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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Install DownloadHelper in your Firefox browser and then play the file with VLC.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

Denis, just watch the speech and find out. It is very much infused with British humor.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Norm Beazer (00:15:34) : You can do it with Real Player.

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.

This gifted orator should be a script writer for “Yes Minister” instead of pedling alarmism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Norm Beazer (00:15:34)
RealPlayer will download YouTube files.

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.

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)

Kum, Does the stop him from signing?

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.

Typo: “Why if there is”. It should be “What if there is…”

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Lucy Skywalker (12:00:29) :
Spot on.

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.

Left’s War on Science
by J.F. Beck
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/left-s-war-on-science

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.

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.

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.

Hoax press release in the name of the Chamber of Commerce reveals how disturbed and desperate the warmists are:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28456.html

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.

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.”

Hurricane victims to sue Big Oil.
(Find proof in Al Gore’s Movie)
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdhYmY2M2QwYzI0OGQ5MjUyMmZmNjlhZjI1NTU5Mzc=

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

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.

Seems like some of the ‘yanks’ don’t like class 😉

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.”

@ 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.

…..@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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? )

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.

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.

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.

Byan, great post. Except for one thing. You’re looking through your telescope backwards.

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.