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

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

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

Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

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

See the video below.

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

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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

you said Moncton’s presentations are “not available to the public” at the end. typo i presume?
REPLY: Fixed thanks – A


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
No comments were posted.
I would have thought that this would be big news.



John J

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.

Willy Nilly

OT: Anthony, your World Climate Widget says solar flux = 70, but that is the radio flux, the irradiation is much different.
REPLY: I’m well aware of the 10.7 cm solar radio flux difference to TSI etc. Maybe it is too complex for some. Feel free to make suggestions on the widget page, just click on the widget – A

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.


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.


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

Alan Haile

Latest rubbish from UK
As Mr Brown is a renowned liar however, his words will probably be largely ignored here in UK.
The BBC also have this ‘Brief History of Climate Change’
This mentions the what it calls ‘controversial’ hockey stick graph but it does not mention that it is discredited.
Also we have just had another incident of mad people attempting to break into a coal fired power station with the intention of shutting it down (thank goodness they failed). This resulted in injuries to several police officers who were sent to stop them. I hope those arrested get long jail sentences but I expect they will not serve any time at all. They will claim that they were acting for the greater good of the world and will get lots of sympathy from the Guardian newspaper. When will this madness end?

Norm Beazer

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

Mark Fawcett

Alan Haile (00:07:19) :
Latest rubbish from UK
As Mr Brown is a renowned liar however, his words will probably be largely ignored here in UK.

Too true, the current government is becoming a laughing stock, in some ways it’s a good thing – the more hyperbole the better as it just turns more and more people off (the same with protesters at powerstations – it simply marginalises them and their views even more, top stuff).
What a great line: “Negotiators have 50 days to save the world from global warming”… dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum…. FLASH – AAAAHHHHHAA…
(Insert your choice of picture of Brian Blessed in feathers here…)


Norm Beazer- you can download You Tube videos. You should download free software from 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.


The sovereignty issue is a fascinating one. At the end of the day, of course the people of any country can bring political pressure to bear and get something thrown out – ‘de-ratification’ of a UN Treaty included.
However, those who think the US constitution will protect them from creeplng global totalitarianism overlook the impact and power of herd mentality – if every country in the world isolates – on UN instructions – any outliers, even the US is vulnerable.
The real question is, if the US and other powers agree in principle to creation of a world government mechanism, self-funding through international carbon levies or financial transaction taxes, then the foot will be in the door and by the time the American people finally realise what’s up and instruct de-ratification the costs of extrication will be much higher.
If the world entity eventually has enough military force under its jurisdiction then it will have the power to back up trade sanctions or the like.
I remembered reading something along these lines on Ian Wishart’s site when he launched Air Con, and have found it again:
Some of the interesting quotes from the UN briefing paper:
“The question of legitimacy is at the heart of the ‘international system’. Legitimacy requires a certain degree of ‘global democracy’ that would gradually increase over time. At the same time, realistic global governance cannot ignore existing power relations in both the economic and military sense. A blueprint that ignores the resources controlled by various actors and their relative weights in the world would not be feasible. The reform agenda must try to balance three divergent requirements:
1. Global democracy, which in some fundamental sense must give equal weight to each human being;
2. Recognition of the endurance of nation states which do have ‘equal’ legal status as sovereigns and remain fundamental ‘units’ of the international system; and reflection of the divergent economic and military ‘capabilities’ of nation states. It is obvious that India, Japan, Sri Lanka and Barbados, to take four examples, while being “equal” sovereign nation states, have very different economic and defense capabilities which must be reflected in the architecture of the international system.
3. It is important to stress that a United Nations adapted to the needs and realities of the 21st Century should be the overall institutional setting for both the political and the economic sphere. The current arrangements need to be replaced by new ones, changing from the post World War II representation to constituencies, weighted votes and universal participation, and adjusting the policies of those institutions in favour of the actual needs of today’s world.”
“Military force is not a legitimate political instrument, except in self- defence or under UN auspices;
 The development of military capabilities beyond that required for national defence and support of UN action is a potential threat to the security of people.
 Weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence.
 The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.”
“The UN should aim at a veto-free culture in the Security Council. There is no doubt that the veto-based decision-making structure has a number of negative features. Sensitive matters often trigger repeated vetoes, which means that the Security Council is unable to act in areas that are in fact clearly within its area of competence. One example of this is the Israel-Palestine conflict, in relation to which the Unites States has exercised a veto on several occasions, thus blocking any real decisions by the Security Council concerning the conflict.”

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.

Magnus A

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

I think it puts the climate issue in its right context.
Myron Ebell says at 11:33 :
“We’re being told that what we need is more government control of the economy, and that we need to move back towards that model of the government telling people how much energy they can use, which is exactly what the Soviet Union did and which not only incredibly poverty and low standard of living but led to this huge environmental horror”.
The movie’s homepage:
I think that every success in reduction of poverty and increase of wealth in the world is due to less regulation, trade, and basically free market economy. Carbon trade will be devastating for economies and people.

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.


“Alexander Feht
For many people, coming to WUWT after browsing the MSM sites is like gulping a fresh air after swimming in a sewer.”
…How strange. I was going to say almost the exact same thing. This site really is like breathing fresh air after all the sewage stench from the global warming industry.


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.

Alex Llewelyn

I lost interest when he started god-bothering


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.


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

John Silver

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.


Commenters aiming their shots at Monckton should, at least, be sure to read the Draft text, posted by Anthony on October 3, and ignored by the world at large ever since.
It is surely time to get some assurances from those eagerly signing in our names, at Copenhagen, that nothing will be done that cannot be undone.
Hard to imagine that zealous advocates might be so concerned.


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
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.”

Alan the Brit

Forgive me, but I fail to see the slick melodrama from Lord Monkton is this presentation that Al Gore uses in “An Inconvenient Truth”!
He is absolutely right about the politics though. This is serious stuff, everyone can see it, everybody knows, but few can or will do anything about it!


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:-

You can watch the video and PDF on the same page here:
Easier to follow. I also included the climate chains video.


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.


Anthony, sorry mate but the World Climate Widget thread was locked for comments so just a quick post here.
Any chance of getting this turned into an iphone app.


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.

Denis Hopkins

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


Ed Darrell Just for you
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.


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


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


Re the US sovereignty: The Supreme Court has already weighed in as to whether a treaty can be used to usurp US law. They ruled that ratification of a treaty does not override existing US law or create new legislation. Further clarification of this policy came from Medellin v. Texas, 552 US (2008), in which the Supreme Court recognized the “distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that . . . do not by themselves function as binding federal law” and stated definitively that
while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” [cited from Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (2005)]
Later, the court further stateed that
[t]he terms of a non-self-executing treaty can become domestic law only in the same way as any other law — through passage of legislation by both Houses of Congress, combined with either the President’s signature or a congressional override of a Presidential veto.
If any part of the treaty were at odds with the Constitution, Congress would have to go through the Amendment process for it to become law.
One caveat, though. Obama may have the chance to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to change that decision. Let us pray that our Justices stay healthy for at least three more years.


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.


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

Paul Harrison

Totally off topic…
Has anyone seen this on the BBC news website.
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.


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


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?

Kum Dollison

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

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

Kum Dollison (05:53:25) :
Moncton is a bloviating, windbag. He’s an entertaining speaker, but …

Coming from Kum –
Riiiiiiight …


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.

Tom in Florida

dhmo (04:11:31) : ” The USA now has a 1.4 trillion dollar debt…”
Correction, this year’s deficit is $1.4 trillion. The national debt is somewhere around $11.9 trillion. As a reminder, the Democrats have been in the majority in Congress since 2007.

Dave vs Hal

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

Charles Rossi

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.
London, UK


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.