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
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obama will most certainly sign the treaty. The Senate will most likely not approve it. Obama will get kudos from the environmentalists for acting, but the Copenhagen train will stall on the tracks. I really can’t see this unfolding any other way.
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.
Spector (05:25:38) :
“In my opinion, Lord Monckton’s overstated and potentially inflammatory comment that signing the Copenhagen agreement would irrevocably bind this country [USA] to a common world government damages the overall credibility of his whole presentation.”
“I would prefer to see the climate change issue go on the back burner for a few more years to see if we really do have a problem. I am not sure this type of presentation is really productive to that end.”
By that time the slight of hand will be completed, the deal sealed, the scene all set, with no way out!
Kum Dollison (05:53:25) :
“Moncton is a bloviating, windbag. He’s an entertaining speaker, but, extremely lazy with his facts. And, he’s totally wrong about how our Constitution works. He should stay in England where he might “have a clue.””
He indeed could be totally wrong about your consitution, it wouldn’t actually matter if he was totally wrong about it. The point is that your President will, as our leaders have already done with the Europen Union, sign you into something so complicated, so sophisticated, that you will not at first see anything wrong with the action at all, just as we didn’t see what was going to happen to us. We were lied to by our leaders, we were told how wonderful it would be for Britain yet it costs us billions of taxpayers cash for membership of the club every year, for no perceiveable benefit. Oh yes we get some cash back in the form of grants for various regional funding, but if we weren’t in the club, we wouldn’t need the grants in the first place. Rather akin to a business having to provide collateral to a bank for a loan, but if the company could meet that collateral requirement, it wouldn’t need the load in the first place! Trust me, you won’t know what hit you until it does, & then you’ll be sorry like many of us Brits are! History is littered with situations where “it couldn’t possible happen in reality!”. Hollywood has made dozens of movies about subversive states/countires/planets, etc dominating its population(s), a’la “1984”. Very enjoyable things they are too because the tall goodlooking, downtrodden, yet brave, rugged & tough hero, fights back, looks like winning then only to be foiled by the terrible deadly weapon, but just manages to defeat it in the dying seconds of action, making all well again. However, this ain’t Hollywood, it’s reality!
As I have said elsewhere on this blog, if you want to be ruled by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, massively over bureaucratic, internationally taxpayer funded body, (mainly from the west & mostly by the US) then sit on your rear & do & say nothing. If on the other hand you don’t, stand up & be counted. Simple. These guys will take a yes vote to mean yes, & an abstention as a yes vote, to outway any no votes to get their way. Trust me, Constitution or no Constitution, they’ll find a way. The EU you see, claims to be a democracy, because it has a European Parliament. Yet all the power is in the Commission, where the rules are made, not in the parliament, it merely lends the pretence to democracy. I don’t know how they could subvert the Senate or House of Representatives, but will find away, probably by marketting any agreement as easily changable, but of course it will not be.
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 (05:53:25) : ‘He should stay in England where he might “have a clue.” ‘
Monckton should indeed be more concerned at how this will play out in the UK. A really extreme Copenhagen agreement seems unlikely to get past your Congress, but it’s a different story in Britain.
Our soon-to-be-ex-Prime Minister did the rounds of the media this morning, whipping up climate hysteria and doing his world-saviour thing. Mr Brown can be relied upon to sign his name to just about any lunacy, and to force it through Parliament at the first opportunity (he has until next May). His government already has a track-record of imposing ruinous climate laws where other countries only pay lip service to ‘saving the planet’, and they are by now accustomed to giving away pieces of sovereignty without consulting the people.
So, a draconian Copenhagen agreement would be good in America (where it would be ignored), but bad in Britain (where the ruling Junta would try to implement it in full). We can’t even be sure the Conservatives (sic) would tear it up, as their leader has bought into a lot of green ideology himself. Still, the whole thing may well unravel for other reasons, notably the cost, and an outraged public already dismissive of Mr Brown and increasingly dismissive of the ‘scientific consensus’.
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.
Request advise:
What software is recommended to combine the Moncton Speech with the Graphs?
Preferably on a Mac platform?
This would make a perfect movie.
It’s to the point and entertaining!
I’ve only gotten into this about 17 minutes so far and have to work.
Tony B who authored the very popular History of Arctic sea ice has written a piece on the recent history of Politics in AGW. He did a good job keeping things factual and it’s very well referenced.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/
So much for the announced ending of the BBC Alarmism about our climate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm
Norm Beazer (00:15:34)
RealPlayer will download YouTube files.
SmogMonster (07:24:51) : You are in a very big trouble…not even your Queen could save you, as all your royal family members are global warming devotees.
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.
Noelene (04:40:06) :
I think they are over reaching,I don’t think Rudd or Obama will sign,I hope they insist on changes.I do think they will promise money though.I hope that the leaders who sign or pledge money ask for an accounting of how the money is spent.False hope I feel.
————————————————————-
Obama’s Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) is Back, He’s just using the back door now – The UN
June 24th, 2009
While Obama was still a Senator one of the few bills he was pushing was the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433). This act gives authority to the United Nations authority to tax and impose laws on the United States. Since this wasn’t accomplished through legislative actions, Obama is now going to commit the U.S. through the United Nations. Obama wants to commit the US to a global tax of 0.7 percent of the US GDP.
————————————————————-
Lord Monckton is a very astute politician and scientist.
More climate “catastrophe” rubbish from Mr Broon…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/world-catastrophe-if-no-climate-deal-british-pm-20091020-h577.html
Really clutching at staws now.
DDT
From 1952:
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/389
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/vector_control.htm
Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides. As the eradication campaign wore on, the responsibility for maintaining it was shifted to endemic countries that were not able to shoulder the financial burden. The campaign collapsed and in many areas, malaria soon returned to pre-campaign levels
an interesting bit:
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm
DDT killed some and not other bugs leading to bed bugs ! etc.
In Malaysian villages, the roofs of the houses were a thatch of palm fronds called atap. They were expensive to construct, and usually lasted five years. But within two years of DDT spraying the roofs started to fall down. As it happened, the atap is eaten by caterpillar larvae, which in turn are normally kept in check by parasitic wasps. But the DDT repelled the wasps, leaving the larvae free to devour the atap.
In Greece, in the late nineteen-forties, for example, a malariologist noticed Anopheles sacharovi mosquitoes flying around a room that had been sprayed with DDT. In time, resistance began to emerge in areas where spraying was heaviest. To the malaria warriors, it was a shock. “Why should they have known?” Janet Hemingway, an expert in DDT resistance at the University of Wales in Cardiff, says. “It was the first synthetic insecticide. They just assumed that it would keep on working, and that the insects couldn’t do much about it.”
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm
Human exposure
Analysis of human fat has been carried out occasionally in the UK showing that DDT can persist for many years. Analysis of 203 samples of mostly renal fat showed 99% contained detectable residues of DDT (see table 3)(24). Many of the levels found are above effect-level exposures required to elicit a carcinogenic response in test animals (see mice studies above). They are also well above the life-time safety exposure limit ADI of 0.02 mg/kg body weight.
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)
Bushy, he would have to get 67 votes in the Senate. There’s not a chance in Hades that he could get 7 Republican votes (even if he could get all the Dems.)
Kum, Does the stop him from signing?
Nice talk. I watched it both with and without the Powerpoint presentation. With the Powerpoint was better.
To those arguing about treaties and the U.S. Constitution, these are the applicable portions:
Article II§1¶2: He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments
Article IV¶2: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
D.T.
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.
D.T. (09:15:41) :
Your constitution, and after all the rest of constitutions, in the new independent states in north and south america, which arised after and because of the french revolution, were made based on the principles and inspired by the same french revolution.
Why if there is now a similar movement which the authors or ideologists think will be for the improvement of mankind and that movement, now being presumably sponsored by the UN, originates a new order and a new constitution?
Typo: “Why if there is”. It should be “What if there is…”
BBC’s Paul Hudson has kicked another debate off, this time on Polar warming…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/the-polar-ice-conundrum.shtml
Note that that the Senate only requires a quorum of 51 Senators to act. Under that minimum, “two thirds of the Senators present” means 34 Senators. So approval actually means that, depending on circumstances, somewhere between 34 and 67 Senators would need to approve a treaty.
Re: Adolfo Giurfa.
The U.S. Constitution actually had little to do with the French Revolution (which followed the American Revolution) and more to do with the protection of the individual states against foreign aggression. More than anything else. The previous Articles of Confederation fell short.
D.T.
bill (08:57:28) :
Why do the activists always link DDT to dielrin? They are entirely different (dieldrin is a cyclodiene). Dieldrin/aldrin is dangerous and was abandoned for seed dressings before DDT. Raptor recovery started well before DDT was abolished. Remember the falcon story and egg thinning?
Please don’t believe anything from Gree***ace (these are dangerous people).