Video of Monckton’s Speech on Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen

WUWT readers and many others at other websites responded strongly to my post:

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

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

Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

Now the full video of the speech is available of Lord Christopher Monckton speaking on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. As an added bonus, we have the Powerpoint presentation used. Unlike Al Gore’s presentations, Monckton’s presentations are not “secret” and are available to the public. Also I have a link to the draft Climate Change Treaty here

See the video below.

Here is the full video of  Lord Monckton’s speech. It is one hour and 35 minutes long.

Monckton’s Powerpoint presentation used at that speech is available in PDF format here (warning large download 17.5 MB)

About these ads

167 thoughts on “Video of Monckton’s Speech on Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen

  1. you said Moncton’s presentations are “not available to the public” at the end. typo i presume?

    REPLY: Fixed thanks – A

  2. No one want to know in the MSM in Australia.

    I linked to the UN copy of the treaty nad merely said “eyeryone should read this , it appears that we will have to pay a climate tax to the UN of 0.8% of GDP ” on both Lenore Taylor’s aricle at the Austrailian and twice at the
    ABC

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26228105-5017906,00.html

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/19/2717502.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/19/2717424.htm?section=justin

    No comments were posted.

    I would have thought that this would be big news.

  3. Right at the end of the speech, Lord Monckton notes that Pres. Obama absolutely will sign the Copenhagen treaty and describes the danger to U.S. sovereignty in our own Constitution – Article VI, Paragraph 2: All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

    However, the Authority of the President’s signature comes from a two-thirds approval vote of the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2). So contact your Senators and tell them to reject the Copenhagen treaty.

  4. OT: Anthony, your World Climate Widget says solar flux = 70, but that is the radio flux, the irradiation is much different.

    REPLY: I’m well aware of the 10.7 cm solar radio flux difference to TSI etc. Maybe it is too complex for some. Feel free to make suggestions on the widget page, just click on the widget – A

  5. Ahem…

    Mr. Watts, please forgive my Russian paranoia… but haven’t you been thinking about seriously improving the arrangements for your personal safety?

    After all, you are doing some serious damage, in terms of reputation and financial well-being, to many people not known for their moral scruples.

    For many people, coming to WUWT after browsing the MSM sites is like gulping a fresh air after swimming in a sewer. Therefore, your personal safety is our collective concern.

  6. Monckton is a National Treasure in Britain, and a very amusing chap with a wonderful way with words, but his take on US sovereignty issues is not to be taken too seriously. Think of it as Andy Rooney or Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley, off on a long discursive idiosyncratic lecture only loosely tethered to reality.

    Its fun if you are in the right mood.

  7. Thank you for quick access to the pdf. My guests will be royally entertained and quietly educated. (I hope :-) )

  8. Latest rubbish from UK

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm

    As Mr Brown is a renowned liar however, his words will probably be largely ignored here in UK.

    The BBC also have this ‘Brief History of Climate Change’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm

    This mentions the what it calls ‘controversial’ hockey stick graph but it does not mention that it is discredited.

    Also we have just had another incident of mad people attempting to break into a coal fired power station with the intention of shutting it down (thank goodness they failed). This resulted in injuries to several police officers who were sent to stop them. I hope those arrested get long jail sentences but I expect they will not serve any time at all. They will claim that they were acting for the greater good of the world and will get lots of sympathy from the Guardian newspaper. When will this madness end?

  9. Is it possible to download the video as a file, rather than having to watch the video “live” from end to end on YouTube ?? I don’t mind how large the file would be, but the YouTube format forces one to spend the time all at one sitting.

    Many thanks

  10. Alan Haile (00:07:19) :

    Latest rubbish from UK

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm

    As Mr Brown is a renowned liar however, his words will probably be largely ignored here in UK.

    Too true, the current government is becoming a laughing stock, in some ways it’s a good thing – the more hyperbole the better as it just turns more and more people off (the same with protesters at powerstations – it simply marginalises them and their views even more, top stuff).

    What a great line: “Negotiators have 50 days to save the world from global warming”… dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum…. FLASH – AAAAHHHHHAA…

    (Insert your choice of picture of Brian Blessed in feathers here…)

    Cheers

    Mark

  11. Norm Beazer- you can download You Tube videos. You should download free software from dvdvideosoft.com. It can automatically convert the downloaded videos from the Flash standard used by You Tube into a more useful format such as AVI. Not a file, I know but at least you have a copy.

  12. The sovereignty issue is a fascinating one. At the end of the day, of course the people of any country can bring political pressure to bear and get something thrown out – ‘de-ratification’ of a UN Treaty included.

    However, those who think the US constitution will protect them from creeplng global totalitarianism overlook the impact and power of herd mentality – if every country in the world isolates – on UN instructions – any outliers, even the US is vulnerable.

    The real question is, if the US and other powers agree in principle to creation of a world government mechanism, self-funding through international carbon levies or financial transaction taxes, then the foot will be in the door and by the time the American people finally realise what’s up and instruct de-ratification the costs of extrication will be much higher.

    If the world entity eventually has enough military force under its jurisdiction then it will have the power to back up trade sanctions or the like.

    I remembered reading something along these lines on Ian Wishart’s site when he launched Air Con, and have found it again:

    http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2009/07/global_governan.html

    Some of the interesting quotes from the UN briefing paper:

    “The question of legitimacy is at the heart of the ‘international system’. Legitimacy requires a certain degree of ‘global democracy’ that would gradually increase over time. At the same time, realistic global governance cannot ignore existing power relations in both the economic and military sense. A blueprint that ignores the resources controlled by various actors and their relative weights in the world would not be feasible. The reform agenda must try to balance three divergent requirements:

    1. Global democracy, which in some fundamental sense must give equal weight to each human being;
    2. Recognition of the endurance of nation states which do have ‘equal’ legal status as sovereigns and remain fundamental ‘units’ of the international system; and reflection of the divergent economic and military ‘capabilities’ of nation states. It is obvious that India, Japan, Sri Lanka and Barbados, to take four examples, while being “equal” sovereign nation states, have very different economic and defense capabilities which must be reflected in the architecture of the international system.
    3. It is important to stress that a United Nations adapted to the needs and realities of the 21st Century should be the overall institutional setting for both the political and the economic sphere. The current arrangements need to be replaced by new ones, changing from the post World War II representation to constituencies, weighted votes and universal participation, and adjusting the policies of those institutions in favour of the actual needs of today’s world.”

    “Military force is not a legitimate political instrument, except in self- defence or under UN auspices;
     The development of military capabilities beyond that required for national defence and support of UN action is a potential threat to the security of people.
     Weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence.
     The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.”

    “The UN should aim at a veto-free culture in the Security Council. There is no doubt that the veto-based decision-making structure has a number of negative features. Sensitive matters often trigger repeated vetoes, which means that the Security Council is unable to act in areas that are in fact clearly within its area of competence. One example of this is the Israel-Palestine conflict, in relation to which the Unites States has exercised a veto on several occasions, thus blocking any real decisions by the Security Council concerning the conflict.”

  13. What is even more dangerous is if the treaty is treated as ‘not a treaty’ as is increasingly the case among these fascists. They may merely call it an ‘agreement’ which doesnt require a supermajority ratification, and they will claim it only requires a simple majority to enact the regulations to comply with the agreement.

  14. I’d also recommend you to …recommend ppl to watch this video, by Cascade Policy Institute (Oregon) :

    I think it puts the climate issue in its right context.

    Myron Ebell says at 11:33 :

    “We’re being told that what we need is more government control of the economy, and that we need to move back towards that model of the government telling people how much energy they can use, which is exactly what the Soviet Union did and which not only incredibly poverty and low standard of living but led to this huge environmental horror”.

    The movie’s homepage: http://www.climatechains.com

    I think that every success in reduction of poverty and increase of wealth in the world is due to less regulation, trade, and basically free market economy. Carbon trade will be devastating for economies and people.

  15. Take a deep breath, get a glass of water, cool down.

    Don’t go all hysterical on us.

    Monckton’s sounding crazy, and if you bother to pay attention to what he says, he’s clearly inaccurate.

    I got just that paragraph dealing with DDT, and there are easily a half-dozen factual errors in there. Either Monckton is one of the poorest researchers in history, or he’s telling tall tales.

    How can we believe anything he says when he’s telling huge fibs about DDT and malaria? If he’s wrong on the small stuff, he’s most likely wrong on the big stuff.

    Which is he, stupid or evil?

    Anthony, this stuff from Monckton is way below your evidence quality. Should we regard this as a capitulation that your evidence is weak, and so the stuff Monckton makes up must be used?

    I hope not.

  16. “Alexander Feht
    For many people, coming to WUWT after browsing the MSM sites is like gulping a fresh air after swimming in a sewer.”

    Reply
    …How strange. I was going to say almost the exact same thing. This site really is like breathing fresh air after all the sewage stench from the global warming industry.

  17. If US sovereignty is as flexible as British Parliamentary sovereignty (particularly in relation to the EU) your politicians will claim they and their institutions are still sovereign, it’s just that they have agreed to go along with what the external body says – in effect to lend that external body the authority your politicians have been given by you.

    They could change their mind at any moment. The key thing is they won’t.

  18. The structure will most likely run like this:
    States Rights superceded by Federal Rights superceded by UN Rights.
    AGW (even the new & improved Climate Change brand) makes it’s own gravy.
    It enacts it’s own dogma (labels unbelievers heretics), creates it’s own science (PolyScience), synthesizes it’s own data sets (computer re-generated) and wants to tax everyone. Finally, it will carry out climate experiments on a Global Scale given the chance.

  19. Wake up, dear people. The guy is a National Treasure like I say. Would you take Andy Rooney seriously on this subject?

  20. Commenters aiming their shots at Monckton should, at least, be sure to read the Draft text, posted by Anthony on October 3, and ignored by the world at large ever since.

    It is surely time to get some assurances from those eagerly signing in our names, at Copenhagen, that nothing will be done that cannot be undone.

    Hard to imagine that zealous advocates might be so concerned.

  21. Ed Darrell (01:31:46) : “I got just that paragraph dealing with DDT, and there are easily a half-dozen factual errors in there. Either Monckton is one of the poorest researchers in history, or he’s telling tall tales.”

    I recommend this excellent article from a manufacturer of DDT. This is as up, close and personal to DDT as one can get.

    (2nd edition – April 2008) by A.O. Kime

    The DDT Insecticide Ban… What Was the Truth Behind it?
    Deep throat and the ‘political decision’ to ban DDT

    http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/ddt.htm

    Excerpt: “As to the circumstances surrounding the banning of DDT, the November 1980 issue of Fusion magazine (page 52) stated: “When U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Ruckelshaus was about to announce his decision to ban DDT in June 1972, he confided to a friend, “There is no scientific basis for banning this chemical — this is a political decision.”” The ‘friend’ was never identified however. In a commentary the magazine concluded (page 56): “The EPA and environmentalists must be held accountable for their crime: There was not a single human death from DDT usage; there have been untold thousands of deaths and millions of disease-stricken persons as a result of the DDT banning.”

  22. Forgive me, but I fail to see the slick melodrama from Lord Monkton is this presentation that Al Gore uses in “An Inconvenient Truth”!

    He is absolutely right about the politics though. This is serious stuff, everyone can see it, everybody knows, but few can or will do anything about it!

  23. Dr Richard North here in the UK on his blog EU Referendum warned about the existence already of global organisations, in effect a world government, a year ago. Hidden in plain sight as this extract says:-

    “…when it comes to looking for secret conspiracies to dominate the world, there aren’t any. That doesn’t mean conspiracies don’t exist. The thing is, they are not secret.

    They are there, they are real, they are visible and (relatively) easy to find, if you know where to look – and can be bothered. But, because they are so visible, no one takes a blind bit of notice of them, instead preferring to look for fantasy conspiracies of their own making.

    The most obvious and visible “conspiracy”, of course, is the European Union. It has its agenda, it makes no secret of it, it has been steadily pursuing that agenda for the best part of fifty years and, over that period, has had a modicum of success.

    Yet, there is perhaps a bigger conspiracy here – the “conspiracy of silence” amongst our own ruling elite and chatterati, who will simply not talk about the European Union and its ambitions. Guido, of course, does not expose this – he is part of the conspiracy.

    But this is boring. If you want a real conspiracy, go for that shadowy group of anonymous bankers, who meet in secret to hatch up plans to control the world’s financial system. You want it? You got it! It is called the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).

    Take a moment to think about this. How much do you know about this committee? Who are its members? How often to they sit? Where do they meet? And what is its real agenda?

    Whether you know anything about it or not, it is part of our government. More to the point, it is part of our global government. You didn’t know we had a global government? Well, you do now, and this is part of it. Other parts include the Codex Alimentarius committee, the IASB, IMF, OECD, World Bank, OIE, ISO, WHO, WTO, ICES, INTERPOL, ITU, ITSO, UNECE, ICAO, IOSCO, IOML, IMO, WMO the IPPC and a whole host of other organisations in this alphabet soup, all linked together through formal and informal networks. Most of them, in their own way, make “laws” and decisions which reach down to affect our daily lives and our prosperity, some more than others….”

    To read the whole piece:-

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/hidden-in-plain-sight.html

  24. I don’t quite get the DDT thing. Like its broad-spectrum insecticidal use, pundits seem to be using the DDT story as a broad-spectrum rebuttal.
    I’m not going to pretend that I know its history with accuracy but I’m not going to discount Lord Monckton’s speech either. I suspect a grain of salt is needed when viewing. He is however entertaining, witty and articulate and the general thrust of his speech is accurate to me.

    Again, if we don’t like it, please; some of the scientists stand up and carry the torch. I’m more than willing to chip in financially.

  25. Anthony, sorry mate but the World Climate Widget thread was locked for comments so just a quick post here.

    Any chance of getting this turned into an iphone app.

    Cheers.

  26. If the USA were to promise to pay the developing world there will be a financial sticking point. The USA now has a 1.4 trillion dollar debt. I don’t know in detail it is owed to countries like China. So it will be can you borrow money from the developing world to pay it back to them? I also notice there is much talk of per capita emissions in the agreement for Copenhagen. If China and India control the per capita emissions to say a half of the USA then the rise in emissions will be very large.

  27. I am on the right side of centre politically and I like christopher monckton but , while i have only viewed the slides and not had time to see the talk yet, I was put off by the personal attacks that made it seem like a polemic that i should not trust… could be that it was delivered jokingly in the talk it comes across in the slides as, “this is not worth taking seriously if it demeans itself to such a level.” which is a shame…..

  28. Ed Darrell Just for you

    http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68

    n Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

  29. I think they are over reaching,I don’t think Rudd or Obama will sign,I hope they insist on changes.I do think they will promise money though.I hope that the leaders who sign or pledge money ask for an accounting of how the money is spent.False hope I feel.

  30. Re the US sovereignty: The Supreme Court has already weighed in as to whether a treaty can be used to usurp US law. They ruled that ratification of a treaty does not override existing US law or create new legislation. Further clarification of this policy came from Medellin v. Texas, 552 US (2008), in which the Supreme Court recognized the “distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that . . . do not by themselves function as binding federal law” and stated definitively that
    while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” [cited from Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (2005)]

    Later, the court further stateed that

    [t]he terms of a non-self-executing treaty can become domestic law only in the same way as any other law — through passage of legislation by both Houses of Congress, combined with either the President’s signature or a congressional override of a Presidential veto.

    If any part of the treaty were at odds with the Constitution, Congress would have to go through the Amendment process for it to become law.

    One caveat, though. Obama may have the chance to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to change that decision. Let us pray that our Justices stay healthy for at least three more years.

  31. Ed Darrell,

    I have just followed your link to the website that claims that Monckton just tells lie after lie. It uses the same tactic employed by all propagandists, to pick minor holes which they use to infer that the whole argument is false, and then to excoriate the victim in the most disgusting manner Let’s look at some of the DDT points made.

    1) Monckton claims DDT was the only effective method against malaria.
    Rebuttal is: DDT was very effective but not the only method. (You can use nets as well.)
    [So DDT wasn’t the only method, it just happens to be the best!]

    2) Monckton claims a nobel prize was awarded for DDT.
    Rebuttal is: The nobel prize was won for the discovery that DDT killed insects.
    [I don't ned to comment how this is hair splitting of the highest degree]

    3) Monckton blamed the malaria deaths on a lack of DDT.
    Rebuttal is: Malaria deaths are influenced by the lack of effectiveness of drugs to kill the infection.
    [This is a bait and switch argument: it's not the mosquito's fault - we should be after the agent that they carry]

    The “rebuttals” on economic issues are even more ludicrous. On the Waxman Markey bill, Monckton mentioned “closing down parts of the economy”. The rebuttal to this is supposedly a link to a clause in the bill that talks about giving funds to boost industry.

    What utter nonsense! If this is the argument used by supposedly intelligent people, that “funds will be given to boost industry” then I’d like to know what fantasy island school of economics they believe in. Money does not come out of thin air (except these days with QE). The simple economic truth is that there is at any one time, a fixed amount of land, labour and capital in existence, and if you invest in one particular area, you have to shift resources from existing areas. The Madrid study has shown that for every “green” job created, 2.2 real jobs were lost. It is also an undisputed fact that if you make an input more expensive (energy), then the supply curve moves to the left. Basically, less goods will be produced at a higher cost. Consequence: parts of the economy will shrink. Monckton was absolutely right!

    It ends with 2 paragraphs of excoriating ad hominem attacks. For example, at the end of the article he defends Gore’s refusal to debate Monckton by saying “It’s more likely that Gore simply refuses to get into a urination contest with a known skunk.” The fact that Al Gore is guilty of the same crime of telling “lie after lie” as he accuses Monckton of doing, is somehow, amazingly, completely overlooked. The hypocricy is breathtaking. The vitriolic and loathing is palpable. They should rename the site “eye8monckton” and that will be more comensurate with its intellectual level.

    I won’t be going back there any time soon.

  32. What’s going on? Monkton and Tea Baggers….you are losing me. I come here for real stuff, not propaganda and crazy stuff from the right!!!

  33. Totally off topic…

    Has anyone seen this on the BBC news website.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

    Basically trees grow more when there are more cosmic rays hitting the earth. Read on in the article and it explains that trees tend to grow more when there is increased cloud cover and more diffused light.

    Apparently the tree ring growth was more correlated to the cosmic rays than any other climatic factor.

    Just adds further evidence to Svenmark’s theory if you ask me.

  34. In my opinion, Lord Monckton’s overstated and potentially inflammatory comment that signing the Copenhagen agreement would irrevocably bind this country [USA] to a common world government damages the overall credibility of his whole presentation.

    I would prefer to see the climate change issue go on the back burner for a few more years to see if we really do have a problem. I am not sure this type of presentation is really productive to that end.

  35. My guess (my hope) is that Obama will sign whatever nonsense emerges from Copenhagen, and then put it away in a drawer, as Clinton did with the Kyoto protocol. That way he can have all the publicity of saving the world without risking a rebuff from the lawmakers.
    The crazier the agreement, the less likely he is to trouble the Congress with it, so the crazier the better.

  36. Michel

    It is all in the slides.

    So, spare us the ad-hominem stuff, please. Disparagement and belittlement are forms of defamation, and expressed in public are corrosive of common standards. So don’t be a rotter, old chap! Try to raise your game! Show us how it should be done!

    a) Go through the slides, and work out what you would change.

    b) Then, let us see your proposed edits.

    That’s how it works. Can you rise to the occasion?

  37. Moncton is a bloviating, windbag. He’s an entertaining speaker, but, extremely lazy with his facts. And, he’s totally wrong about how our Constitution works. He should stay in England where he might “have a clue.”

  38. Kum Dollison (05:53:25) :

    Moncton is a bloviating, windbag. He’s an entertaining speaker, but …

    Coming from Kum –

    Riiiiiiight …

  39. Spector 5:25: I wish we could do as you wanted and let the science develop at a more considered pace. But Copenhagen won’t wait. The warmists want to lock in the political payoff from their decade-long campaign of distortion, deception and fearmongering. This is their big moment and if they succeed in getting ink on paper then a tipping point in law will have been reached. Ironically even though laws are intangible things, less “real” than a trace gas or its interaction with water vapor, that tipping point will be quite real. We will be immiserated by unelected and nameless time-servers issuing bales of regulations from Geneva or Brussels, written to please their ignorant sentimental vision of how things “should be” and to enrich themselves and their circle. The next few months are therefore more important than they ought to be. We didn’t ask for this fight, but we appear to be stuck with it.

  40. dhmo (04:11:31) : ” The USA now has a 1.4 trillion dollar debt…”

    Correction, this year’s deficit is $1.4 trillion. The national debt is somewhere around $11.9 trillion. As a reminder, the Democrats have been in the majority in Congress since 2007.

  41. Anthony,

    Don’t destroy any genuine credibility your work has achieved by promoting this poisonous man’s inflated self importance. He may sound the part but here in the UK he is an embarrassment to those who have grave doubts on the science behind AGW.

    Regards,

    Charles,
    London, UK

  42. Norm Beazer (00:15:34) :

    Is it possible to download the video as a file, rather than having to watch the video “live” from end to end on YouTube ?? I don’t mind how large the file would be, but the YouTube format forces one to spend the time all at one sitting.
    ____________________

    Norm, I use a little freeware device called Download Helper to save YouTube video.

  43. Obama will most certainly sign the treaty. The Senate will most likely not approve it. Obama will get kudos from the environmentalists for acting, but the Copenhagen train will stall on the tracks. I really can’t see this unfolding any other way.

  44. OT – Feel free to snip if too far off topic.

    Just reflecting on the infamous Balloon Boy episode unfolding up the road from me.

    I can’t help but feel the whole frenzy induced by the AGW extremists has many parallels with the Balloon Boy hoax.

    The family thought by staging this hoax, with a dramatic story unfolding in the media, they would get their own reality show. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13591563

    Apparently the sheriff’s department was also duping the media in order to dupe the Heenes. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13591562

    The parallels are obvious. AGW crowd, with help from the media and stars of the media, complete with dramatic footage of drowning polar bears and hurricanes, hope to ensnare the world’s economy for their own ends. A phony reality show if you will.

    The Copenhagen conference is their last desperate shot at doing so, as the climate simply is not cooperating, even as popular support is waning in the face of the world’s recession.

  45. Spector (05:25:38) :

    “In my opinion, Lord Monckton’s overstated and potentially inflammatory comment that signing the Copenhagen agreement would irrevocably bind this country [USA] to a common world government damages the overall credibility of his whole presentation.”

    “I would prefer to see the climate change issue go on the back burner for a few more years to see if we really do have a problem. I am not sure this type of presentation is really productive to that end.”

    By that time the slight of hand will be completed, the deal sealed, the scene all set, with no way out!

    Kum Dollison (05:53:25) :

    “Moncton is a bloviating, windbag. He’s an entertaining speaker, but, extremely lazy with his facts. And, he’s totally wrong about how our Constitution works. He should stay in England where he might “have a clue.””

    He indeed could be totally wrong about your consitution, it wouldn’t actually matter if he was totally wrong about it. The point is that your President will, as our leaders have already done with the Europen Union, sign you into something so complicated, so sophisticated, that you will not at first see anything wrong with the action at all, just as we didn’t see what was going to happen to us. We were lied to by our leaders, we were told how wonderful it would be for Britain yet it costs us billions of taxpayers cash for membership of the club every year, for no perceiveable benefit. Oh yes we get some cash back in the form of grants for various regional funding, but if we weren’t in the club, we wouldn’t need the grants in the first place. Rather akin to a business having to provide collateral to a bank for a loan, but if the company could meet that collateral requirement, it wouldn’t need the load in the first place! Trust me, you won’t know what hit you until it does, & then you’ll be sorry like many of us Brits are! History is littered with situations where “it couldn’t possible happen in reality!”. Hollywood has made dozens of movies about subversive states/countires/planets, etc dominating its population(s), a’la “1984”. Very enjoyable things they are too because the tall goodlooking, downtrodden, yet brave, rugged & tough hero, fights back, looks like winning then only to be foiled by the terrible deadly weapon, but just manages to defeat it in the dying seconds of action, making all well again. However, this ain’t Hollywood, it’s reality!

    As I have said elsewhere on this blog, if you want to be ruled by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, massively over bureaucratic, internationally taxpayer funded body, (mainly from the west & mostly by the US) then sit on your rear & do & say nothing. If on the other hand you don’t, stand up & be counted. Simple. These guys will take a yes vote to mean yes, & an abstention as a yes vote, to outway any no votes to get their way. Trust me, Constitution or no Constitution, they’ll find a way. The EU you see, claims to be a democracy, because it has a European Parliament. Yet all the power is in the Commission, where the rules are made, not in the parliament, it merely lends the pretence to democracy. I don’t know how they could subvert the Senate or House of Representatives, but will find away, probably by marketting any agreement as easily changable, but of course it will not be.

  46. I grew up in Africa and was witness to the effectiveness of DDT in the successful fight against malaria and various other pests. I am also witness to the insidious re infestation of the mosquito since the ban. Nuff said.

  47. Kum Dollison (05:53:25) : ‘He should stay in England where he might “have a clue.” ‘

    Monckton should indeed be more concerned at how this will play out in the UK. A really extreme Copenhagen agreement seems unlikely to get past your Congress, but it’s a different story in Britain.
    Our soon-to-be-ex-Prime Minister did the rounds of the media this morning, whipping up climate hysteria and doing his world-saviour thing. Mr Brown can be relied upon to sign his name to just about any lunacy, and to force it through Parliament at the first opportunity (he has until next May). His government already has a track-record of imposing ruinous climate laws where other countries only pay lip service to ‘saving the planet’, and they are by now accustomed to giving away pieces of sovereignty without consulting the people.
    So, a draconian Copenhagen agreement would be good in America (where it would be ignored), but bad in Britain (where the ruling Junta would try to implement it in full). We can’t even be sure the Conservatives (sic) would tear it up, as their leader has bought into a lot of green ideology himself. Still, the whole thing may well unravel for other reasons, notably the cost, and an outraged public already dismissive of Mr Brown and increasingly dismissive of the ‘scientific consensus’.

  48. Kum Dollison, Your use of seldom used words or insults do not make you a clever person. Tell us why the basic facts he presents are wrong, can you? Is the constitution that robust that it can prevent damage being done before a reversal is put in place? No it is not.

  49. Request advise:
    What software is recommended to combine the Moncton Speech with the Graphs?
    Preferably on a Mac platform?

    This would make a perfect movie.

    It’s to the point and entertaining!

  50. dhmo,

    “The USA now has a 1.4 trillion dollar debt. I don’t know in detail it is owed to countries like China”

    I only wish that statement was true. The US had a 1.4 Trillion dollar yearly deficit. Our national debt is closer to 12 Trillion.

  51. Noelene (04:40:06) :

    I think they are over reaching,I don’t think Rudd or Obama will sign,I hope they insist on changes.I do think they will promise money though.I hope that the leaders who sign or pledge money ask for an accounting of how the money is spent.False hope I feel.
    ————————————————————-
    Obama’s Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) is Back, He’s just using the back door now – The UN

    June 24th, 2009

    While Obama was still a Senator one of the few bills he was pushing was the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433). This act gives authority to the United Nations authority to tax and impose laws on the United States. Since this wasn’t accomplished through legislative actions, Obama is now going to commit the U.S. through the United Nations. Obama wants to commit the US to a global tax of 0.7 percent of the US GDP.
    ————————————————————-
    Lord Monckton is a very astute politician and scientist.

  52. DDT
    From 1952:

    http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/389

    http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/vector_control.htm

    Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides. As the eradication campaign wore on, the responsibility for maintaining it was shifted to endemic countries that were not able to shoulder the financial burden. The campaign collapsed and in many areas, malaria soon returned to pre-campaign levels

    an interesting bit:

    http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm

    DDT killed some and not other bugs leading to bed bugs ! etc.
    In Malaysian villages, the roofs of the houses were a thatch of palm fronds called atap. They were expensive to construct, and usually lasted five years. But within two years of DDT spraying the roofs started to fall down. As it happened, the atap is eaten by caterpillar larvae, which in turn are normally kept in check by parasitic wasps. But the DDT repelled the wasps, leaving the larvae free to devour the atap.
    In Greece, in the late nineteen-forties, for example, a malariologist noticed Anopheles sacharovi mosquitoes flying around a room that had been sprayed with DDT. In time, resistance began to emerge in areas where spraying was heaviest. To the malaria warriors, it was a shock. “Why should they have known?” Janet Hemingway, an expert in DDT resistance at the University of Wales in Cardiff, says. “It was the first synthetic insecticide. They just assumed that it would keep on working, and that the insects couldn’t do much about it.”

    http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm

    Human exposure
    Analysis of human fat has been carried out occasionally in the UK showing that DDT can persist for many years. Analysis of 203 samples of mostly renal fat showed 99% contained detectable residues of DDT (see table 3)(24). Many of the levels found are above effect-level exposures required to elicit a carcinogenic response in test animals (see mice studies above). They are also well above the life-time safety exposure limit ADI of 0.02 mg/kg body weight.

  53. Unlike many who have left comments, I have watched the whole video. Well I actually watched the slides on the pdf, and listened to the comentary from the video.

    Denis Hopkins (04:13:02) : I was put off by the personal attacks that made it seem like a polemic that i should not trust.

    Watch it and look for the humour please. Do not judge the book by the cover.

    Forget what he said about the constitution, put aside that he is a British speaker/peer (I put aside the fact that Al Gore is American when I saw AIT).

    But for someone like me (not scientific, but interested) I found the explanations in the presentation very useful indeed. How the data was manipulated, how statements in the IPCC have been changed to suit their stated goal, how graphs can be made to say what you want them to say, how the money being wasted on AGW could be better spent elsewhere, and lots of other stuff besides.

    And there are some good explanations why AGW is not happening.

    There is no alarmism in there, no dire predictions of the end of the world, but a down to my level explanation. (That must be how the warmers are going to attack me by calling me stupid)

  54. Bushy, he would have to get 67 votes in the Senate. There’s not a chance in Hades that he could get 7 Republican votes (even if he could get all the Dems.)

  55. Nice talk. I watched it both with and without the Powerpoint presentation. With the Powerpoint was better.

    To those arguing about treaties and the U.S. Constitution, these are the applicable portions:

    Article II§1¶2: He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments

    Article IV¶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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    D.T.

  56. Bushy, the President can’t make “Law” by signing. He can only make “Law” by signing a Bill passed by Congress. The key word above is “Consent. Consent by 2/3 of the Senate.

  57. D.T. (09:15:41) :
    Your constitution, and after all the rest of constitutions, in the new independent states in north and south america, which arised after and because of the french revolution, were made based on the principles and inspired by the same french revolution.
    Why if there is now a similar movement which the authors or ideologists think will be for the improvement of mankind and that movement, now being presumably sponsored by the UN, originates a new order and a new constitution?

  58. Note that that the Senate only requires a quorum of 51 Senators to act. Under that minimum, “two thirds of the Senators present” means 34 Senators. So approval actually means that, depending on circumstances, somewhere between 34 and 67 Senators would need to approve a treaty.

    Re: Adolfo Giurfa.
    The U.S. Constitution actually had little to do with the French Revolution (which followed the American Revolution) and more to do with the protection of the individual states against foreign aggression. More than anything else. The previous Articles of Confederation fell short.

    D.T.

  59. bill (08:57:28) :

    Why do the activists always link DDT to dielrin? They are entirely different (dieldrin is a cyclodiene). Dieldrin/aldrin is dangerous and was abandoned for seed dressings before DDT. Raptor recovery started well before DDT was abolished. Remember the falcon story and egg thinning?
    Please don’t believe anything from Gree***ace (these are dangerous people).

  60. bill (08:57:28) :
    “DDT From 1952: Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides.”

    Why do the activists always link DDT to dielrin? They are entirely different (dieldrin is a cyclodiene). Dieldrin/aldrin is dangerous and was abandoned for seed dressings before DDT. Raptor recovery started well before DDT was abolished. Remember the falcon story and egg thinning?
    Please don’t believe anything from Gree***ace (these are dangerous people).

  61. I’m embarrassed to have Monckton on the same team.
    I can’t say much about his substance because I found his style so unappealing that I couldn’t continue. The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.
    Thank goodness nobody there understood it any better than he did himself.

  62. Do you think they’ll lock the Republican Senators “Out?”

    Remember how Clinton sent Al Gore over to Kyoto to “sign” the accord, and then quietly slipped the agreement into the desk drawer never, again, to see the light of day?

  63. jtom:

    while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.”

    Yes, I got that far too–however, whether a treaty is self-executing or not can be very tricky to decide, and may also end up in courts to make that determination.

    Also, even if Congress makes some kind of non-binding policy resolution to follow the treaty, this can be used in courts all over the country. Courts are already using foreign laws and Common Inernational Laws.

    It is my understanding, and I am still slogging through this, that international law and adherance to treaties will be enforced by American judges. We must throw a lot of them out!

    Also Lord Munckton is correct in saying that these treaties create new governing bodies that we can’t walk away from as easily as from a treaty. For example, the Law of the Sea Treaty created an Internat’l Seabed Authority, and gave it authority over the sea.

  64. Charles Rossi (06:55:34) :

    Anthony,

    Don’t destroy any genuine credibility your work has achieved by promoting this poisonous man’s inflated self importance. He may sound the part but here in the UK he is an embarrassment to those who have grave doubts on the science behind AGW.

    Regards,

    Charles,
    London, UK

    Just your opinion Charles, he seems to have had a favourable reception at the Cambridge Union society who invited him to speak, suggest you watch Apocalypse? NO!.

    Rob,

    Notts UK.

  65. I was lucky enough to be able to attend Lord Christopher Monckton’s talk. He is a very dynamic speaker and it was fun to watch. He is not a typical political speaker. He presented the evidence and makes definitive statements about the flawed science behind AGW. Much better than the typical political speaker who never makes a concrete statement. He did not end with saying we need to study more and please continue with the grant money.

    He did present one slide that I need review. If I understand the slide he presented, the global climate models are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do the models really calculate that a warmer earth would emit less radiation?

  66. Re: Adolfo Giurfa.
    In the United States, the citizen is the sovereign; not the elected or appointed officials who are merely agents of the sovereign. I do not know your government, but it’s always dangerous for any nation’s citizens to turn sovereignty over to foreign entities, who will alway act in their own interests, even to the detriment or destruction of yours.

    D.T.

  67. Oliver Ramsay (09:48:42) :

    If you don’t like his message, that’s one thing.
    But to attack him on his appearance or how he delivers his message is quite another. Should we now sink to finding fault with Al Gore’s appearance or Southern drawl?

  68. D.T. (09:44:44) : Yes, I knew that, but the principles, the then current ideals, were the same. I think this time the ideologists have exaggerated if they think they can impose, through global warming or whatever lie, a world communist order, now by making nations supposedly more equal through sharing their wealth to us third world countries because it will mean suffering for you and holidays and vacations for us!
    Ask some working canadians how they fund the newly, and imported from the third world, canadians.

  69. I have noticed that a lot of the attacks on Monckton’s speech, have more to do with personal dislike of the man than of matters of substance. I have seen such comments as
    “The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.”
    ““Moncton is a bloviating, windbag”
    “Monckton’s sounding crazy, and if you bother to pay attention to what he says, he’s clearly inaccurate.”
    “I lost interest when he started god-bothering”
    “What’s going on? Monkton and Tea Baggers….you are losing me. I come here for real stuff, not propaganda and crazy stuff from the right!!!”

    Where is the impartiality I’ve come to expect from WUWT bloggers?

  70. Gary Palmgren (10:04:54) :
    Do the models really calculate that a warmer earth would emit less radiation?

    As far as I know they suppose a kind of “heat piggy bank” in our atmosphere, more precisely in the tropical atmosphere, which, btw, and as it has been demonstrated here in WUWT, never formed or appeared.

  71. I voted for McCain. However, I’m an American. The first words out of his mouth was a slam at my President. I didn’t appreciate that. I’m sure I’m not alone. I was Baptized when I was a youngster. I think the Baptist Church is a “Force for Good.” Having said that, “Religion” has no place in this debate. I could have done without that (as, I am sure, so could others.) Then the Sophomoric “Latin” mumbo jumbo. By that time I was through.

    I thought the powerpoint might be easier to get through. First off, a silly, and totally unsubstantiated, hit at biofuels. (field corn is $0.07/lb, and has shown absolutely no correlation with “planting” decisions of Any crop anywhere else in the world – while oil is $78.00 Barrel.)

    Previously, I’ve gone to his website, and seen cherry-picked and incomplete data used to support his arguments. Look, I think AGW is nonsense. But, I don’t want to be represented by someone who is so easy to refute. Give me the Lindzens, and Christies, and Spencers. I know I can take what these men say to the Debate.

  72. An independent nation (only God is -sovereign-) can repudiate a treaty at any time. This is the nature of treaties. Upon doing so, of course, the other signees are liberated from the restrictions imposed by it with regards to the repudiating nation. This can of course result in war.

  73. Mr. Giufra, our Constitution, which like our Declaration of Independence, pre-dates and is antithetical to, the French Revolution, is based upon the 3,500 year old Judao-Christian political tradition. It incorporates ideas ranging from Moses and the early Israeli commonwealth, to the relationship between prophet, priest and king, the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s three roles as Prophet/lawgiver, priest and king, the thought of Augustine, Archbishop John of York, Aquinas, du Plessis de Mornay, Henri de Bracton, John Knox, and Samuel Rutherford. The underlying principle is that God created us and gave us unalienable rights which the State cannot take away, that there are independent spheres in human society, that God is King and has only delegated certain duties to civil government, retaining the remainder, thus preventing tyranny, where the State tries to function as God, and the reality of original sin, and the tendency of power to corrupt, thus placing the independent powers in opposing sections of civil government, so that human ambition can be caught up in striving against others rather than against the citizenry. It has worked fairly well these last 380 years.

  74. Norm Beazer, regarding watching long YouTube videos, just remember at how many minutes you stopped watching. When you come back to the video, drag the slider to pick up at that minute. The video will start downloading from there onwards and you will have almost no wait to pick up where you left.

  75. Oliver Ramsay (09:48:42) :
    “I’m embarrassed to have Monckton on the same team.
    I can’t say much about his substance because I found his style so unappealing that I couldn’t continue. The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.
    Thank goodness nobody there understood it any better than he did himself.”

    So Ramsey, as a self appointed latinist, what sort of accent did ole Julius Caesar have frinstance? Estuarine? Appenine?
    Furthermore he quoted stuff from memory, bet you couldn’t do it. I loved it, those self opinionated catastrophists needed taking down a peg or two. Well done Monckton, well done Anthony.

  76. For those who are put off by certain statements in Lord Monckton’s presentation or find what they believe are minor flaws, note that in the very opening of his address, that he admonishes the audience to do their own homework and not believe anything he says.

    “That is science!”

    He makes an assertion of fact, and shows his line of reasoning, and evidence!
    You take responsibility to verify if his reasoning and evidence stands up to the level necessary to be believed by you.

    Even if he makes an error, that does not necessarily mean the assertion is wrong, it just means that his presentation is not complete. If he makes no identifiable errors that does not necessarily mean his conclusions are correct, it only means that his presentation contains no identifiable logical or factual errors.

    Unlike Al Gore, he is not expecting you to believe him as a “matter of faith”, he is presenting his view of the subject and encouraging you to dig into the data and make your own conclusion. His presentation provides many useful starting points for such investigation. He points out many interesting bits of information that should be very troubling to anyone who understands the scientific method and ethical behavior of scientists and public officials.

    If you find what you believe is an error in his presentation, you do not have adequate grounds to dismiss his entire presentation out of hand, you only have grounds to dismiss or better yet investigate the error you believe you have found. If that were true, we would dismiss Newton’s law of gravitation out of hand, along with all his laws of motion because his law fails under some very specific circumstances.

    Like the concept of severability in legal contracts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability_clause

    The various components of a proof or line of reasoning stand or fall on their own merits, not on the validity of the entire proof. To dismiss the entire argument because you find a single error is a logical trick used to keep people from evaluating the entire argument, and as used by the AGW crowd as a way of tossing out the baby with the bath water.

    It is true that for a proof to be valid all the components have to be valid, and it must lead to a logically consistent result. There are many cases where scientists and researchers have come to correct conclusions based on faulty data, and logic. Likewise, they have on many occasions come to incorrect conclusions using flawless math and logic, because they left some consideration out.

    The function of his (or any presentation like this) is/should be to make the listener think and come to their own conclusion based not only on the data presented, but on their own research to validate that data.

    Be a critical listener to “all” of his points and then view the entire presentation as a whole. I do not agree with everything he says, but understand his message, and his intent, and find enough useful information to make it a worth while presentation.

    In several instances, if he is correct in even one of his assertions, he breaks the chain of logic used by the AGW hypothesis, and invalidates the conclusion, that catastrophic global warming is imminent and that threat warrants drastic action immediately.

    His presentation on DDT is an important history lesson. Many people are unaware that historically the world has repeatedly made major changes based on the precautionary principle only to find that when better data came out, the cure was worse than the disease.

    Many people are simply ignorant of important facts, Like the young women in “Not Evil just Wrong” film who was unaware that DDT was widely used in America and malaria was a major problem in the U.S. many years ago.

    In the early 1950’s as a young child in Navy housing, I remember running along with a group of other neighborhood children as the DDT truck came by and we would run back and forth through the cloud of insecticide (although we were supposed to come inside when it came by). Because of a lack of historical perspective, modern children and young adults are totally ignorant of that fact.

    Some of the first efforts to develop air conditioning were due to malaria and yellow fever outbreaks in 1830’s Florida.

    http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/dr_john_gorrie

    Larry

  77. Monckton does a fine and heartfelt job. His facts are solid and the message that there is no catastrophe is honest.

    A recent somewhat cosmic interpretation of AGW is interesting: AGW is a focused behavioral management campaign designed to alter human activity. The goal is to wean human population off fossil fuel as primary energy and encourage the move to sustainable/renewable energy resources. A civilization adapted to renewable energy resources is the first step for entry into a universe of intelligent life. Dr. Michio Kaku (string physicist City Univ NY) claims this classifies a civilization as a “Type One” planet.

    The last we heard from Dr. Kaku, he felt confident that Earth was well on its way to achieving Type One status. The challenge is to achieve this status while preserving national sovereign diversity.

  78. Charles Rossi (06:55:34) : Don’t destroy any genuine credibility your work has achieved by promoting this poisonous man’s inflated self importance. He may sound the part but here in the UK he is an embarrassment to those who have grave doubts on the science behind AGW.

    Charles, I’m a UK citizen.

    When I was a warmist I learned that Monckton was one of the key baddies. Even when I did a U-turn, it took me a long time to throw off that habit of belief and look again at Monckton’s stuff. It was Monckton’s refutation of the IPCC maths, by IPCC’s own standards, that made me stop and look more carefully. Probably I was put onto it by someone disparaging Monckton a “bridge too far” for my bs antennae that started me looking. I followed the story through. Gavin Schmidt had “refuted” Monckton’s maths in detail, but in response to that, Monkton showed in detail that Schmidt was wrong in every point of maths / physics that he’d made. Schmidt never replied to that, and there can only be one reason: he could not. Had he been able to reply, he would never have missed such a prime opportunity.

    I may take issue with some of Monckton’s polemics, but on other occasions he puts extremely important issues clearly and well, and his level of attack is far less grubby than that of his opponents when you put the whole exchange in context. And despite his degree not being in science, he is a brilliant mathematician and has mastered the relevant science to a level that puts probably most PhD scientists to shame.

    I thought that Anthony had not given Monckton enough space recently, though I know that he has some reservations about Monckton. Here was the answer: give Monctkon some decent space. Whatever size ego, this man still cares passionately, he faces a horrendous quantity of lying slander, with zero status gain for supporting the unfashionable side. Perhaps to do anything in his position needs an ego. I’m grateful that he is there.

    Have a look at this section of my website for details of Monckton’s replies to Schmidt.

    And then of course there’s Monckton’s paper that was published by APS, I forget the name of the bloke who kept on attacking it but again when I looked more closely (and asked Monckton direct why he had not responded at that point) there was no substance in the attacks, nothing I could find. By then I’d teased out the whole matter quite enough.

  79. Indiana Bones (11:40:15) : We, oldies, used DDT a lot, during the 50’s and nothing bad happened, Malaria disappeared from southamerican cities,.., now malaria and dengue are reappearing, even in big cities.
    You need a few mosquitos up there to be convinced and remember that once it was endemic also in the USA .:-)

  80. I thought it was a very good presentation.

    There are probably the occasional issue that is off a little but when you cover this much complicated material, some slips happen.

    Some are put off by Monckton’s style (I’m not) and, for the most part, people’s style is their style and it is not going to change so you should just accept it or move on.

    But that is also a style over substance argument.

    And the substance in the material is much better/more accurate than you will get in most places.

  81. Indiana Bones (11:40:15) :

    As for DDT, like many things there are apparent trade offs to its use. Especially with regard to aquatic life:

    The same goes for other malaria control measures. One very effective method of mosquito control is to control breeding environments. Draining swamps an wet lands is very helpful, but flies directly in the face of “habitat protection”.

    Spraying wetlands with diesel oil to smother the larval mosquito by creating an oil film that prevents respiration works quite well and is cheap but freaks out the EPA and similar pollution guardians.

    Likewise there are “natural control agents” like Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis used in mosquito biscuits. Some folks are concerned about biological control agents because they “might” turn into a foreign pest problem some time in the future or have unintended consequences.

    The problem is people think that there should be a simple straight forward solution to all problems. Unfortunately the simple straight forward solution is almost always wrong and frequently comes with some unintended consequence that is never considered as excess baggage.

    Some how we need to break our current cultural tendency to look for simple short sighted solutions to problems and take a more incremental long term view of problems.

    We can re-engineer the power grid to support large amounts of solar and wind energy. We can move away from fossil fuels. We can build safe Nuclear power plants, but it is not a 10 year task, it is a 50 or 100 year task and until folks realize that and start viewing it like the Interstate Highway system as a project that will still be underway when their children are adults the better off we will be.

    Larry

  82. I wish he would cut out the crap with the Nobel pin, he is not a Nobel Laureate. It calls into question all of his valid arguments.

    As for DDT, the proposal is to spray it sparingly inside of houses and not dump tons of it all over the place. At the levels contemplated, it does not affect birds or sea life. “Silent Spring” has a large number of rather glaring errors/omissions in it. For instance the quail egg hatching. Of the 100 quail eggs from quails exposed to DDT and the 100 quail eggs from quails not exposed to DDT a slightly low but statistically insignificant number of DDT exposed eggs did not hatch. That went on to a total survival of a statistically insignificant number of the DDT hatchlings surviving. Perhaps a good jr. high science fair project but not science in the way that might be considered real science. The argument on the reason for the award of the Nobel for DDT is angels on pinheads. The pinheads say it is not because of malaria, it is because of other things. The other things were a mosquito vectored disease, so it is a distinction without a difference.

    Basically the effort to use DDT in Africa has been slowed (except in South Africa) because the aid money we send to the countries there is sent on the condition that they not use DDT. South Africa is rich enough to be self supporting in this regard.

  83. Unfortunately Monckton does taint his otherwise excellent presentation by bringing God into the conversation on a number of occasions. Doing God is wholly unscientific.

  84. D.T. (09:15:41)
    Article IV¶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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
    ————————————————————–
    Nit picking: It is Article VI, paragraph 2.

  85. Jabba the Cat (12:25:27) :

    “Unfortunately Monckton does taint his otherwise excellent presentation by bringing God into the conversation…”

    Is Albert Einstein tainted, too?

  86. To those of you who are upset over the recent political posts on WUWT and want to stick mainly to science, I have the following comment: So do all of us. Unfortunately, the world does not stop while we research and argue the scientific merits of the AGW hypothesis. The simple truth is the political crowd, on both sides of the political spectrum, has latched on to AGW and is using it to further their political agenda. These politicians want to make changes that affect every country in the world based on shoddy scientific facts and they’re trying to push it though before the whole house of cards comes crashing down, so as a skeptic, I have to become engaged in the political debate because it will not only affect me, it will affect my children and future grandchildren. This isn’t a left-wing/right-wing thing; it’s a right/wrong thing. It also doesn’t necessarily mean you have to vote for any particular person, you just have to put enough pressure on these political hacks to make it political suicide to pursue these potentially damaging and certainly premature policies. Once we can get this issue out of the political spectrum and back into the scientific forum where it belongs, we’ll all be better off. Bottom line: Quit complaining about these political posts because they do have relevance in the big picture. Anthony is doing everyone a service by not only shedding light on scientific issues, but political ones as well and he should be commended for his efforts.

  87. Speaking of Rachel Carson and dangerous chemicals (DDT):
    ————————————————————–
    Left’s War on Science
    by J.F. Beck

    October 19, 2009

    Religious adherents do not take criticisms of their holy scriptures lightly. Thus Leftists swiftly and viciously attacked my Quadrant Online essay exposing flaws in the most holy of holy, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. The response is typical of the way dissent is dealt with by true believers who do not tolerate any questioning of their faith.

    There is much truth in Silent Spring but the book is often anything but scientific. Carson, nominally a scientist – marine biology – made her living writing. To stimulate sales she added spice to her story by taking liberties with the truth:

    For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death.

    This outlandishly unscientific claim on its own discredits the whole book – the natural environment is awash with dangerous chemicals.

  88. Oliver Ramsay (09:48:42) :

    “I’m embarrassed to have Monckton on the same team.
    I can’t say much about his substance because I found his style so unappealing that I couldn’t continue. The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.
    Thank goodness nobody there understood it any better than he did himself”.

    Oliver,
    Reciting in Latin and the accent is a perfectly British habit and a lot less ludicrous than a than a former Vice US President with a Nobel Price for fraud and deception.
    What’s more ludicrous is that he is getting away with it with NO AMERICAN challenging him.
    It must be quite a team you’re embarrassed about.

    Please grow up, this is not a personality competition.

  89. I wasn’t aware that Albert Einstein used God in defense of his theories, or in lectures on relativity.

  90. A French journalist wrote in a monologue, about global warming, that computer models are NOT reality. Nature is reality.

    Dr. Bob Carter further specified realities as scientific realities (facts), virtual realities (computer models) and public realities (beliefs).

    Physicist John Reid discusses the computer models (virtual reality).

    Contrary to popular belief, only 18% (0.36 ppmv)of the yearly increase (2.0 ppmv) in atmospheric CO2 concentration was due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as of the year 2000, per the Department of Energy.
    ————————————————————-
    Climate Modelling Nonsense

    John Reid

    https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense

    First there is the argument, commonly used by Al Gore and others, that carbon dioxide forms a layer like a blanket or greenhouse window pane high in the atmosphere which traps long-wave infra-red radiation, thus making the surface of the earth warmer. This is misleading. Certainly carbon dioxide is an infra-red absorber but, like most infra-red absorbing gases, its absorption rate depends on concentration and pressure and is at a maximum at the ground. The atmosphere is a gas, not a solid, and bits of it move up and down, carrying heat as they move. As a meteorological balloon climbs higher in the atmosphere, the measured temperature falls off with increasing height. This phenomenon, referred to as the lapse rate, has been known and described for more than a century. The lapse rate is determined by the thermodynamic properties of the gases that make up the atmosphere and has little to do with radiation. The convection term completely dominates the radiation term in the relevant equation.

    Second there are the climate models themselves. In discussions with colleagues, arguments always seem to come down to “But the models show …” Those who use this argument seldom have modelling experience themselves and share the lay public’s naive faith in the value of large computer models.

    If the IPCC were a pharmaceutical company it could face fraud charges for doing this. This is a good analogy. The IPCC claims to have diagnosed a planetary disorder, global warming, and has proposed a remedy, the limitation of man-made carbon dioxide production. They have produced no convincing scientific evidence that either the diagnosis or the cure is valid.

    Over the last few years, with remarkable rapidity, AGW theory has gone from a scientific curiosity to a politically-correct catechism. Nowadays it is not merely politically correct, it is politically essential. Somehow this nineteenth-century oddity has outlasted Das Kapital to become the banner of millions of environmentally concerned Westerners. It seems to fulfil a human need for sacrifice, a need to “put something back”. It is the ancient myth about guilt and sin and redemption in a new guise.

  91. This is being discussed “Right Now” on Glen Becks radio show as I type and perhaps on his TV show tonight

  92. Geos said: So Ramsey, as a self appointed latinist, what sort of accent did ole Julius Caesar have frinstance? Estuarine? Appenine?
    Furthermore he quoted stuff from memory, bet you couldn’t do it. I loved it, those self opinionated catastrophists needed taking down a peg or two. Well done Monckton, well done Anthony.

    So, do you think that piece of Latin was about AGW? Or religious belief?
    A show of hands suggested that he wasn’t speaking to many catastrophists.

    rbateman,

    I’m not allowed to mention what really annoys me, and besides, of course you can take issue with somebody’s style; it was clear that I wasn’t speaking of his substance.

  93. Oldies in Florida remember having to put on mosquito nets to take out the gtarbage in the summer – and then they discovered DDT. Now we all go there on holiday.

  94. The gold speck is when M. addresses Lindzen’s paper on radiative reflection and Spencer on feedbacks.

  95. I wasn’t aware that Albert Einstein used God in defense of his theories, or in lectures on relativity.

    Well, he is widely quoted as having said (re. qm) that God doesn’t play dice with the universe.

  96. Mike Lorrey (01:07:37) :

    What is even more dangerous is if the treaty is treated as ‘not a treaty’ as is increasingly the case among these fascists. They may merely call it an ‘agreement’ which doesnt require a supermajority ratification, and they will claim it only requires a simple majority to enact the regulations to comply with the agreement.

    That is precisely what was alluded to in the previous posting regarding this. Monckton knew this & said as much.

    DaveE.

  97. Heard on the street…

    “People are tired of the stonewalling. What’s coming next is a deeper plunge into the cold and imminent release of previously cloaked plans. The remaining warmist agencies will bend and kiss their ashes goodbye.”

  98. “Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized: In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident.”

    – Arthur Schopenhauer (German Philosopher, 1788-1860)

    We’re now at stage 2.

    CO2AGW. Rapidly closing in on the third stage.

  99. Vincent (04:53:41) :

    Ed Darrell,

    What you obviously didn’t notice is that the site belongs to Ed Darrell

    DaveE.

  100. “Hurricane victims to sue Big Oil.”

    Well at least the hurricane victims are human. If Pres. Obama’s Information and Regulatory Affairs Czar Cass Sunstein had his way, animals would have legal standing to sue.

    “Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit.” Wik

    Next stop–polar bears in the Ninth Circuit!

  101. Spector (05:25:38) :

    In my opinion, Lord Monckton’s overstated and potentially inflammatory comment that signing the Copenhagen agreement would irrevocably bind this country [USA] to a common world government damages the overall credibility of his whole presentation.

    If this is the same speech covered a few days ago, in questions, Monckton covered that. He said that a 2/3s majority was required to ratify but relabelling as an agreement only a simple majority is required to enact most of the treaty.

    DaveE.

  102. As this topic dies, let me get in one of the final notes:

    Few know the full facts re the DDT ban. One fundamental piece of research used to tout its ‘danger’ was the thinning of egg shells. This finding, though, was difficult to replicate, and sometimes the results were not consistent. For example, the shells were not thinner if the DDT exposure were below a certain lever or ABOVE a certain threshold. That INCREASING the DDT exposure would minimize shell-thinning was, to put it mildly, strange if DDT really affected the shells. Eventually, it was discovered that in one of the seminal studies showing a decrease of shell thickness, the researcher had given the birds DDT INSTEAD OF CALCIUM. Now, what do you think a calcium-deficient diet would do to the eggshells?

    Poor science or fraudulent science? No one knows, but today we have a similar situation with the Mann-Biffra hockey stick graph. The banning of DDT in third-world countries has led to 10s of millions of people dying from malaria. Let’s hope the bad science of AGW doesn’t produce the same results.

  103. I don’t suppose that the moderators would allow me to re-post with appropriate tabs and line breaks to make this more coherent…

    WestHoustonGeo (19:04:42) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    I am delighted to find that we in Texas have a dedication to the Constitution of the U.S. and not to any temporary resident of the white house…
    CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS 1876
    Adopted February 15, 1876
    ARTICLE 1
    BILL OF RIGHTS
    That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government
    may be recognized and established, we declare:

    Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

    Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM
    OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

  104. Quoting: michel (23:57:23) :

    “Monckton is a National Treasure in Britain, and a very amusing chap with a wonderful way with words, but his take on US sovereignty issues is not to be taken too seriously. Think of it as Andy Rooney or Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley, off on a long discursive idiosyncratic lecture only loosely tethered to reality. Its fun if you are in the right mood.”

    Commenting:

    michel,

    You should be so casual with your own sovereignty, lady!
    Monckton has documented every word he has said. You have libeled him with nary a thought in your head.

    [snip]

    WestHoustonGeo

  105. Jabba the Cat (12:25:27) :

    Unfortunately Monckton does taint his otherwise excellent presentation by bringing God into the conversation on a number of occasions. Doing God is wholly unscientific.

    Einsteins belief in God was unshakable!

    DaveE.

  106. The DDT ban is being re-imposed by the UN, even though DDT has verifiably saved millions of lives:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

    A short Wall St. Journal article. Maurice Strong, puppet master of the UN, has repeatedly stated that the world’s population must be culled by more than 90%. Reading between the WSJ’s lines, it appears that the UN has now re-banned DDT in order to reduce the African population.

    It looks to be the same reason that the UN Blue Helmets stood aside and watched Africans and Bosnians slaughter each other.

  107. I particularly liked his willingness to describe statements as lies, not differences of opinion or interpretation. It’s part of the problem that many people are reluctant to believe that what they are hearing are outright lies.

  108. Ron de Haan said:
    Reciting in Latin and the accent is a perfectly British habit and a lot less ludicrous than a than a former Vice US President with a Nobel Price for fraud and deception.
    What’s more ludicrous is that he is getting away with it with NO AMERICAN challenging him.
    It must be quite a team you’re embarrassed about.

    Please grow up, this is not a personality competition.

    Wow, Ron, it’s been a long time since someone told me to grow up. So, just for you, I’m going to try to be very mature.
    I went to the same school as Monckton and I took Latin, too. I actually remember quite a bit of it. Enough to make sense of that passage. I have also sat at many a dinner-table where, from time to time, somebody, maybe even myself, would seek to impress the company with a quote in a number of different languages. There is a general understanding that those present will have a sufficient grasp to appreciate the cleverness of the speaker.
    Doing a latinised version of the New Testament in a presentation about AGW to an audience that probably couldn’t translate “Sic transit Gloria ” is pretentious, in my opinion, and detracts from a very worthwhile attempt to persuade followers to doubt.
    As for Al Gore, I have no doubt that you would find my view of him very grown-up, since it coincides with your own.

  109. just an odd moment in american history. after years of being trend-setting and independent and even anti-british, we’re giving our sovereignty over climate issues to this guy from england?

  110. Before we get into a hellfire hurry to say that Lord Munckton is overreacting to Copenhagen, it might be interesting to step back and view it along side other treaties presently queued up:

    1. Copenhagen–give 1% of GDP in tax, to keep the sea levels down

    2. UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):

    “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women … and in particular to ensure … the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods.”

    3. UN Convention on the Rights of a Child UNCRC:

    1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

    The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

    The development of respect for the natural environment. Article 29

    (I think reading and writing and ‘rithematic are conspicuously absent from the goal of education in Art. 29, but that is just me.)

    If these treaties are signed, it grants the Senate the chance to ratify them–and this in turn gives Congress a foothold into areas of state law that it does not have at this time. Anyone can double check what I say; but do the homework and think about the potential dangers in the courts of using international laws to interpret domestic laws–or even negate them.

    I would like to leave you with this very short legal abstract from Canada, showing the judicial creep toward international law in progress:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395915

  111. …..phoenix mattress (21:24:53) :

    just an odd moment in american history. after years of being trend-setting and independent and even anti-british, we’re giving our sovereignty over climate issues to this guy from england?…..
    —————
    If you’re referrring to Monckton, I would be delighted if someone in the U.S. would give him a run for his money. If there anyone capable of doing that? The only person I can think of is Senator Inhofe and I’m sure he’d appreciate some backup, whatever the source.

    I’m from Australia and there is nothing I’d like more than to have Lord Monckton come here give our climate debate a good old shakeup. If we’re not careful we’ll end up with an ETS even before Copenhagen due to our craven and cowardly opposition leader who, thankfully, is starting the lose the support of even his own party but that may not be enough to stop the juggernaut.

  112. “Hello Minnisota. I’m practicing to run for president. I understand all I need is a freshly minted Hawaiian birth certificate.”
    -British Lord Christopher Monckton

    Can you hear the world laughing now?

  113. DaveE (20:10:06) :
    “Einsteins belief in God was unshakable!”

    Dave, a year before his death Einstein wrote a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind:

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

  114. @ DaveE (20:10:06) :

    “Einsteins belief in God was unshakable!”

    It may have been, but he did not use it to prop up his work. Real and honest science can stand on it’s own two feet without the need for “divine” reasoning or justification.

  115. @ Chris Schoneveld (00:41:57) :

    “Dave, a year before his death Einstein wrote a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind:

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” ”

    Confirms my suspicion. Thanks for that info Chris.

  116. Oliver Ramsay (21:10:50) :
    “I went to the same school as Monckton and I took Latin, too. I actually remember quite a bit of it……………Doing a latinised version of the New Testament in a presentation about AGW to an audience that probably couldn’t translate “Sic transit Gloria ” is pretentious, in my opinion, and detracts from a very worthwhile attempt to persuade followers to doubt.
    As for Al Gore, I have no doubt that you would find my view of him very grown-up, since it coincides with your own.”

    Thank you Ramsey for this disclosure. Like you I have memories – in my case – of Kennedy’s Shortbread Eating Primer and all the rest. All sarc aside I’d like you to think that maybe there was some underlying purpose in his exhibition of biblical scholarship and references to God. I would like to draw your attention to the powerful religious forces marching to the drum of AGW hyp. I know this to be the case in the US and certainly so in Britain with the green archbish parroting the usual green mantras. My take is that he’s attempting to show up the bad science and the poor theology.
    Ramsey, name me one AGW hype cheerleader of consequence who has protested Al Gore’s blatantly poor science and all the other stuff. This is not a nice business.

  117. …..@ DaveE (20:10:06) :

    “Einsteins belief in God was unshakable!”

    It may have been, but he did not use it to prop up his work. Real and honest science can stand on it’s own two feet without the need for “divine” reasoning or justification. …..
    ————-
    I don’t consider quoting from the Bible using religion to prop up his work. Whatever your religious beliefs – or lack thereof – the Bible was written by people and the particular verse he quoted was extremely apt for the discussion on hand. He wanted to emphasize the fact that his rejection of the AGW hypothesis did not in any way reflect a lack of concern for nature and the environment. Rather, and on the contrary, he wanted our energies to be concentrated on the many real problems facing the environment.

    The other point which he stressed over and over, and which is also perhaps relevant to the religious allusion, is that public policy MUST be based on the truth because, if it is not, then real catastrophes can result, which he then went on to illustrate with DDT and AIDS. This was all before he got to the scientific basis for rejecting AGW and had no direct bearing on it.

  118. The God Spot.

    I didn’t know that Monckton was a god-botherer either. Could this have been influenced by the fact he was lecturing in Minnesota?

    .

  119. DaveE.
    “What you obviously didn’t notice is that the site belongs to Ed Darrell.”

    I didn’t know that. There was no “Ed Darrell” emblazoned in the banner, just a picture of some old bloke in a wig. And there was I, rubbishing that web site as if it was written by somebody else. Oh dear.

  120. Really! Why keep drag God into it!

    It’s all in the powerpoint slides! If you disagree with what the good Lord is putting forward, or see errors, then for God’s sake put up your corrections and suggested edits!

    (And the fact that you don’t like his latinisms is a non-sequitur … as is any other kind of ad-hominem, and so is a waste of good carbon dioxide!

    …. Anthony must have the patience of a saint to put up with this kind of OTstuff. )

  121. He nailed it. Concisely. Yet masterfully managed to retain our attention.

    If someone believes they can refute what he says – then come forward and state your case.

  122. Interesting site and debate, even for a layman. I do not have sufficient scientific background to be able to come to any conclusion on AGW, (yes or no). I do have enough education to follow most of the arguments and some of the maths. From my own more particular experience of decision-making, in business I would make the following observations:-

    There are two sides to the argument, both with some cogent evidence. But neither with all the facts, by any means. Worse, “facts” on both sides are too often based in insufficient data- erroneous assumptions- fallacious hypotheses. Even worse they are then used to extrapolate yet more but insufficient data into scenarios which support the result required rather than the actual result. Worse still, the data, hypothesis and resultant scenario are presented with so much emotion, window-dressing and hyperbole as to be unintelligible to anyone but God.

    This is the nature of decision making. It is usually difficult to sort the wood from the trees. My experience is that to make fundamental decisions in such circumstances is to mostly invoke the law of unintended consequences- very expensive and inconvenient. ( 9 times out of ten the best response is to ask for more data, test the stuff you have and replay the hypotheses. At this point the arguments start to stack up a little better one way or the other, particularly if the second round of research is directed intelligently to cut to the chase while ignoring the chaff. Usually, doesn’t take too long and very often presents other options not previously considered. The worst argument I have most often heard is “we’re running out of time”. That is rarely the case- most bad decisions are made in haste.

    We are at the point that the two scientific positions are at absolute loggerheads. Observationally, neither able to concede a single point to the other for fear that the whole house of cards will crumble (DDT in point). That is a scene that reeks of dogma, on both sides, suggesting that neither side is 100% confident. So, yes more research.

    Certainly what I can see from the evidence is that the last few years data do suggest that we have more time, that since ’95 the rate of global warming has been negative, since ’07 the ice packs have not melted, and that climate change may not have gone away by any means but is at least in remission, affording us more time. Let’s take some and have some generally accepted proofs rather than opinion.

    I in now way see the fact that the scientific community has differing opinions, myriad opinions as an indictment. On the contrary, it is surely healthy, but only if the debate is propelled. What I currently see is far more energy expended on shoring up entrenched positions than the pursuit of knowledge.

    So why has that happened? Here we come to the politics.

    It s impossible to separate them from the science, like it or not. Research is now so expensive as to be prohibited without sponsorship, from somewhere. Government, Commerce and academia all have vested interests. We cannot be so naive as to imagine that they will throw billions of dollars at potential results that do not suit them in place of results that do.That is not to say that the recipients of such sponsorship are charlatans, but it must mean that often the research is diverted toward “more useful channels”. It is inevitable; few creatures wish to bite the hand that feeds them, and certainly have to provide some sort of value for money as decided by the paymaster. In that way some data, results, conclusions do get weighted/skewed. Not sure which way necessarily, but it’s likely.

    So, I am not persuaded of imminent irreversible climate change or global warming, nor am I convinced of man’s contribution. I am not convinced that CO2 or equivalents are the fundamental catalyst in the process and I am less convinced that a carbon based solution is the right or only one to the problem.

    I am convinced that a Global, hugely complex, highly engineered, incredibly expensive solution deigned to fix a problem as yet undefined, is never going to be 100% right.

    For sure we need the second round of research to start now, and it should have some definition, to speed up the cycle time, but to suggest that we only have “50 days to save the planet” is lamentable

    A long post I think, so a credit to the site that it has motivated me so far. I will spend another two pennerth on Copenhagen specifically, based again in the decision making I have been involved with and the unintended consequences that I have personally suffered as a result.

    I have not seen any scientific analysis that has said “Early Dec ’09 is the last possible date for a decision. By Christmas we are beyond the tipping point- catastrophe is inevitable” In fact, not one amongst even the shrillest eco-warriors has suggested this is the case. No-one has suggested a tipping point on any particular dateline. Of course we don’t want to waste time but Copenhagen goes way, way beyond science. No I haven’t read it all, but enough to know this is commercial and political. It is the vested interests that are demanding the timeline.

    Suggests to me the politics are much more important than the science. Well, for those of us in the UK and Eire who have seen the effect of reversible agreements, voluntary treaties, enabling agreements, outstanding ratifications on supra governmental constitutions, et-al the unintended consequences have been unimaginable. When Heath took us into the Common Market as was then, we thought we were signing up to a free trade agreement centred mainly on agricultural trade.

    Little did we realise that the EU as it has become would be more onerous than the dead hand of the politburo on the Soviet’s satellites. It’s edicts from the unelected commission now pervade every facet of our lives, eroding our freedoms, traditions and our very way of life. Magna Carta, on which the US constitution was largely modelled, 800 years of law, Habeus Corpus, gone at the stroke of a pen. Such is the rate of creep, of Brussels over our activities that
    we have had more laws enacted in the last ten years than in the previous 2 centuries, many drawn up by unelected officials, sadly 80% of them in Brussels. Our parliament is now all but ineffective having ceded power to the EU so much so that there is now nothing we can do about it. Whatever they want they get- more taxes, more bureaucracy, more control. Although Lisbon is not quite in place, we are already operating as though it were, and when the Checks cave in as they will be forced to they will have the lot. The end of the United Kingdom as we know it. There is nothing we can do about it.

    I see too many parallels with The New World Order signalled in the Copenhagen draft. It is more than the thin end of a wedge.

    Let’s be careful what we wish for.

  123. The debate has been lively on this post, Anthony. Thanks. My own thoughts: I would not use DDT as an analogy to the difficulties with the AGW alarmists, and I think Lord Monckton could have shortened his presentation in that respect. There are many sides to the argument over DDT, not the least of which is the fact that it was overused in the 40s and 50s. But banning it completely was never the answer.

    I have read a number of things by Lord Monckton in the past, and I find his arguments compelling, even if his polemics are sometimes not. I would not be making public policy with respect to AGW at all. Particularly given the current state of the science, which as you know is far from “settled.” Lord Monckton makes a case for saying the science is settled on the other side, but nothing is ever truly “settled” in science. I hope everyone who posts on this site remembers that when they get caught up in the debate.

  124. supercritical said: (And the fact that you don’t like his latinisms is a non-sequitur … as is any other kind of ad-hominem, and so is a waste of good carbon dioxide!

    it’s obviously the season to be dusting off all the old Latin expressions we can muster for tossing out to make a point. Non sequitur is Latin, but it doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means, and in English, ad hominem does not refer to any old time a person finds fault with another person. It is a personal attack that seeks to negate the argument of the person attacked.
    Also, while Anthony may well have the patience of a saint or of Job, sadly, your own contribution is right in there with the rest of us. OT? The thread is on Monckton’s speech!

    Iren said:

    The other point which he stressed over and over, and which is also perhaps relevant to the religious allusion, is that public policy MUST be based on the truth because, if it is not, then real catastrophes can result,

    Clearly, you think mixing religion and science is fine. A pithy quote from the Bible is okay with me too, but going on about Pontius Pilate and the saviour of the world just because the passage contains the word veritas is pretty fishy, especially when he’s just rendered Genesis, complete with chapter and verse.
    I’m surprised he didn’t do it in Hebrew.

    GeoS:
    It’s not my impression that the warmers are predominantly god-fearers, and I’m not aware of any prominent warmer who disavows Gore.
    However, bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem!

  125. Oliver,

    Isn’t Monckton’s case set out in his powerpoint slides? It would be so nice for us all if you could find some fault with them, rather than him, wouldn’t it?

    (PS. re school; you didn’t cut that lesson on shoes, did you? )

  126. Russia is looking at communist China and saying, “We can do that” and drop the laissez faire capitalism that they adopted in the 90’s and patterned after the US following Russia’s collapse. They’ve had their problems with lazy faire capitalism with this latest world economic downturn and think they can do a one party communism like China does it. But China is actually a little more like fascism than communism.

    The NY bankers like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc… are terrorists… they’ve created this debt bomb as a way to get trillion $ bailouts and what do they do with the bailout? They invest the money in Chinese car manufacturers and stuff and profit from it… instead of loaning money and extending credit to people. This is criminal! Also, they’ve been working with corporations at how to make the US a one party communist/fascist system like China too. By bribes they accomplish this… creating the republicrats as Ralph Nader calls them. It appears that Monckton is a little late to the party but way ahead of the sheeple.

  127. I have read the UN draft, and there is absolute nothing in it that could be interpreted as a suggestion to establish any kind of a “world government”. Nothing! Clearly, Lord Monckton has a very vivid imagination and an extremely alarmist mindset.

  128. “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.

    Gordon Brown link title warns of climate ‘catastrophe’. Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days “to save the world” from global warming

    Indian, Chinese and Indonesian action and pledges on energy efficiency and renewable energy brought praise from Mr Miliband at the MEF summit.
    But equally clear was the determination of those and other developing nations attending the talks that finance has to be right as a precondition of any deal.

    US bank failures hit 100 for year

    Record recession for UK economy

    So bankrupt US and the UK, Spain and Europe, because of their idiotic policies by which they hobble their power generation and production, are praising further idiotic policies in this direction.

    India and China’s economies are booming, not hobbled by these idiotic policies. But they say – hey we will produce cleaner power, but before we do so, please bankrupt USA and UK – can you please pay us to do so?

    And what will they do? Produce less polluting power from coal and oil, which they should do anyway, while the west closes down its coal and oil plants because it imagines CO2 is a pollutant.

    The west will then buy their manufactured goods from China and India while they rapidly become third world countries and freeze in winter because they will no longer be able to provide warmth and shelter for their citizens.

  129. World government is the fist step in a program of mass depopulation. Chemicals and sterilizing agents in the food, air, water and vaccines is not enough.

    The masses will be made too poor to resist our plans and by the time they wake up, it will be too late. The majority will already be dead or awaiting death in concentration camps.

    Doubt what I say? Study History, my friends.

    There will the super poor with the elite super rich to rule over them.

    The more extreme members of our brethren wish to exterminate the entire human race, but we feel we can deal with them once the time comes.

  130. Doubt what I say? Study History, my friends.

    There will the super poor with the elite super rich to rule over them.

    So you disagree exactly with Patrick Buchanan’s claim that poor people are breeding to take over the world? You think Dr. No, SMERSH, Lex Luthor, Auric Goldfinger and Pinky and the Brain are trying to reduce numbers instead?

    For the past 5,000 years, power has tended to grow out of the size of any army one can field at critical times, not out of one’s bank account. But then, you may not put any stock in the claims of Christian and Jewish scripture, either.

    You say you can deal with them when the time comes. And if the time doesn’t come, then what?

    I’ve studied history, and I gotta say your view is unique.

  131. I have replaced the Monckton presentation PDF file (17.4 MB) with a smaller file of selected slides from the presentation. It is now 7.3 MB with 86 slides, down from 174 slides.

    The Friends of Science Society arranged and sponsored Lord Monckton to give a cross-Canada tour, September 29 – October 8, 2009. He gave presentations in five Canadian cities.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=441

    I am please that he was able to continue with speaking engagements in the USA. We got a fair amount of media coverage of his talks in Canada, but he has been a lot more successful in getting media interest in the USA.

    The Monckton presentation file on the Friends of Science website is linked to numerous websites has been viewed 50,765 times to date. At 17.4 MB, the bandwidth charges are excessive, so I reduced the file size.

  132. We need more people like Lord Monckton .

    Straight talk. Smart talk. Real answers.
    He cuts through all the double speak with scoundrels like Al Gore who only gets richer ,fatter and clearly more plastic surgery preying on the people duped out of their money .

    we all love America ,and want the world to be a beautiful place for mankind ,and animals alike. stop paying these elitists who care not for anything, anyone
    and just want more and more money .

    the problem with America is that Most of the people are good people.
    they refuse to believe that anyone who lived here could be evil .
    thats whats killing us all.

  133. Throughout recorded history there are some among us including elected officials with their own agenda who sought to control humanity by manipulating facts (valid science) using peoples inalienable fear of the unknown with hypothesis (incomplete science).
    Our most valuable possessions are our lives and our freedom both of which are at risk of surrender when we allow incomplete science to hypothesize about our future.

  134. I take heart from the comments of the many contributors here, they remind me of the Dawn of the Dead remake, the words “alive inside” painted on the zombie beseiged mall roof. Given the Global situation they never seemed more appropriate. The New Zealand Government pushed through our ETS Scam under urgency a couple of days ago, unlike the Australians, our MP’s lack the moral courage to denounce this repellent farce. While local action may be appropriate, a global movement is needed, if any of us expect to retire on a planet free from tyranny. We’ve got to stop believing we’re speaking the same language as the doomsayers, when we say we’re sceptical, they literally hear us say “Burn more oil”. Literally. We need a major, major MSM to broadcast a genuine and balance debate, its got to be transparent, so that leaves out the polarised usual suspects. Its got to be accessible by the public everywhere, at least to contribute questions. It can’t be spun by any vested interest, and it needs to be NOW. It also has to distance itself from disparaging invective, we’re all in this together, if there are any idiots, look in the mirror, we all stood by while this went on. Get past that in yourself and get past that in others and lets have a real discussion, possibly for the first time in Human History. The calamity of this is that one loose thread reveals our species foible, all the fields of science should now be viewed as host to undue influence, just as the free market has been gamed, regularly, just as politics is By the Wealthy for the Wealthy.

    Thanks people, there’s hope yet.

  135. Please leave this post up. When Copenhagen is over, and Monckton’s words make him look even more foolish, and less treasonous because what he claimed was going to happen didn’t even get to the discussion phase, please paste it to the top of the blog so everyone can be reminded.

    Thanks.

    REPLY: Be sure to leave all your posts up over there in bathtub land too, Ed. – A

  136. AFter all of these comments, has any of you read even a little bit of the IPCC report? You can go to almost any section of that report and find disqualifying statements, and admissions of uncertainty.
    If it were not for “if” and “may” they could not have published anything. Reminds me of a statement from 15 years ago. It all depends upon what the word “is” is!!!

Comments are closed.