is gone there will be NO getting it back. WAKE UP AMERICANS! I feel like we’re in a free-fall (out of control) and letting one individual DICTATE to the masses, what’s GOOD for us. Let’s get the government back to the people, for the people NOT the WORLD and all other countries. Let those other countries deal with their own situations. We are not the saviors of ALL!!!!!!

  254. Mark and Linda above: I find it hard to believe that anyone who reads this sort of blog can feel that ‘Obama’ is in charge of the agenda, one which has been basically in place for about a century. If you do, then he is doing his job well, which is to be the front man/lightning rod, a public figure on whom leadership is protected so that the true leadership remains hidden.

    Do you really think that Obama can do anything without approval from those who brought him into office in the first place? Do you think he could have a) run for President and b) won without such support?

    Do you really still believe that the US President runs the country and/or that the US Congress is working for the benefit of their constituents? I don’t think you do. So I also suggest you stop fixating on Obama whose main role is to fool you into thinking there is a visible system pulling all the strings.

    There isn’t. Hasn’t been since around 1910, although it has been getting steadily more consolidated as a shadow operation since then and now is basically unstoppable.

  255. A Brit- Wise words.

    However people feel about Monckton’s style, and I agree that in using extravagant pomposity, the reverse of the norm for his class and breed, and probably counterproductive to his political career, this presentation is arguably the most emotionally galvanising demolition of AGW extremism ever to have been heard. There may be minor mistakes, even presentational liberties, but the fundamental message is more powerfully pursuasive than any other I have ever seen, aimed at a lay audience, and without notes. Truly amazing. Science, with its tradition of gentlemanly discourse and high ethical standards, became a sitting duck for abuse by agenda politics when the funding sources of institutions evolved from their origins in independent philanthropic benefaction, to politically managed project specific block grants. When all political factions sing from the same hymn sheet, and the media in falsetto with them, we are in big trouble.
    I also applaud his recognition of Lindzen’s research, and how he has stood rock solid against massed onslaught, equal to the American hero any Hollywood movie.
    Even if nothing else, surely Monckton’s expose of disgraceful climate propaganda to innocent schoolchildren represents a prurient low in the ordure of modern politics which must be contested, and to date, only he has successfully achieved this through the courts. We need men and women like this. Urgently.

  256. As reported in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/10/20/20climatewire-on-road-to-60-votes-for-climate-bill-senate-43836.html?pagewanted=1) — “Here’s the good news for climate advocates: E&E now finds that at least 67 senators are in play on the issue, enough not only to pass the climate bill but also to ratify an international treaty should sponsors actually run the boards and not lose a single member.” The US Congress is about to give Obama the power to sign the bill in Copenhagen.

  257. The “2/3 majority required for confirmation” is not true.

    It’s “2/3 OF THE SENATORS PRESENT.”

    If anyone believes the Dhimms incapable of arranging a situation where only those inclined to ratify are “present” then you’re – frankly – an idiot.

    They’ve already done so in the House – said “debate is over for the day” and waited for the Retardlicans to leave, then issuing a callback (which all the Dhimms knew was coming so they were still in the building) and running down a “unanimous” vote.

    For a “Senate” example, witness Reid’s decision to use “reconciliation” to pass the biggest power-grab IN OUR HISTORY – thus jamming through the “health-care” takeover-bill which a majority of Americans have made painfully clear they don’t want, and which they know they don’t have the votes to pass.

    Their deceit is limitless, as is their disdain for America. Never forget that these people are The Enemy – there is no limit to their deviousness.

    DD

  258. Obama may sign it but the American people have woken up and won’t allow it to be passed in the Senate. 2010 elections are terrifying many vulnerable Congressmen and they’ll err on the side of caution.

    That said, CO2 isn’t a problem. New research shows the IPCC miscalculated the effects of carbon soot and other aerosol pollutants. Soot absorbs more energy than they thought, and it is the carbon that increases the melting of ice caps and glaciers. CO2 is as bad as thought. Personally, I like more CO2 because it increases the growth of Earth’s flora, and I’ve got 124 acres of timber. More importantly, if we reduce CO2, we reduce agriculture productivity. Reducing CO2 means more people in the third world – STARVE.

  259. The point here is the global warming crowd really have a political agenda, which is simply wrapped up in a shoddy scientific wrapper.

    Monkton is not a US constitutional scholar, but that doesn’t mitigate his point about the purpose of the treaty.

    Obama is a puppet for Soros, who is an admitted proponent of one world government.

    History tells us there is no limit to the addiction of power. The current crop of Democrats will be swept away as others have noted above.

  260. Hitler knew the same thing Obama knows, the bigger the lie the easier it is to believe just like Al Gore with his Global Warming, and George Bush with the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and just like Abe Lincoln wanted to kill 600,000 Americans, it’s easy to do when you don’t have to face the enemy. It would be a lot different if our leaders had to lead our fighting men into battle, the cowards. History repetes itself for one reason, our STUPID leaders don’t believe History.
    But they do believe that they are way better than anybody on the face of the earth. The only way to teach them is to put them in our shoes, see how they come out after a war or two. The last “Man” President that was in a real war was John F. Kennedy, he was down there where it was HOT. Bush was in a plane, Bama was in college, scary place.

  261. Lord Mocknton is not correct in saying
    >> “… your constitution says that it [ the treaty ] takes precedence over your constitution.”

    The U.S. Constitution ALWAYS takes precedence over any treaty… the constitution is THE authority that gives ANY treaty authority.

    Jeremy Rabkin from George Mason University spoke at a Hillsdale College sponsored event June 5, 2009, in Washington, D.C., in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. It was printed in the July/August 2009 issue of Imprimis.

    The Constitution and American Sovereignty
    >> http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/jcarr/Page_4221/ImprimisJulyAug09.pdf

    “The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states.

    “But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid,
    >> “it must be consistent with the Constitution —
    >> “that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties.

    “And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution?

    “Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on:
    >> ‘A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.’

    “And he gave a very logical reason:
    >> “It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties.

    “If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. ”

    The debate has begun…

    If ANY U.S. President signs a treaty that is contrary to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and cedes American sovereignty, is this an impeachable ‘high crime” offense AGAINST the U.S. Constitution???

    What is NOT “protecting and defending” the U.S. Constitution authority if it is NOT a “high crime” against “we the people” of America?

    Ceding American sovereignty by treaty definitely could be included in Obama’s statement before his inauguration, “… we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America…”

    Is ceding American sovereignty a “high crime” against we the people? Yes…? No…?

    I vote yes!!!

    Re: “…betraying his principal or authority” and the ‘IMPEACHMENT’ word… for rejecting and subverting the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

    If, as President, Obama signs ANY treaty to surrender possession of U.S. sovereignty to an international body… IMPEACHMENT is the constitutional next step because by ceding U.S. sovereignty, Obama is NOT protecting and NOT defending the Constitution of the United States.

    So, even if a treaty that cedes U.S. sovereignty can NOT be superior to the U.S. Constitution and binding on America… an impeachment proceeding for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ MUST begin immediately if “high crime” means anything in America today… and if the whimpy Republicans and lap-dog Democrats are up for a constitutional fight to “protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States!!!

  262. We should all keep in mind that not all treaties, laws, etc. have to be a two thirds vote. It is possible to pass with a simple majority. And as was said in one of the previous comments, people seem to have a “whats the big deal” attitude about this treaty. All we have to do is take a good look at some of these other countries like the U.K. and it doesnt take long to figure out the same will happen to us if we go that route. Our current administration has constantly shown its lack of concern of what the people think so i wouldnt put anything past them or our governing bodies. Elected by the people but not for the people. I hope we listen to our fellow Brits and dont make that mistake.

  263. I cant believe the things I read. We had the worst President of history, Bush, disgrace our country and take it down lower than I ever thought possible. 8 years of financial rape and lies. And the first President in history to take away our constitutional rights with the Patriot Act – which reads exactly like Hitler’s enabling act, that was passed right after they had a major terrorist attack, which he also used for an excuse to start a war. Now Obama has got to turn the Titanic around with a big whole in it and people are criticizing him? Crazy! If he can undo a little bit of the damage the Bushite criminals have done to our country, then maybe we will make it. Dont blame others – people in this country closed their eyes while the republicans took this country down – look in the mirror if you want to see who is to blame. And now we are worried about some treaty and we might actually cooperate to bring about good things…… Shame shame shame

  264. Ok, I am an Australian, but Monckton’s comments apply to us as much as the USA.

    In Australia we are fighting a massive battle to keep our land ownership rights.

    State and Federal govt have found a way to create a new form of govt INSIDE the constitution – one which operates under legislation rather than law, does not use common law, does not recognize constitutional rights, one which is now elevating govt bodies to constitutional status, completely against the wishes of the people.

    Q 1 – your last few president’s also ‘played’ with your constitution – how do you know they did not create a new govt INSIDE yours?

    Parliamentarians from several states (we only have 7) – have told me they are given between 2 – 6 days to study a proposed new act, analyse it, cross reference it against others and make a decision. As each new bill comprises 1,000s of pages, can you tell me they are agreeing with full knowledge? Or any knowledge of the impact a that new legislation. They are expected to vote the party line anyway and to add to that picture, there is often more than one act being voted on at one time.

    Q2 – how many days do your politicians get to make their decisions? Do they vote party line? How many are they supposed to have researched at one time? How do you know they know what they are voting on?

    The Aust govt brought in the Environmental Protections & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – one so important that it has its own website – the only aust act to be so favoured.

    The act states in s3, that
    1) The objects of this Act are:
    (a) to provide for the protection of the environment,

    The act then states in s528 Definitions that
    “environment” includes:
    (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

    Now, to read a govt act, you must realize that it is the adverbs and adjectives that define the intent of the act.

    So, in this act, when it states that environment includes …..people and communities – the act is telling us that when govt make rules to protect the environment – they can therefore make rules to protect the people (as a collective).

    The reason the collective is so important, is because our aust laws have already defined a person as being an individual (among other definitions). So they cannot make environment rules over a single person and have them be lawful. That single person being a sovereign unto his own free will.

    However, people as a collective is an entirely different legal matter. As people, the Australians are now ENSLAVED to any law govt make for the environment.

    Q 3 Check out your own acts & bills – you will probably find the same maniuplation of words allowing govt to “legitimately” rule over you and your rights.

    Our govt also signed the Kyoto Treaty effectively making all farming in Australia the culprit for the propaganda of CO2 emissions.

    This was completely against our constitution because it gave sovereignty of any enterprise that was unsustainable under this treaty to an international treaty!

    The only way to get something like that overturned in Aust is for the High Court to be asked to validate such a treaty. And govt are very quietly trying to remove the High Court from our judicial structure.

    In fact, the HC are creating real problems for the Aust govt as a recent ruling defined what is legitimate court and what isn’t. The fact being that the Aust govt have created a number of unconstitutional courts. If you get taken into court in Aust by govt, the judge has only one guideline – did you or did you not break that particular section of that particular part of that particular act. You did? Guilty. Defense? Act doesn’t allow for it. Sorry you lose.

    We have even found parts of our criminal code that deal with public servants have no court home. By that I mean, they are legitimately listed as a ‘crime’ – you attempt to have a govt official charged and strangely – no court can hear the case, because the section you are using is essentially an orphan! Has no court that it is attached to!!

    Q 4 When you say your govt could not agree to signing away your sovereignty, you are being awfully naive. Every international treaty does exactly that. But more importantly, if they do – what is your legal method of either stopping it or getting it overturned? Are your courts legitimate?

    Don’t just say Mockton is wrong, or this can’t happen, because to every person that actually uses their brain and looks at how much govt have taken and how much you have lost – this has a very real potential.

  265. As a further comment – why don’t you all write to your govt representatives and make sure they clearly know that you do not give permission for any such treaty to be signed. That you do not give them permission to sign the USA into one world government, removing your sovereignty and destroying your constitution.

    Just in case Monckton might have it right.

    And if he was wrong – you can all say “I told you so”

    Worth the effort I think.

  266. After the first acquiescence of the first ‘little sin’, the rest are easier to accept.

    No one in congress objected to his illegal elevation of a sitting senator to the position secretary of state. He didn’t even bother with the ‘Saxbe fix’ to make it quasi legal. None in either house protested the Nobel one’s acceptance of the position of a foreign entity as its chief of the ‘security council’. Not one of our ‘protectors’ of the Constitution condoned the theft of $130 billion from a vital defense appropriation bill to fund a blatant attack on the 1st amendment (HR 1913/S 909).

    By the end of 2009, the biggest treasonous sin will be committed by the chameleon and thief. It will drive the final nail in lid of Liberty’s coffin. Heed Lord Monckton, for he, and several PM’s, is our offshore Thomas Paine.

    [snip, I'm sorry, but we don't allow Bible passages on WUWT, no matter how relevant]  

    Thank you for reading this,
    AW Loescher: acts11agabus@aol.com

    AWL of PILMOA

  267. Sue Maines: good post. I wish I had the knowledge to reciprocate properly, but in very loose, semi-informed terms:

    Sometime in the 30’s I think the US passed an Act that essentially empowered the ‘Administrative Branch’ which sort of slid underneath the existing framework established by the Constitution.

    Furthermore, most courts in the US operate under Admiralty Law which originally had more to do with international issues, and commerce, I think. Not common law. Under common law the individual US citizen still enjoys sovereignty but it is almost impossible to find justice under such jurisdiction, although some people have become skilled at circumventing the current conventions which usually go around this in order to get you to submit to Admiralty Law. How this relates to Federal Courts I am not sure.

    In any case, both the Administration Act and the Admiralty Courts have operated for a long time to undermine both individual and national sovereignty.

    But these are somewhat technical aspects and what always matters is the underlying dynamic of a society. Most people assume that most people are basically good as they are and that those above them are operating out of higher (better) motivations than themselves, since this is how they perceive higher and better in their own value system.

    But every society has elements within for whom accumulation of power, not to mention cruelty and suppression, are the dynamic to which they are attracted, i.e. they have a very different, indeed contrary, value system, one which they often use deceptively in order to more effectively fleece the larger masses of well-meaning sheoples.

    Every society since time began has an hierarchical structure, hierarchy being both vertical and horizontal, i.e. different classes/orders of people in terms of roles (horizontal) and rank/authority (vertical). Populations expressed in vertical hierarchical terms always look like a pyramid, with power being at the apex. And for those for whom power/control/domination are the driving motivations, there are always various factions in the upper middle to top levels, all of whom are in the minority population-wise, jostling for position.

    A good societal system manages to harness the creativity and ambition of these dynamic go-getters whilst also curtailing their ability to exploit. Meanwhile, these titan-types (check out ‘asuras’ in the buddhist six realm cosmology) are always going to be working to undermine cooperative, ‘fair’ frameworks, using whatever means they can to achieve their goals, sometimes joining with enemy rivals, sometimes inciting the populace to go after these same rivals.

    The point here is that any population will throw up a ‘baron’ class. It is inevitable given human nature. So a good system has to acknowledge this and set in place checks and balances that work.

    Traditional monarchical systems from the ancient Sumerian and Asian models, which are essentially the same, and which functioned more or less as such in Europe until fairly recently, were designed to do this, with the supposed role of the Monarch being not so much Dictator as Sacred Mediator between what was best for the Realm as a whole, including all peoples therein, and the power networks of the baron classes whose focus and drive knit much of the societal fabric together in a way that made it vibrant and strong.

    A Monarch’s authority was such that at any time they could take the entire property and/or life of any subject in the realm, through appropriation, execution or banishment.

    Whether or not you approve of Monarchy in principle, when looked at in terms of a checks-and-balances system, it does have some things going for it that our current committee-based systems (literally ‘soviet’ systems basically) fail to provide, both in terms of directness, mandate and transparency.

    Right now it seems that most western developed nations have increasingly phony structures and the barons are ruling the roost without a higher power (Monarch) principle to restrain them.

    Writing to a congress person is helpful and good; but you cannot ‘forbid’ them to sign treaties etc., only express disapproval as a citizen-voter.

    In theory I suppose you could go to a Court somewhere to sue that the legislation is illegal but I suspect it would be impossible to find a Judge in any Court that would be willing to hear the case and even if they were, probably no Court would have any jurisdiction on such a thing ultimately.

    imho it is too late to build a better societal mousetrap using the current frameworks which have been compromised beyond rescue. Time for a reboot.

    Reboots have rarely happened in history. Personally I can’t think of a single example although there must be some. Usually what happens (I think), is that strong, previously well ordered societies lose their momentum and virtue and then gradually degrade into ghosts, usually somewhat petty and wretched, of their former selves, often with long periods of plague, famine and murder in the mix. Out of such painful compost the garden of a revived decent society emerges.

    But these things take time.

  268. Wow. Here is what I read:

    There MIGHT be something happening. I’M scared so you should be too. PANIC, shake,and cry. They are gonna GET you.

    Very simply: If you believe this to be the truth DO what you have to.

    If you don’t believe this (Or do understand that a staggering amount of crazy treaties pass the US way) then carry on.

    Relax or act.

  269. Just because people need to know who they’re reading about

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/christopher-monckton

    October, 2009

    Lord Monckton has found another way to “shamelessly” take advantage of his inherited title by thrusting himself into the position of being a ‘defender of American democracy’. He relies on building straw man arguments while he appeals to the emotions of the American people.
    What is he saying now?

    World Government; Communism, Global Climate Treaty; Transfer or Redistribution of Wealth; Climate Debt; CO2 less than 1/6 than IPCC estimates (Lindzen). He claims President Obama said during his election campaign that the US Constitution is only a piece of paper (one might think that that would have come up during the election campaign though?). Actually this sounds like a rehash of the rumor that President Bush said the constitution was ‘just a piece of paper’ in 2005. Monckton has merely replaced the name Bush with Obama. The degree of chicanery in Moncktons remarks remains high.

    Essentially, he is making a false argument. Monckton states:
    “What they’re now going to do is to set up a world government and the word government actually appears in the treaty. But, you heard it hear first, the word election, democracy, vote, or ballot, does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty. It’s going to be a dictatorship.”

    and
    “What we are talking about is a fledgling world government and because it’s not elected, it’s essentially a communist world government.”

    A veritable litany of error and contextual misrepresentation (see spin here & here). First the document he is referring to is a ‘draft document’. It is trying to set up governance (administration) for the treaty (and yes, governments will need to be involved in the treaty). Without governance, how can the treaty be enforced (without enforcement, why make a treaty)? Second, it is unlikely it will be signed this year anyway, based on all that we are hearing about how things are going with COP15.

    Monckton is making the rounds on CNN, Glenn Beck, etc. He has figured out how to get the spotlight to shine on himself and will hold on to that as long as he can.

  270. I tip my hobo cap to the “Lord” from jolly old England. As a country they love dogs, protect their ale and stout, and let eccentric characters thrive. We had bughouse square in the Depression era USA for the same public proclamation of charcters and eccentrics. Today, there is little tolerance from the devout zealout liberals who denounce intolerance! Al Gore gets to make his multi millions from the climate change cult members and nobody bothers him. Why can’t we let the Lord present his cockeyed views? I even like TEA!

  271. if they want us in their world government…come let them conquor us. Good luck with that impossibility.

  272. Just a reminder, when nations sign treaties, they aren’t binding, just a statement of general agreement with what’s stated. For the material in a treaty to become law at a national level, it must follow the same process as any other law, passing through the House and Senate first.

  273. I do not understand, WordPress.com, that you do not want to politicize your site. I understand that you just want to give out information to folks. Well, then, if you want to do the right thing, you should take a stand. Stand up for the United States of America and its citizens, as well as, the rest of the uninformed world. This story sounds like we need to hear it since our President will not tell us the truth about it!!

  274. Hey, people, most of your comments are based on the fact that in our future we will still have a choice. You are assuming too much! I will be kind, uninformed.

  275. It’s truly amazing to read what has been left by other fellow Americans. It’s also very amazing how many of you don’t know what the government has been working on for so long now. New World Order? No, it’s not a conspiracy THEORY. It’s gradualism, not an overnight realization that’s going to put this country under. The government knows that if you do ANYTHING gradually you can keep people calm because they say “Oh it’s just….” But many people didn’t know and still don’t about the North American Union Treaty that was signed when Bush was in office. It’s just a treaty…..but it includes new monetary funds for the entire north american section, not just america. Guess what they’re wanting to call it….Amero. Rings a bell, kinda sounds like Euro? This treaty also includes dropping the lines between Canada, America, and Mexico and combining together as one. They haven’t done it because they have plans to integrate slowly (gradualism). But of course THIS particular treaty that he’s talking about now could never be signed. This treaty could never be that important. And most importantly this treaty would NEVER give way to a new world order. Because the government cares about the American citizens and our freedom. Right. And guess what? I’m a veteran. We’re losing our freedom and there’s little to do about it if we don’t get a handle on “We The People” real soon.

  276. New World Order= United Nations founded in 1945. This is the shell of government. The TREATIES that are added are adding to the government power slowly. At the moment it is not at full power. But the more that is added to it the more government it becomes. Why can’t everyone see this? Look up the word gradualism and see what the online encyclopedia has to say about it, you’ll find that it is a well-known government tactic. America may never see the north american union truly come to light but it will be used to usher in the new world order with the border breaking power that it holds. To those who care not to listen, line up as cattle and make loud noises as you unknowingly wait for your freedom to be slaughtered.

    United Nations Treaty Collection

    http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Home.aspx?lang=en

    Look and you’ll see as of now on that page in the middle
    2009 TREATY EVENT TOWARDS UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
    They have their own court for trial. They are hitting on issues that we may already be taking care of but the UN feels that ALL countries should be doing what they have RULED on. Ultimate rule comes from the UN. It’s not complete yet, but you have to see how it’s slowly progressing. It’s a beast that will not be tamed by any country in the end. And there’s communism playing a major role. Obama even doesn’t feel that it’s wrong to take from the haves and give it to the have nots. There should be a line there. Capitalism will die without the haves and government will be in control of businesses because the haves will no longer exist. The government will ultimately become the haves and we will have what they decide to give us for our hard work in THEIR factories and stores. Obama took over companies. Not all of them, but come on people. Open your eyes.

    New World Religion-founded in 2000. Created by the United Nations. They have a GLOBAL COUNCIL. This organization includes all religions including Wicca/ Witchcraft. They even have a preamble (they call it that) which states-

    We, people of diverse religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions throughout the world, hereby establish the United Religions Initiative to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings.
    ***We respect the uniqueness of each tradition, and differences of practice or belief.
    ***We value voices that respect others, and believe that sharing our values and wisdom can lead us to act for the good of all.
    ***We believe that our religious, spiritual lives, rather than dividing us, guide us to build community and respect for one another.
    Therefore, as interdependent people rooted in our traditions, we now unite for the benefit of our Earth community.
    We unite to build cultures of peace and justice.
    ****We unite to heal and protect the Earth.
    We unite to build safe places for conflict resolution, healing and reconciliation.
    We unite to support freedom of religion and spiritual expression, and the rights of all individuals and peoples as set forth in international law. (note)
    We unite in responsible cooperative action to bring the wisdom and values of our religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions to bear on the economic, environmental, political and social challenges facing our Earth community.
    We unite to provide a global opportunity for participation by all people, especially by those whose voices are not often heard.
    We unite to celebrate the joy of blessings and the light of wisdom in both movement and stillness.
    We unite to use our combined resources only for nonviolent, compassionate action, to awaken to our deepest truths, and to manifest love and justice among all life in our Earth community.
    Purpose
    The purpose of the United Religions Initiative is to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings.
    Principles
    1. The URI is a bridge-building organization, not a religion. (OK)
    ***2. We respect the sacred wisdom of each religion, spiritual expression and indigenous tradition.
    3. We respect the differences among religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions.
    4. We encourage our members to deepen their roots in their own tradition.
    5. We listen and speak with respect to deepen mutual understanding and trust.
    6. We give and receive hospitality.
    7. We seek and welcome the gift of diversity and model practices that do not discriminate.
    8. We practice equitable participation of women and men in all aspects of the URI.
    9. We practice healing and reconciliation to resolve conflict without resorting to violence.
    ***10. We act from sound ecological practices to protect and preserve the Earth for both present and future generations.
    11. We seek and offer cooperation with other interfaith efforts.
    12. We welcome as members all individuals, organizations and associations who subscribe to the Preamble, Purpose and Principles.
    ****13. We have the authority to make decisions at the most local level that includes all the relevant and affected parties.
    14. We have the right to organize in any manner, at any scale, in any area, and around any issue or activity which is relevant to and consistent with the Preamble, Purpose and Principles.
    15. Our deliberations and decisions shall be made at every level by bodies and methods that fairly represent the diversity of affected interests and are not dominated by any.
    16. We (each part of the URI) shall relinquish only such autonomy and resources as are essential to the pursuit of the Preamble, Purpose and Principles.
    17. We have the responsibility to develop financial and other resources to meet the needs of our part, and to share financial and other resources to help meet the needs of other parts.
    18. We maintain the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct, prudent use of resources, and fair and accurate disclosure of information.
    19. We are committed to organizational learning and adaptation.
    20. We honor the richness and diversity of all languages and the right and responsibility of participants to translate and interpret the Charter, Articles, Bylaws and related documents in accordance with the Preamble, Purpose and Principles, and the spirit of the United Religions Initiative.
    21. Members of the URI shall not be coerced to participate in any ritual or be proselytized.

    http://uri.org/

  277. Well, at least we, Us Fellow Americans are waking up! However, now that we are, what are we going to do about it? Got any ideas? We can talk about all day long, but now is the time to take action. For there will be not much time left that we will still be able to talk freely over the internet. They, Obama and his Administration and our Congress are working on making new bills to stiffle this form of communication. So what do we do, got any ideas, or do we just talk about it.

  278. Frankly, we do not need new Politions, what we need is another American Revolution! A peaceful one, hopefully.

  279. It would be great to visit Al Gore’s mansion and discuss climate change as concerned citizens of the world. In order to gain access, I will bring sausage biscuits and gravy, plus grits for breakfast! Al may seen the end of the world, but he don’t see any end to his appetite.

  280. Well, I guess I was right, and I did not want that, but all I hear is talk. All is lost if you do not have the choice. Our freedoms are being slowly taken away. Next it will be freedom of free speach!

  281. The thing is the communist radical are not using science at all just lies and propaganda ,you cannot argue with a quatified equasion by such a well renowned climate scientist ,more scamming wont save you just make you look more stupid ,the signing of the treaty is a betrayal of every country and the climat treaty is a communist dictatorship ,in fact if its signed the euagenda 21 will be the treaty to control it passsed inthe90s ,the trouble with the left loons is they dont want to admit they have been so gullible and dumb or they just dont want you knowing how communist they really are ,get informed ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

  282. Reading only the first 10 pages, I can see this as a form of global re-distribution of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped.
    Our senate does need 2/3 of a majority, but we cannot assume our leaders will be smart enough or have the political will to stop this unless we yell and make our disapproval known. President Obama will likely sign it as a sighn of good faith to the world, he has to earn his nobel peace prize sometime, and the fact that he is all for re-distribution of wealth. But we the people need to kill this thing on arrival to the U.S. By speaking loud and clear.

  283. Why is anyone shocked or surprised? The plans
    for a New World Government have been in the
    works since 1954 with the first Bilderberg meeting.
    After the banking crisis and the Wall Street meltdown,
    the new banking elite and the Federal Reserve can
    decide a new banking order. It’s never been about
    climate change legislation, its always been about
    control and power. The next three years are going to
    be a very bumpy ride.

  284. With the revelation about the bogus claims of Global Warming [emails], I guess Lord Monckton really sturred the pot. I agree that there was a whistle blower who brought forth the emails, not hackers as claimed. Hackers were probably used to get the emails, but it took someone who suspected something and knew about the fraud perpetuated by the Global Warming agenda. It is really about building a framework to take control and money from all the countries of the World.

  285. John Galt,
    I am sure you are right. We should all have our points of view. However, when something is wrong and it is ignored, then is not different from those who ignored Hitler when he was burning the Jews? Sticking one’s head in the sand does not give a person a valid viewpoint.

  286. From what I’m hearing any Obama signing will be provisional.
    So despite what he’s saying in public, they’ll be able to walk away, anytime
    circumstances change.
    lip service politics. Good news for a change.
    *fingers crossed*

  287. DK2, Do you really think that! Do not underestimate what you hear and understand. This is the real world, ok. I will be reassured only when I hear how the fraud has been exposed and recognised as such. Our President then will not be signing and held to that commitment.

  288. Cathy, you have been listening to the right stuff, or you have been doing your homework, either case, right on.

  289. Is anyone aware of how the Federal Reserve act came into existence? The Constitution state that 2/3 of the senators present at the time of the vote must agree, not 2/3 of the entire senate. The vote for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 took place in late December when not all of the senators were their to vote and more than 2/3 present voted for it (although its argued that if all senators were present it would still have passed). The same scenario could present itself here. Remember the money that stands to be made if this is passed and how power could become centralized so don’t think that special interest will not play a role in this vote if it comes before congress.

  290. Sovereignty is insignificant when dealing with threats to humanity as a whole. Conspiracy theories are just that: conspiracies.
    Climate change is a real threat and must be dealt with through means of global legislation as it is a problem which is contributed to by the global community.
    Personal freedoms must sometimes be curtailed to preserve other personal freedoms.
    Obama cannot be compared in any way to Hitler, stop it you racist fools.
    That is all.

  291. While I will agree about some aspects of Climate Change, let us get REAL, Ok? Human Beings impact the climate very little overall, except when there are Atom Bombs going off or we have volcanic eruptions. Do you really think it is fair to penalize a nation on the basis of Climate Change, when they really do not affect it?

  292. And furthermore, there has come to light recently that, all this proof of Climate Change is bunk! It is about time. Do you really think since scientists can not figure out how we came into being, that they can ever know that humans affect our planet? The planet is in continueous change. Have you not heard of plate tectonics?

  293. The subject about the US Sovereignty is all about gaining control and take advantage. British Lord Monckton points it out to us Americans to warn us about what’s happening with Obama and his agenda. The Climate Change is just the vehicle. You will notice so far, Obama and his Administration is ignoring the recent debunking of Climate Change. It will be interesting to see where they go from here.

  294. The sooner Americans wake up about this Climate Change debunked theory, and it is only a theory, you know, the sooner we can get to the real business of getting Americans back to work, and get our economy back on tract. However, I really do not think Obama and his Administration is about to do that either.

  295. John, Thank you for that information about the Federal Reseve Act. You can see how we are lied to by our Government. Maybe lied to is a little harsh, just do not tell us everything is probably more like it. However, if we think we are being told the truth about Climate Change or HealthCare, well, we are not. We need to get back to basics and gain knowledge about our Government, and then we will have the necessary tools to stop this stuff. It is up to us Americans to change what is going on in our Government. Standup Americans, do not take it, let us do what needs to be done. Vote those bumbs out.

  296. Please take this seriously. For those that do not believe we are heading to a One World Government or that somehow the congress will step in or that the Constitution will stop Obama, I would ask you to PLEASE READ THE PATRIOT ACT I and II, then let us know if you still feel the same way. It completely shredded our beloved constitution while we were asleep. Don’t believe me, READ IT or better yet, email me and I will be glad to send you a copy of the DVD Patriot Act A-Z. Oh and by the way, those 800 camps some are seeing that are being constructed and some that are fully staffed and waiting across the country are not museums or new amusement parks either! They are real…

Comments are closed.