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

Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here

Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words

[picapp src=”b/2/3/7/IOC_2016_Olympic_c1a5.jpg?adImageId=5771484&imageId=6683524″ width=”500″ height=”361″ /]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!


Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

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

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

World Government (heading added)

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

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

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

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

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

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

Sponsored IT training links:

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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Lord is slightly off on his assessment of the USA constitution. A treaty is only a treaty once ratified by the senate, I believe 2/3 for memory. A president signing a treaty is merely a statement that his administration intents to follow the treaty. From memory only, this happened to the SALT II treaty.
As to impossible to break, it would take a constitutional amendment to change. Three fourths of the states.
IMO, unless the weather stops turning colder, this treaty will be a forgotten document in 10 years.

Hi, Blondie. I’m the guy who posted the above at Fightin Words, my blog. Your comment shares the tone of a couple others I received. My thought, as I shared elsewhere, is this:
There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.


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


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


The limitation is this, Obama loses re-election, the next president can reverse by executive order. As to how the american public actually feels about this issue, i am unsure. I believe it is possible that the majority of americans will actually support this treaty.
If the American public supports a bad idea (i.e too small a military in the 1930’s), it is a failure of the american people, not our system or our leaders. We elect our leaders, and we are responsible for there actions.

So now we know where those quotes came from, that were picked up by the BBC and Daily Mail – it is likely to have been a press-release for Lord Monkton’s Wednesday conference.
Shame none of these media outlets could be bothered to name their source. But then they would not want to point too many readers towards an honest news outlet.
Here is Lord Monkton’s website:


The biggest problem you have is educating the masses. You start explaining the real meaning of the Copenhagen Treaty to them they start calling you a conspiracy nut. This happened on the blog by a former Australian Government minister (Peter Walsh):

>>He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
>>course he’ll sign it.
Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…


Walter Scott Hudson (00:35:34) :
“There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced.”
I don’t know where you are from, but the things you speak of are strictly specified in our constitution. I know that our current president is circumstancing some executive limitations by allowing appointed agencies to create dictates (laws), but they are going to have to pass judicial review if challenged.

Lord Monckton’s analysis of the Copenhagen Treaty document and of Obama Administration’s intentions is correct. He and the Czech President Vaclav Klaus are doing a great job warning the American public about socialist fanatics inhabiting the White House and the Congress. The “Save the Planet” pretext is being used to rob and enslave the remaining free population of the Western countries.
As to exactly how the friends of Chavez and Ortega in Washington are going to drag the USA into a submission to the Socialist World Government, it remains to be seen. There is no doubt that they will try everything at their disposal, including making changes in the Constitution, to achieve their goals. They understand that this may be their last and only chance to destroy freedom.


Obama won’t sign anything. He is a do nothing governmental lefty. Heck, the White House made a big deal about the fact that he is now in a “decision making mode’ about what to do in Afghanistan. That what “progressives” do: They sit around and talk and talk, but nobody makes a decision. So no it is a big deal that Obama is in “decision” mode. I am sure that if he even makes one, it will be his first.
So don’t expect much from him as he freezes his arse off at Copenhagen. He will just probably give a cute smiling speech. And then go get laid.

Phillip Bratby

It’s far worse than we thought.


Gawd, my typing is bad.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

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


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


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

Trefor Jones

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

Trefor Jones

Apologies – penultimate sentence should have read “while conceding very little”.

David Alan

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


. . . duh . . . the dumb award goes to . . . . . . where WAS Obama born?????


Scary, that this administration would even consider these things.


Monckton is a political embarrassment. Stick to the science and not the rantings of a Thatcherite clown.


Figthing CO2 or in alternative global warming or climate change is a old plan with other propaganda methodes and objectives. The real plan is Morgenthau Plan and was introduced in west by the URSS american spy Harry Dexter White.
You can learn about that plan in the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, by John Dietrich.
That plan was rejected by Allys but during the Cold War was inplanted in West and the Green Party in Germany made his first paradigm and inspiration.
Today The Morgenthau Plan is the climate change fight or CO2 fight because to ensure that West will turn to agriculture society without industry the russian soviets knew CO2 is the main gas produced in the economic produtive system. And eliminating CO2 emissions is aliminating industry and weapons capacity, the main goal of URSS during the Cold War.
Please learn about that plan because is so important to understand today that kind of new communism: radical environmentalism.

Sobering prediction.
And our “impartial, unbiased press” is NEVER going to critically examine the AGW issue, nor this part of Obama’s response to it.


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


There is an interesting item “Big Business Teams Up With the Left to Sell Cap-and-Trade” which describes in some detail why global warming has become such a financial gold rush. Whatever you think of Fox News, this is worth reading if for no other reason than to understand what is driving this agenda:
…Here are some important excerpts:
The fine print disclosures about We Can Lead, reveal that two left-wing advocacy groups – Apollo Alliance and CERES – are behind the corporate effort.
CERES is a coalition of investors, labor and environmental organizations that pressures corporations to advance environmental policies, such as legislation to fight the perceived threat of global warming. Its board members include environmental and labor union representatives, and also state pension fund officials from the California State Teachers Retirement System (CSTRS), the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and representatives from the Connecticut State Treasurer and the New York City Comptroller’s office.
CERES played a major role in the corporate boardroom by leveraging the shareholder standing of the pension fund coalition members to sway corporate policies.
After years of environmental and labor activism targeting corporations, some CEOs have decided it’s easier to switch than fight. These executives realized that by supporting environmental initiatives they could avoid the headache of liberal activism while also reaping the reputational benefits of being perceived as “green.”
Some companies also realized they could profit by advancing environmental initiatives, such as global warming legislation.
The unification of big business with liberal activist groups on important public policy issues poses a significant threat to liberty and limited government. As we are observing, the collective power of these groups is big enough to fashion a bipartisan compromise on climate change even during a raging national debate over health care.
We Can Lead, a broad-based corporation coalition of energy, technology and other companies, including Duke Energy, Hewlett Packard and Starbucks, is mounting a high-profile campaign to promote cap-and-trade legislation. Coalition members have paid for ads in newspapers, including an open letter to President Obama and Congress urging action on cap-and-trade legislation, stating, “We need you to swiftly enact comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution and create an economy-wide cap and trade program.”
Power companies such as Duke Energy, FPL Group and Exelon see “green” in being green – they were the biggest winners in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that narrowly passed the House in May. Utilities won the “House bill lottery,” receiving 35% of free allowances from a generous Congress – an amount that translates into billions of dollars to the companies. General Electric also gains by a federal mandate for electricity derived from renewable energy sources which would benefit its wind turbine business.

Daniel L. Taylor

I find the responses here to Lord Monckton’s revelation depressing. If our side has a carefree, “can’t happen here” attitude towards this dangerous treaty, then what hope is there?
I would like someone who believes in the invincibility of Constitutional limitations to explain to me please the existence of Social Security. Or Medicare. Or the countless other programs, taxes, and laws which stomp all over State and individual rights despite the very clear language and intent of the 10th Amendment. Explain to me please campaign finance reform in light of the 1st Amendment, or asset forfeiture laws in light of the 5th. How about the many czars who escape Congressional oversight despite the fact that these czars now hold real power and authority in our government?
And would someone who thinks our Constitution still has a shred of force today please explain to me how that could be true when we have a president who is not a natural born citizen, and when the people who point this out are run out court, derided as conspiracy theorists and racists. And no, I’m not speaking about Hawaii or birth certificates. For most of this nation’s history there was no question that a “natural born citizen” was a person born on American soil to parents who where both U.S. citizens. “Natural born citizen” was a legal phrase which implied that the U.S. had complete and sole legal jurisdiction over the person, with no possible competing interests. At birth Obama held dual citizenship, the son of a man who was a British subject, regardless of his actual place of birth. He was a citizen through his mother, but he never has been and never can be a “natural born citizen” even if he had been born on the White House lawn.
Our Constitution is in pieces. Our president has no respect for it. Our own Senators, House Representatives, and even Supreme Court justices violate it at will. Obama will sign this treaty and will enforce it through agencies, czars, and executive orders unless there is massive protest from the people and from Congress.
Judging from the responses here, I have little hope that massive protest will ever materialize. With friends like these…
You people don’t understand how late the hour is, or how desperate the situation has become.

FWIW, the ( C ) items in the story get turned into copyright symbol by something. That is, parens C close parens (just in case wordpress grabs mine here too…) You might be able to stop that with a space between the parens and the “C”.
Couple of points:
Yeah, it is a trashy treaty trying for a money grab (which is why China is on board with it… money for nothing and they still get to burn coal…).
Senate must ratify or the treaty means not much. We’ve had several treaties signed that never were ratified and so not implemented.
The constitution says that the constitution AND ratified treaties are the highest law of the land; but does not say treaties can over ride the constitution. That, IMHO, needs a decent validation in the supreme court, but you can bet that any treaty that attempts to change a constitutional right will be litigated.
You can sign and pass anything you want. At the end of the day the American People have to be “OK” with it or it will hit the dust bin. There have been several treaties that different parties have simply announced they would no long adhere to. In it’s core of cores, a treaty is a contract; and the basis of contract law is the “meeting of the minds”. If those minds do not meet, there is no contract and no treaty. The words “I hold in my hand this paper” and “Peace in our time” come to mind…
Finally, while I would not want to rely on it, the simple fact is that there is not going to be any significant money to give. You must either recognize that, or let your money become devalued to nothing. We are presently on the devaluing path.
Take a look at California. We’re on a death spiral into the ground right now. Yeah, big things take a long time to get somewhere, but we have just had a budget passed that was supposed to cure our $40 Billion deficit and it is already in the red 10 weeks or so after it was announced. That is the model for the US as a whole going “forward”…
The US is issuing bonds so fast that even with a stock market melt down scaring folks out of it and even with real estate as a dead investment (for now) the rates on bonds are showing “issues” with sales. So at the end of the day we’re headed for bankruptcy so fast that any treaty “obligations” will be paid off with toilet paper.
And no amount of “stimulus” will change that: Moving money from your right pocket to your left pocket does not make more of it.
And no, I’m not indulging in hyperbole here. There are valid laws of economics that can not be changed by fiat nor by desire. These are being ignored by our government for political reasons, but that does not make them go away. As Maggie Thatcher put it “Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend”. And the Dems are spending so fast that we will be at zero very soon.
See the housing bubble and crash caused by exactly that behaviour with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac turned into a socialist housing subsidy program by the Democrats about 20 years ago. So how well did that work out? Yes, it will take about a decade, maybe 2 if we’re un-lucky, but in the end, this too shall crash and burn.
The demographics of the nation are such that a hugh bolus of folks – “The Boomers” are due to retire and go on the dole starting right now. Both social security and medicare are going to collapse under that load unless gutted. You can be sure that they will either raise ages for retirement, cut benefits, or pay them in dollars that buy nothing. There isn’t really any other choice.
That is, IMHO, a major reason for the push to “national health care”; because if they don’t do it, medicare collapses. If they DO make it ‘national’ they can buy a few more years and hide the medicare costs in a new national tax system (the forced “purchase” of “insurance”).
But in the end you can not cheat reality for long nor cook the books for long. A very large voter block with a social security check buying nothing much and medical care that consists of a notice of non-coverage due to rationing will be a very grumpy voting block. Tell them a few $Billion are going to China and India for “climate reparations” and they will be more than happy to have a voter revolt. Something similar is what put Regan into office last time the Dems went over the limit. Have those same folks freezing in a cold winter with no heating oil and sky high electric rates from coal rationing and you have the makings of a revolt / revolution.
BTW, the demographic problem is fairly simple. The number of folks paying to support those on Medicare and Social Security is constantly shrinking. We’re having smaller families. Last I looked it was about 3, headed for 2 supporting each retiree. And a lot of the ones doing the supporting now are “Boomers” about to stop working.
Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a “20 something” or 2, working at MacDonalds, will not be able to pay enough taxes to support a “70 something” with $2000 to $3000 a month of nursing home costs and a social security check too. You are looking at about $50,000 a year of costs just for those programs per worker “real soon now”. You can only pay the nurses and doctors with “I.O.U.s” so long (even if government bond IOUs…).
That dismal fact does not go away just because Obama signs a piece of paper.
So just about the time the first “reparations” are due to be paid, this whole thing will blow up.
We are presently funding our “life style” on a Chinese Credit Card (they bought about a $Trillion of our “bonds” – aka Government Credit Card). We are now making that $Trillion worth about 3/4 and headed for 1/2 of what it was worth. Guess what, they noticed…
So China has gone on a spending spree dumping those bonds into projects all over the world while they can. (They swapped $200 Billion of bonds for a 20 year oil contract with Brazil. One contract, 1/5 of their bonds flushed.) So just how much more do you think China will loan us on the credit card in the future?
And that is the end game.
China is loaning us money to buy stuff from China. China is now wanting us to give them money and not loan us any. From where to we get that money? Who will loan it to us? We have gutted our industry (and it is headed for even lower production) so we are not going to manufacture that wealth.
From where does the real wealth come to pay anything?
“Balance of trade” depends on our exporting something of value, something with real wealth creation behind it. Moving money around with ‘stimulus’ and taxes does not create wealth. Redistribution does not create wealth. Even “job creation” does not create wealth. (At least, not as the government does it. 2 people leaning on one shovel does not make more wealth…) That is one of the fundamental properties of economics that is being ignored. To deliver real stuff you must make real stuff.
At the end of it all, if you are not creating real wealth all you can do is devalue the currency to make “more” of it. And that particular lie only works a little while and a little ways before the fiat money system collapses. We are on the verge of that now. There is no room for another big push.
So like the laws of thermodynamics, we are bound to this:
You can’t win.
You can’t break even.
And You can’t quit the game.
And that means we can’t give our “winnings” to someone else as reparations. There are none to give.

tom roche

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

Mark Fawcett

Slightly OT but relevant to the whole “built-on-sand” argument core to Monckton’s arguments against AGW, Lucia over at the black-board has an excellent example of how the basic principles used in the whole proxy selection / hockey stick debacle can be wrong: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

Alan the Brit

Ladies & Gentlemen, please do not fall into that trap that “no way” would the senate vote for this treaty. Famous last words, like one of your Civil War officers, I forget which, who said something along the lines of “Don’t be ridiculous, they couldn’t possibly hit us from that dist………”!
History is littered with “no way” treaties, agreements, understandings,rules, that got passed because of complacency, the worst of all traits. One rather extreme example, I received an email from a friend a long while back, it was the transcript of an interview with a very old man, who lived in a country that had never really known democracy. He told the tale of a man who got elected, by a not great majority. He was a bit of a crank, had a few weird ideas about how things ought to run. The old man said most thought he was a crank who wouldn’t last long, everyone would see through him & his cronies. He’d soon be gone. Then of course they didn’t see through him until it was too late, things had gone too far, control had been siezed of every part of the state. The military was given full priority over funding. Propaganda reigned supreme. So did the state police. Dissent was ruthlessly & brutally dealt with. True this is an extreme example of what I am trying to put across but I hope you see the bigger picture. I don’t suggest that the UN would be so controlling or brutal, just well meaning, well intended, every one having a group hug around the world, like they were over AIDS, DDT, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iraq, Rawanda, ignorant & stupid yet impotent, as they have been so many times before in many of their endeavours.
The UK is all but finished. We’re flat broke, we’re in the EU, (Europe was a place where Britain leant a helping hand on many occasions to prevent tyrany & maintain freedom in whatever form it then took) we’re ruled & controlled by the EU – left leaning Comissioners rule us from the European Comission, we have a puppet European Parliament with no power whatsoever,(overpaid, over -expensed & they flaunt it) other than to cede more control to the Commission, which is unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, corrupt as they come, (money regularly goes missing) most of the commissioners are failed left-wing/left-leaning politicians from their own once proud but now mere provincial states. Our own parliament is a sham, with professional politicans who have never run anything in their lives before, not even the school tuck shop! AND they want us all to sign up to this absolute lunacy of more of the same only worse. Imagine the bureaucracy involved, millions of taxpayer funded people from all over the world dictating to everyone else about how they should live their lives based soley on a false premise! Good luck America, I truly wish you well, I am a true Ameriphile. Hollywood has predicted the end for many years now, in its futuristic films of varying kinds, they all show one thing in common though, domination & control by a higher authority, benevolent on the surface, but sinister on the inside, with all involved taking their cut from the trough at our expense!
Oh & the country in the old man’s story? Germany. The man he was talking about, Adolf Hitler & his Nazis, but I think you already knew that. The Matrix this ain’t, it’s reallity!

UK Sceptic

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

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


Hmmm… Maybe a stupid question; but exactly which entity was the main author of this treaty?

ralph (01:01:30) :
>> He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
>> course he’ll sign it.
> Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…
He got it because the leader of the Nobel comittee Thorbjørn Jagland admires Obama (three of the five members argued against). No other reason. Jagland is like Jar Jar Binks. He’s a walking disaster. A well-meaning fool who should never have been in politics. Norwegians have watched his carreer and wondered how on earth he’s got into the various positions, such as: prime minister, foreign minister, president of the parliament. His education is not that much to speak of, his work experience even less: he’s been occupied full-time in politics since his youth. If anyone can give this man a position in which he’s unlikely to do harm, Norway will be thankful.


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


A couple of things to note.
Clinton did sign the Kyoto. The Senate voted a resolution 95-0 to not ratify it until all developing nations also signed. Clinton did not even submit Kyoto to the Senate since the resolution clearly indicated the votes were not there to pass it. The document signed by Clinton may be worth something on Antiques Road Show but that’s about the only place.
However, if carbon taxation is passed, Obama and the Executive can implement just about all of whatever comes out of Copenhagen. Most are not aware of the power ceded by Congress to the various departments and agencies. Consider CO2 is a pollutant and about to be regulated by the EPA. The Treasury was granted vast control over close to a trillion or so dollars. The Czars Of Obama The First are running things in their areas as extra-Constitutional officers. Some of the things the Obama administration does through these mechanisms will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. With the enormous number of pages some bills have, it would be very easy to slip in obtuse wording in even unrelated bills that would implement most of Copenhagen. Never forget these folks have been working on this for a long, long time and they’re expert at creating “unintended consequences” intentionally.
The political reality is all about how to save as many Democrats in 2010 as possible. Take, for instance, the carbon tax bill (presuming nationalized health care passes). With Lindsey Graham jumping into the Democrat caucus with a strong “Yes on the carbon tax”, it will pass. Regardless of all the posturing and punditry about moderate Democrats the bottom line is all Senate Democrats will always vote for cloture. Period. Then of unpopular issues, like national health care, expect about nine of them to vote against the final bill. This technique allows them to claim they opposed the bill and voted against it in their next campaign. They’ll explain, if anyone ever asks them, their vote for cloture was to allow “an up or down vote, in all fairness on such an important issue”. My guess is national health care, the carbon tax, amnesty and the tax bill will pass the Senate 52-48 (presuming Byrd is rolled in) but after cloture votes of 61-39.
Any never forget the power of payoff. Any Congressional Democrat they absolutely need to get something passed they’ll simply pay off in one way or another (think
Wexler). Think Snowe and Specter on the stim bill. This opportunity, for them, will likely never occur in their lifetimes. How much is a Democrat Congress worth these days anyway?
One could even predict they’ll be another three or four or more on the GOP side that will jump on board the carbon tax bill. If you through in the usual RHINOs (Snowe) they’re awfully close to the 67 votes needed to pass Copenhagen.
It looks like freedom is dimming along with the Sun.

Please look at Tips and Notes 3 29 04 when I posted the first page of an article I have written concerning the British Govt Manipulation of the AGW hypothesis. (this ties into the UK ad thread ran here)
Short extract-more on tips and notes and much more available;
““Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …see the Tyndall Centre’s study on “domestic tradable quotas”… and their recent establishment on the political agenda…the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”
(Environmental Audit Committee minutes-House Of Commons-London)
Preface. This is a factual account of the highly politicised concept of ‘catastrophic man made climate change’. The views quoted above are supported in principle by the UK govt but said to be ahead of their time. However, the means to achieve them are now being quietly introduced into main stream thinking, through the systematic use of a political agenda that uses the alarming notion of man made climate change as the means to force through a measure of social engineering unequalled in the UK in modern times….

Barry Foster

So what you in the US may be about to experience is what we in the UK have suffered from for years – eroding power. For years we have given the EU more and more power over our government. Now the EU sets laws which we have to adhere to, not the UK government, the EU. Indeed there is often conflict, and we CANNOT bring in a new law on something because it contravenes an EU law – and the EU laws have presidence. Bit by bit we sign up to more and more. Recently, a new treaty gives more powers to the EU. It’s only a matter of time before the EU even controls the UK’s defence.
All this is why many like me want out of the EU as soon as possible. Without the UK it will collapse. So be it. It should have stayed a group of trading nations, which was the original intent. If the US moves ANY distance toward a world government then you should take to the streets, because it will come drip by drip, so the people don’t even notice. That’s what has happened in the UK.
A friend of mine goes through life not signing anything. He says that when you start that it will never end, and no one can do anything to you if you haven’t signed. Not true, perhaps, but I’m beginning to think he has a good idea. Don’t sign up to ANYTHING.

Lawrie Ayres

Agree with your observation. ABC s Catalyst programme had one of Senator P Wongs advisors on last night. Professor Steffen, Exec Dir of the Climate Change Institute at ANU. He told the faithful that the seas were rising, the ice was melting and we were heading for a catastrophe if we didn’t stop AGW now. How; he didn’t say and nobody bothered to ask him. They didn’t ask about proof for his claims either. It’s all settled down here.
Might I suggest we forget educating the masses. Most aren’t interested and many can’t read. We should concentrate on telling them how much an ETS is going to cost them. How much Green energy really costs and the need to go nuclear if an ETS is introduced. They should also know that geosequestration is just another pipe dream for the CSIRO. It ain’t going to work. So far KRudd hasn’t said much about the cost of his ETS because some estimates put it at $1000 per head per year. That will get their attention.

John Silver

I will repeat myself:
“Only the Chamberlains of today can believe that you can fight fascism with words on a piece of blog.”
Winnie, where are you?


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


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


Walter Scott Hudson (00:35:34) :
Hi, Blondie. I’m the guy who posted the above at Fightin Words, my blog. Your comment shares the tone of a couple others I received. My thought, as I shared elsewhere, is this:
There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.
Absolutely Walter….. eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…..


I can think of 63 votes without a problem 60 democrats/independents 2 senators drom maine and Mccain lets see then there is a guy froom the carolinas also a Repub can’t think of his name thats 64 only need 3 more
Medic 1532 off the air


AGW Leviathan rolls on.
“Lawyers Call for Changes in International Law to Help ‘Climate Exiles’ (More muslims in our future?)
(CNSNews.com) – International law dealing with refugees should be amended to cover people affected by disasters attributed to climate change, environmental lawyers are arguing.
With the United Nations and others predicting upward of 200 million people being displaced by 2050 as a result of environmental changes, the London-based Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) says they will need help dealing with “statelessness and compensation.”
“International refugee law focuses on those who are persecuted for political, racial or religious reasons,” the organization’s director, Joy Hyvarinen, said in a statement Thursday. “It was not designed for those who are left homeless by environmental pressures.”
As advocacy groups focus on people – mostly inhabitants of low-lying islands or coastal areas – affected by the environment, terms like “climate refugees,” “climate exiles” and “environmental refugees” have become more commonly used in recent years.
Climatic events have long had an impact on vulnerable areas – records of summer monsoons displacing millions of people in South Asia go back centuries – but as concerns about “global warming” have grown, activists warn about rising sea levels, drought and other events they attribute to climate change.
A new U.N. report published last month said that during 2008, more than 20 million people, mostly in Asia, were displaced by sudden-onset disasters which it attributed to climate – these including meteorological (storms), hydrological (flooding) and climatological (extreme temperature, drought, wildfire) events.
“An increase in the number of people temporarily displaced will be an inevitable consequence of more frequent and intense extreme weather events affecting more people globally,” it said. ”


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


I see no insurmountable problem. If any President, even with 2/3’s of the Senate ratifying, thinks he can sell America into slavery, then let the world learn that we will treat such treaties as toilet paper.
Yeah, the rule of law and all that. And just how many laws are there? Ruthless people seek to bind us with our own honor and we SHOULD be bound. However, though I might be able as an adult to sell MYSELF into slavery, I don’t recognize the power of the US government to do so for me.
Wow! A lot is riding on this climate issue.
I do say again, Chris in Norfolk, bring on the cold! (But only as much as it takes!)

Michael Oxenham

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

Walter Cronanty

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