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

Re; “PeterT (01:23:49) :
Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.”
Peter, there’s no arguing that he does sound like a nut. But have you checked what he’s saying? Let’s look at a few things that he’s said:
Monckton: “I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. ”
Here is the ‘The Global Environmental Governance Project” from Yale:
http://environmentalgovernance.org/
Here is the Council of Foreign Releations web page on global governance:
http://www.cfr.org/issue/23/global_governance.html
Here is the President of the CFR discussing global governance and sovereignty:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html
A direct quote from the above link:
“Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”
Does the CFR have any influence in our government? Well, read the following quote from Hillary Clinton:
” We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19840/council_on_foreign_relations_address_by_secretary_of_state_hillary_clinton.html?breadcrumb=%2Fmedia%2Ftranscripts
If you want to find out about the roots of the CFR, you can read about them in a book called “Tragedy and Hope” written by a Harvard professor of history, Carroll Quigley. If you read this book, you’ll find links between JPMorgan, communists, and the CFR (note that this book was published in 1966). And Quigley was a 20 yr member of the CFR, a liberal, and disliked right-wingers. This book was the most fantastic eye-opening book I’ve ever read. What I have said is just the tip of the iceberg of what’s in this book.
And finally, Obama’s energy czar, Carol Browner was listed on Socialist International’s ‘Commission for a Sustainable Society’ (until this was reported in the media) that calls for 3 things, one of them being global governance. Here it is:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133110.php
“(1) To design and put forward proposals for democratic forms of global governance as the foundation for building a peaceful and sustainable world society overall; ”
Here’s the second thing Monckton’s claimed: “The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t.”
Well, this is very easy to verify. Here are some credible links and excerpts:
-NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/energy-environment/31iht-green31.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
“Eliminating that infrastructure deficit for low- and middle-income countries will, by itself, cost on the order of $315 billion annually over the next 20 years, the authors argue. Girding that updated infrastructure to meet the demands of a changing climate will require $16 billion to $63 billion in additional financing each year. ”
Here’s the Obama Admin’s Cass Sunstein discussing global redistribution hypotheticals from rich countries to poor countries:
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/96-5/Posner-Sunstein.PDF
If you go to page 38 of the following UN doc, you’ll read where a modeling target of some researchers is calibrated to achieve convergence of per-capita income between certain areas.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/FOD/Ch20_FOD.pdf
From IISC:
” in the coming decades the world expects to see substantial economic development including, by 2030,some US$16 trillion investment in energy infrastructure (IEA 2003). Much ofthis will be in developing countries as they develop with a view to enjoying the standard of living of today’s industrialized
countries.”
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/envis/sdev/climate_which_way_forward.pdf
From the Prince of Wales:
“The CDM has already demonstrated the potential
to funnel large amounts of Western capital into investment in the infrastructure that will enable developing countries to avoid the carbon intensive economic path that the developed world has taken.”
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Accounting%20for%20Sustainability%20PART%20II.pdf
Here’s an IPCC doc that has a little blip about GDP convergence:
“Weyant concluded that the SRES scenarios are probably correct when climate change or its impacts are of interest, whether PPPor MER was used. However there could be significant differences for mitigation cost projections depending on the method of GDP convergence.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/expert-meeting-2005-01.pdf
Here’s a site that talks about income convergence between developed and developing countries:
“Market mechanisms for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental goals provide additional revenue streams to developing countries, and contribute to the convergence of incomes between developing
and industrialized regions. ”
http://www.tellus.org/documents/Great_Transition.pdf
Another UN link that talks about wealth redistribution and development in developing countries:
“Specifically, the CDM can contribute to a developing country’s sustain-
able development objectives through:
• Transfer of technology and financial resources;
• Sustainable ways of energy production;
• Increasing energy efficiency & conservation;
• Poverty alleviation through income and employment
generation; and ”
http://uneprisoe.org/CDMCapacityDev/CDMintro.pdf
Here’s a paper from Canada that talks about redistribution:
“Suppose, for example, Kyoto is replaced by a far more comprehensive international agreement by 2012. A so-called “contraction and convergence” scheme (scenario 3, above) “contracts” the world’s GHG emissions by 2050 to stabilize the climate, while letting developing nations increase their per-capita emissions until they “converge” with those of the industrialized world. Such a scheme would offer attractions to both the United States and the major developing nations. The former would find it appealing because of its very long-term horizon, which provides enough flexibility and time to achieve the desired goal. Developing countries could support that approach because it offers them the opportunity to grow their emissions to match the levels of industrialized countries on a per capita basis.”
http://www.policecouncil.ca/reports/CBOCPerformanceandPotential06.pdf
And finally, here’s another mention of income convergence from Obama’s Dr. Stranglove et al.:
“Box 1.1. Description of IPCC Scenario B2
The IPCC’s B2 scenario family is based on projections from 1990 to 2100 of moderate population growth (growing from 5.3 billion to 10.4 billion people), intermediate levels of economic development (world gross domestic product (GDP) grows by a factor of 11), and moderate, but relatively diverse, technological change. The B2 storyline is oriented toward environmental protection and social equity (that is, assuming a tendency to a more even distribution of per capita income, quantified by dropping the ratio of income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3 over the 21st century), and emphasizes “local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability” (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000).”
http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/unf_website/PDF/climate%20_change_avoid_unmanagable_manage_unavoidable.pdf
These links above are just a sample of what I’ve found over the last few years. The picture I’m getting is that we are to be taxed (via cap-and-trade or some other means) to help fund infrastructure development in third world countries. Once these countries have it, jobs will be sent to them (offshoring, mainly from the US) to help start their economies. These countries want to build things to sell to us like China is doing. The end goal seems to be a convergence of incomes both within countries and among countries by 2100. There also seems to be a goal of every nation having similar per-capita GDP’s by 2100. I doubt people in third world countries will be making 50 to 100 K by 2100. I think the scenario is a contraction of our income while theirs increases until they converge.
And by the way, if you buy Quigley’s book, you’ll read a few times where an English group has a goal of bringing the backwards people of the world into a modern lifestyle… just like many behind AGW are doing today. This group is based in England, where it seems to me that most of the AGW schemes are coming from.
I believe I have enough information to make the case that we are being downsized via AGW in the economic interests of foreign nations and I wonder what the general public would do if they knew what I know? I doubt they’d sit on their hands.
And I believe Monckton is pretty much on the mark with his comments above.

DennisA (06:17:05) :
Excellent analysis and data.
Did you see my post under “The Top Ten Reasons why I think Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted” about the connections between Obama and the Marxists UN personnel running/owning all the carbon exchanges? This is and will increase as a huge source of $$ for the shadow Marxist UN/Gov. trying? to run the world via dictatorial edict rather than “Rule of Law.” It’s NOT that Obama doesn’t care about the American people, in his shallow thinking he perceives no difference between “Americans” (and applies no special status thereto) and the rest of the world. Therein lies the problem – he WILL do whatever he “thinks” is best for THE WORLD, which is whatever his UN and One World cohorts say, i.e., whatever will make THEM the most money, because he literally sees the world through rose colored glasses.
After all, aren’t we all equal? And all of us should HAVE only what everyone else has, no more, no less – well, except those that are smart enough to run the world. Of course THEY should have more….
Folks, we are already a long way down the path toward Global Animal Farm, and Snowball – opps, I mean Obama is knee deep in the movement.
And as for those who question this being posted on a science blog – ANYTHING that effects, especially in a negative way, correct and honest scientific inquiry AND publication needs to – MUSY HAVE a bright light shown on it in ALL communication arenas.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
George Santayana