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.
bill (08:57:28) :
“DDT From 1952: Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides.”
Why do the activists always link DDT to dielrin? They are entirely different (dieldrin is a cyclodiene). Dieldrin/aldrin is dangerous and was abandoned for seed dressings before DDT. Raptor recovery started well before DDT was abolished. Remember the falcon story and egg thinning?
Please don’t believe anything from Gree***ace (these are dangerous people).
I’m embarrassed to have Monckton on the same team.
I can’t say much about his substance because I found his style so unappealing that I couldn’t continue. The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.
Thank goodness nobody there understood it any better than he did himself.
Do you think they’ll lock the Republican Senators “Out?”
Remember how Clinton sent Al Gore over to Kyoto to “sign” the accord, and then quietly slipped the agreement into the desk drawer never, again, to see the light of day?
jtom:
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.”
Yes, I got that far too–however, whether a treaty is self-executing or not can be very tricky to decide, and may also end up in courts to make that determination.
Also, even if Congress makes some kind of non-binding policy resolution to follow the treaty, this can be used in courts all over the country. Courts are already using foreign laws and Common Inernational Laws.
It is my understanding, and I am still slogging through this, that international law and adherance to treaties will be enforced by American judges. We must throw a lot of them out!
Also Lord Munckton is correct in saying that these treaties create new governing bodies that we can’t walk away from as easily as from a treaty. For example, the Law of the Sea Treaty created an Internat’l Seabed Authority, and gave it authority over the sea.
Charles Rossi (06:55:34) :
Anthony,
Don’t destroy any genuine credibility your work has achieved by promoting this poisonous man’s inflated self importance. He may sound the part but here in the UK he is an embarrassment to those who have grave doubts on the science behind AGW.
Regards,
Charles,
London, UK
Just your opinion Charles, he seems to have had a favourable reception at the Cambridge Union society who invited him to speak, suggest you watch Apocalypse? NO!.
Rob,
Notts UK.
I was lucky enough to be able to attend Lord Christopher Monckton’s talk. He is a very dynamic speaker and it was fun to watch. He is not a typical political speaker. He presented the evidence and makes definitive statements about the flawed science behind AGW. Much better than the typical political speaker who never makes a concrete statement. He did not end with saying we need to study more and please continue with the grant money.
He did present one slide that I need review. If I understand the slide he presented, the global climate models are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do the models really calculate that a warmer earth would emit less radiation?
Re: Adolfo Giurfa.
In the United States, the citizen is the sovereign; not the elected or appointed officials who are merely agents of the sovereign. I do not know your government, but it’s always dangerous for any nation’s citizens to turn sovereignty over to foreign entities, who will alway act in their own interests, even to the detriment or destruction of yours.
D.T.
Oliver Ramsay (09:48:42) :
If you don’t like his message, that’s one thing.
But to attack him on his appearance or how he delivers his message is quite another. Should we now sink to finding fault with Al Gore’s appearance or Southern drawl?
D.T. (09:44:44) : Yes, I knew that, but the principles, the then current ideals, were the same. I think this time the ideologists have exaggerated if they think they can impose, through global warming or whatever lie, a world communist order, now by making nations supposedly more equal through sharing their wealth to us third world countries because it will mean suffering for you and holidays and vacations for us!
Ask some working canadians how they fund the newly, and imported from the third world, canadians.
I have noticed that a lot of the attacks on Monckton’s speech, have more to do with personal dislike of the man than of matters of substance. I have seen such comments as
“The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.”
““Moncton is a bloviating, windbag”
“Monckton’s sounding crazy, and if you bother to pay attention to what he says, he’s clearly inaccurate.”
“I lost interest when he started god-bothering”
“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!!!”
Where is the impartiality I’ve come to expect from WUWT bloggers?
Gary Palmgren (10:04:54) :
Do the models really calculate that a warmer earth would emit less radiation?
As far as I know they suppose a kind of “heat piggy bank” in our atmosphere, more precisely in the tropical atmosphere, which, btw, and as it has been demonstrated here in WUWT, never formed or appeared.
I voted for McCain. However, I’m an American. The first words out of his mouth was a slam at my President. I didn’t appreciate that. I’m sure I’m not alone. I was Baptized when I was a youngster. I think the Baptist Church is a “Force for Good.” Having said that, “Religion” has no place in this debate. I could have done without that (as, I am sure, so could others.) Then the Sophomoric “Latin” mumbo jumbo. By that time I was through.
I thought the powerpoint might be easier to get through. First off, a silly, and totally unsubstantiated, hit at biofuels. (field corn is $0.07/lb, and has shown absolutely no correlation with “planting” decisions of Any crop anywhere else in the world – while oil is $78.00 Barrel.)
Previously, I’ve gone to his website, and seen cherry-picked and incomplete data used to support his arguments. Look, I think AGW is nonsense. But, I don’t want to be represented by someone who is so easy to refute. Give me the Lindzens, and Christies, and Spencers. I know I can take what these men say to the Debate.
An independent nation (only God is -sovereign-) can repudiate a treaty at any time. This is the nature of treaties. Upon doing so, of course, the other signees are liberated from the restrictions imposed by it with regards to the repudiating nation. This can of course result in war.
Mr. Giufra, our Constitution, which like our Declaration of Independence, pre-dates and is antithetical to, the French Revolution, is based upon the 3,500 year old Judao-Christian political tradition. It incorporates ideas ranging from Moses and the early Israeli commonwealth, to the relationship between prophet, priest and king, the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s three roles as Prophet/lawgiver, priest and king, the thought of Augustine, Archbishop John of York, Aquinas, du Plessis de Mornay, Henri de Bracton, John Knox, and Samuel Rutherford. The underlying principle is that God created us and gave us unalienable rights which the State cannot take away, that there are independent spheres in human society, that God is King and has only delegated certain duties to civil government, retaining the remainder, thus preventing tyranny, where the State tries to function as God, and the reality of original sin, and the tendency of power to corrupt, thus placing the independent powers in opposing sections of civil government, so that human ambition can be caught up in striving against others rather than against the citizenry. It has worked fairly well these last 380 years.
Norm Beazer, regarding watching long YouTube videos, just remember at how many minutes you stopped watching. When you come back to the video, drag the slider to pick up at that minute. The video will start downloading from there onwards and you will have almost no wait to pick up where you left.
Oliver Ramsay (09:48:42) :
“I’m embarrassed to have Monckton on the same team.
I can’t say much about his substance because I found his style so unappealing that I couldn’t continue. The recitation in Latin, delivered with the appalling accent of fifth form Public School classics class, is ludicrous.
Thank goodness nobody there understood it any better than he did himself.”
So Ramsey, as a self appointed latinist, what sort of accent did ole Julius Caesar have frinstance? Estuarine? Appenine?
Furthermore he quoted stuff from memory, bet you couldn’t do it. I loved it, those self opinionated catastrophists needed taking down a peg or two. Well done Monckton, well done Anthony.
For those who are put off by certain statements in Lord Monckton’s presentation or find what they believe are minor flaws, note that in the very opening of his address, that he admonishes the audience to do their own homework and not believe anything he says.
“That is science!”
He makes an assertion of fact, and shows his line of reasoning, and evidence!
You take responsibility to verify if his reasoning and evidence stands up to the level necessary to be believed by you.
Even if he makes an error, that does not necessarily mean the assertion is wrong, it just means that his presentation is not complete. If he makes no identifiable errors that does not necessarily mean his conclusions are correct, it only means that his presentation contains no identifiable logical or factual errors.
Unlike Al Gore, he is not expecting you to believe him as a “matter of faith”, he is presenting his view of the subject and encouraging you to dig into the data and make your own conclusion. His presentation provides many useful starting points for such investigation. He points out many interesting bits of information that should be very troubling to anyone who understands the scientific method and ethical behavior of scientists and public officials.
If you find what you believe is an error in his presentation, you do not have adequate grounds to dismiss his entire presentation out of hand, you only have grounds to dismiss or better yet investigate the error you believe you have found. If that were true, we would dismiss Newton’s law of gravitation out of hand, along with all his laws of motion because his law fails under some very specific circumstances.
Like the concept of severability in legal contracts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability_clause
The various components of a proof or line of reasoning stand or fall on their own merits, not on the validity of the entire proof. To dismiss the entire argument because you find a single error is a logical trick used to keep people from evaluating the entire argument, and as used by the AGW crowd as a way of tossing out the baby with the bath water.
It is true that for a proof to be valid all the components have to be valid, and it must lead to a logically consistent result. There are many cases where scientists and researchers have come to correct conclusions based on faulty data, and logic. Likewise, they have on many occasions come to incorrect conclusions using flawless math and logic, because they left some consideration out.
The function of his (or any presentation like this) is/should be to make the listener think and come to their own conclusion based not only on the data presented, but on their own research to validate that data.
Be a critical listener to “all” of his points and then view the entire presentation as a whole. I do not agree with everything he says, but understand his message, and his intent, and find enough useful information to make it a worth while presentation.
In several instances, if he is correct in even one of his assertions, he breaks the chain of logic used by the AGW hypothesis, and invalidates the conclusion, that catastrophic global warming is imminent and that threat warrants drastic action immediately.
His presentation on DDT is an important history lesson. Many people are unaware that historically the world has repeatedly made major changes based on the precautionary principle only to find that when better data came out, the cure was worse than the disease.
Many people are simply ignorant of important facts, Like the young women in “Not Evil just Wrong” film who was unaware that DDT was widely used in America and malaria was a major problem in the U.S. many years ago.
In the early 1950’s as a young child in Navy housing, I remember running along with a group of other neighborhood children as the DDT truck came by and we would run back and forth through the cloud of insecticide (although we were supposed to come inside when it came by). Because of a lack of historical perspective, modern children and young adults are totally ignorant of that fact.
Some of the first efforts to develop air conditioning were due to malaria and yellow fever outbreaks in 1830’s Florida.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/dr_john_gorrie
Larry
Hotrod
A very thoughtful post.
Monckton does a fine and heartfelt job. His facts are solid and the message that there is no catastrophe is honest.
A recent somewhat cosmic interpretation of AGW is interesting: AGW is a focused behavioral management campaign designed to alter human activity. The goal is to wean human population off fossil fuel as primary energy and encourage the move to sustainable/renewable energy resources. A civilization adapted to renewable energy resources is the first step for entry into a universe of intelligent life. Dr. Michio Kaku (string physicist City Univ NY) claims this classifies a civilization as a “Type One” planet.
The last we heard from Dr. Kaku, he felt confident that Earth was well on its way to achieving Type One status. The challenge is to achieve this status while preserving national sovereign diversity.
As for DDT, like many things there are apparent trade offs to its use. Especially with regard to aquatic life:
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Info/DDT.html
How does a developing nation balance lower malarial infection rates with loss of food sources like crayfish and sea shrimp?
Charles Rossi (06:55:34) : Don’t destroy any genuine credibility your work has achieved by promoting this poisonous man’s inflated self importance. He may sound the part but here in the UK he is an embarrassment to those who have grave doubts on the science behind AGW.
Charles, I’m a UK citizen.
When I was a warmist I learned that Monckton was one of the key baddies. Even when I did a U-turn, it took me a long time to throw off that habit of belief and look again at Monckton’s stuff. It was Monckton’s refutation of the IPCC maths, by IPCC’s own standards, that made me stop and look more carefully. Probably I was put onto it by someone disparaging Monckton a “bridge too far” for my bs antennae that started me looking. I followed the story through. Gavin Schmidt had “refuted” Monckton’s maths in detail, but in response to that, Monkton showed in detail that Schmidt was wrong in every point of maths / physics that he’d made. Schmidt never replied to that, and there can only be one reason: he could not. Had he been able to reply, he would never have missed such a prime opportunity.
I may take issue with some of Monckton’s polemics, but on other occasions he puts extremely important issues clearly and well, and his level of attack is far less grubby than that of his opponents when you put the whole exchange in context. And despite his degree not being in science, he is a brilliant mathematician and has mastered the relevant science to a level that puts probably most PhD scientists to shame.
I thought that Anthony had not given Monckton enough space recently, though I know that he has some reservations about Monckton. Here was the answer: give Monctkon some decent space. Whatever size ego, this man still cares passionately, he faces a horrendous quantity of lying slander, with zero status gain for supporting the unfashionable side. Perhaps to do anything in his position needs an ego. I’m grateful that he is there.
Have a look at this section of my website for details of Monckton’s replies to Schmidt.
And then of course there’s Monckton’s paper that was published by APS, I forget the name of the bloke who kept on attacking it but again when I looked more closely (and asked Monckton direct why he had not responded at that point) there was no substance in the attacks, nothing I could find. By then I’d teased out the whole matter quite enough.
Indiana Bones (11:40:15) : We, oldies, used DDT a lot, during the 50’s and nothing bad happened, Malaria disappeared from southamerican cities,.., now malaria and dengue are reappearing, even in big cities.
You need a few mosquitos up there to be convinced and remember that once it was endemic also in the USA .:-)
I thought it was a very good presentation.
There are probably the occasional issue that is off a little but when you cover this much complicated material, some slips happen.
Some are put off by Monckton’s style (I’m not) and, for the most part, people’s style is their style and it is not going to change so you should just accept it or move on.
But that is also a style over substance argument.
And the substance in the material is much better/more accurate than you will get in most places.
The same goes for other malaria control measures. One very effective method of mosquito control is to control breeding environments. Draining swamps an wet lands is very helpful, but flies directly in the face of “habitat protection”.
Spraying wetlands with diesel oil to smother the larval mosquito by creating an oil film that prevents respiration works quite well and is cheap but freaks out the EPA and similar pollution guardians.
Likewise there are “natural control agents” like Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis used in mosquito biscuits. Some folks are concerned about biological control agents because they “might” turn into a foreign pest problem some time in the future or have unintended consequences.
The problem is people think that there should be a simple straight forward solution to all problems. Unfortunately the simple straight forward solution is almost always wrong and frequently comes with some unintended consequence that is never considered as excess baggage.
Some how we need to break our current cultural tendency to look for simple short sighted solutions to problems and take a more incremental long term view of problems.
We can re-engineer the power grid to support large amounts of solar and wind energy. We can move away from fossil fuels. We can build safe Nuclear power plants, but it is not a 10 year task, it is a 50 or 100 year task and until folks realize that and start viewing it like the Interstate Highway system as a project that will still be underway when their children are adults the better off we will be.
Larry
I wish he would cut out the crap with the Nobel pin, he is not a Nobel Laureate. It calls into question all of his valid arguments.
As for DDT, the proposal is to spray it sparingly inside of houses and not dump tons of it all over the place. At the levels contemplated, it does not affect birds or sea life. “Silent Spring” has a large number of rather glaring errors/omissions in it. For instance the quail egg hatching. Of the 100 quail eggs from quails exposed to DDT and the 100 quail eggs from quails not exposed to DDT a slightly low but statistically insignificant number of DDT exposed eggs did not hatch. That went on to a total survival of a statistically insignificant number of the DDT hatchlings surviving. Perhaps a good jr. high science fair project but not science in the way that might be considered real science. The argument on the reason for the award of the Nobel for DDT is angels on pinheads. The pinheads say it is not because of malaria, it is because of other things. The other things were a mosquito vectored disease, so it is a distinction without a difference.
Basically the effort to use DDT in Africa has been slowed (except in South Africa) because the aid money we send to the countries there is sent on the condition that they not use DDT. South Africa is rich enough to be self supporting in this regard.