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.
Interesting site and debate, even for a layman. I do not have sufficient scientific background to be able to come to any conclusion on AGW, (yes or no). I do have enough education to follow most of the arguments and some of the maths. From my own more particular experience of decision-making, in business I would make the following observations:-
There are two sides to the argument, both with some cogent evidence. But neither with all the facts, by any means. Worse, “facts” on both sides are too often based in insufficient data- erroneous assumptions- fallacious hypotheses. Even worse they are then used to extrapolate yet more but insufficient data into scenarios which support the result required rather than the actual result. Worse still, the data, hypothesis and resultant scenario are presented with so much emotion, window-dressing and hyperbole as to be unintelligible to anyone but God.
This is the nature of decision making. It is usually difficult to sort the wood from the trees. My experience is that to make fundamental decisions in such circumstances is to mostly invoke the law of unintended consequences- very expensive and inconvenient. ( 9 times out of ten the best response is to ask for more data, test the stuff you have and replay the hypotheses. At this point the arguments start to stack up a little better one way or the other, particularly if the second round of research is directed intelligently to cut to the chase while ignoring the chaff. Usually, doesn’t take too long and very often presents other options not previously considered. The worst argument I have most often heard is “we’re running out of time”. That is rarely the case- most bad decisions are made in haste.
We are at the point that the two scientific positions are at absolute loggerheads. Observationally, neither able to concede a single point to the other for fear that the whole house of cards will crumble (DDT in point). That is a scene that reeks of dogma, on both sides, suggesting that neither side is 100% confident. So, yes more research.
Certainly what I can see from the evidence is that the last few years data do suggest that we have more time, that since ’95 the rate of global warming has been negative, since ’07 the ice packs have not melted, and that climate change may not have gone away by any means but is at least in remission, affording us more time. Let’s take some and have some generally accepted proofs rather than opinion.
I in now way see the fact that the scientific community has differing opinions, myriad opinions as an indictment. On the contrary, it is surely healthy, but only if the debate is propelled. What I currently see is far more energy expended on shoring up entrenched positions than the pursuit of knowledge.
So why has that happened? Here we come to the politics.
It s impossible to separate them from the science, like it or not. Research is now so expensive as to be prohibited without sponsorship, from somewhere. Government, Commerce and academia all have vested interests. We cannot be so naive as to imagine that they will throw billions of dollars at potential results that do not suit them in place of results that do.That is not to say that the recipients of such sponsorship are charlatans, but it must mean that often the research is diverted toward “more useful channels”. It is inevitable; few creatures wish to bite the hand that feeds them, and certainly have to provide some sort of value for money as decided by the paymaster. In that way some data, results, conclusions do get weighted/skewed. Not sure which way necessarily, but it’s likely.
So, I am not persuaded of imminent irreversible climate change or global warming, nor am I convinced of man’s contribution. I am not convinced that CO2 or equivalents are the fundamental catalyst in the process and I am less convinced that a carbon based solution is the right or only one to the problem.
I am convinced that a Global, hugely complex, highly engineered, incredibly expensive solution deigned to fix a problem as yet undefined, is never going to be 100% right.
For sure we need the second round of research to start now, and it should have some definition, to speed up the cycle time, but to suggest that we only have “50 days to save the planet” is lamentable
A long post I think, so a credit to the site that it has motivated me so far. I will spend another two pennerth on Copenhagen specifically, based again in the decision making I have been involved with and the unintended consequences that I have personally suffered as a result.
I have not seen any scientific analysis that has said “Early Dec ’09 is the last possible date for a decision. By Christmas we are beyond the tipping point- catastrophe is inevitable” In fact, not one amongst even the shrillest eco-warriors has suggested this is the case. No-one has suggested a tipping point on any particular dateline. Of course we don’t want to waste time but Copenhagen goes way, way beyond science. No I haven’t read it all, but enough to know this is commercial and political. It is the vested interests that are demanding the timeline.
Suggests to me the politics are much more important than the science. Well, for those of us in the UK and Eire who have seen the effect of reversible agreements, voluntary treaties, enabling agreements, outstanding ratifications on supra governmental constitutions, et-al the unintended consequences have been unimaginable. When Heath took us into the Common Market as was then, we thought we were signing up to a free trade agreement centred mainly on agricultural trade.
Little did we realise that the EU as it has become would be more onerous than the dead hand of the politburo on the Soviet’s satellites. It’s edicts from the unelected commission now pervade every facet of our lives, eroding our freedoms, traditions and our very way of life. Magna Carta, on which the US constitution was largely modelled, 800 years of law, Habeus Corpus, gone at the stroke of a pen. Such is the rate of creep, of Brussels over our activities that
we have had more laws enacted in the last ten years than in the previous 2 centuries, many drawn up by unelected officials, sadly 80% of them in Brussels. Our parliament is now all but ineffective having ceded power to the EU so much so that there is now nothing we can do about it. Whatever they want they get- more taxes, more bureaucracy, more control. Although Lisbon is not quite in place, we are already operating as though it were, and when the Checks cave in as they will be forced to they will have the lot. The end of the United Kingdom as we know it. There is nothing we can do about it.
I see too many parallels with The New World Order signalled in the Copenhagen draft. It is more than the thin end of a wedge.
Let’s be careful what we wish for.
The debate has been lively on this post, Anthony. Thanks. My own thoughts: I would not use DDT as an analogy to the difficulties with the AGW alarmists, and I think Lord Monckton could have shortened his presentation in that respect. There are many sides to the argument over DDT, not the least of which is the fact that it was overused in the 40s and 50s. But banning it completely was never the answer.
I have read a number of things by Lord Monckton in the past, and I find his arguments compelling, even if his polemics are sometimes not. I would not be making public policy with respect to AGW at all. Particularly given the current state of the science, which as you know is far from “settled.” Lord Monckton makes a case for saying the science is settled on the other side, but nothing is ever truly “settled” in science. I hope everyone who posts on this site remembers that when they get caught up in the debate.
supercritical said: (And the fact that you don’t like his latinisms is a non-sequitur … as is any other kind of ad-hominem, and so is a waste of good carbon dioxide!
it’s obviously the season to be dusting off all the old Latin expressions we can muster for tossing out to make a point. Non sequitur is Latin, but it doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means, and in English, ad hominem does not refer to any old time a person finds fault with another person. It is a personal attack that seeks to negate the argument of the person attacked.
Also, while Anthony may well have the patience of a saint or of Job, sadly, your own contribution is right in there with the rest of us. OT? The thread is on Monckton’s speech!
Iren said:
The other point which he stressed over and over, and which is also perhaps relevant to the religious allusion, is that public policy MUST be based on the truth because, if it is not, then real catastrophes can result,
Clearly, you think mixing religion and science is fine. A pithy quote from the Bible is okay with me too, but going on about Pontius Pilate and the saviour of the world just because the passage contains the word veritas is pretty fishy, especially when he’s just rendered Genesis, complete with chapter and verse.
I’m surprised he didn’t do it in Hebrew.
GeoS:
It’s not my impression that the warmers are predominantly god-fearers, and I’m not aware of any prominent warmer who disavows Gore.
However, bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem!
Oliver,
Isn’t Monckton’s case set out in his powerpoint slides? It would be so nice for us all if you could find some fault with them, rather than him, wouldn’t it?
(PS. re school; you didn’t cut that lesson on shoes, did you? )
Russia is looking at communist China and saying, “We can do that” and drop the laissez faire capitalism that they adopted in the 90’s and patterned after the US following Russia’s collapse. They’ve had their problems with lazy faire capitalism with this latest world economic downturn and think they can do a one party communism like China does it. But China is actually a little more like fascism than communism.
The NY bankers like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc… are terrorists… they’ve created this debt bomb as a way to get trillion $ bailouts and what do they do with the bailout? They invest the money in Chinese car manufacturers and stuff and profit from it… instead of loaning money and extending credit to people. This is criminal! Also, they’ve been working with corporations at how to make the US a one party communist/fascist system like China too. By bribes they accomplish this… creating the republicrats as Ralph Nader calls them. It appears that Monckton is a little late to the party but way ahead of the sheeple.
I have read the UN draft, and there is absolute nothing in it that could be interpreted as a suggestion to establish any kind of a “world government”. Nothing! Clearly, Lord Monckton has a very vivid imagination and an extremely alarmist mindset.
“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
Gordon Brown link title warns of climate ‘catastrophe’. Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days “to save the world” from global warming
Indian, Chinese and Indonesian action and pledges on energy efficiency and renewable energy brought praise from Mr Miliband at the MEF summit.
But equally clear was the determination of those and other developing nations attending the talks that finance has to be right as a precondition of any deal.
US bank failures hit 100 for year
Record recession for UK economy
So bankrupt US and the UK, Spain and Europe, because of their idiotic policies by which they hobble their power generation and production, are praising further idiotic policies in this direction.
India and China’s economies are booming, not hobbled by these idiotic policies. But they say – hey we will produce cleaner power, but before we do so, please bankrupt USA and UK – can you please pay us to do so?
And what will they do? Produce less polluting power from coal and oil, which they should do anyway, while the west closes down its coal and oil plants because it imagines CO2 is a pollutant.
The west will then buy their manufactured goods from China and India while they rapidly become third world countries and freeze in winter because they will no longer be able to provide warmth and shelter for their citizens.
World government is the fist step in a program of mass depopulation. Chemicals and sterilizing agents in the food, air, water and vaccines is not enough.
The masses will be made too poor to resist our plans and by the time they wake up, it will be too late. The majority will already be dead or awaiting death in concentration camps.
Doubt what I say? Study History, my friends.
There will the super poor with the elite super rich to rule over them.
The more extreme members of our brethren wish to exterminate the entire human race, but we feel we can deal with them once the time comes.
So you disagree exactly with Patrick Buchanan’s claim that poor people are breeding to take over the world? You think Dr. No, SMERSH, Lex Luthor, Auric Goldfinger and Pinky and the Brain are trying to reduce numbers instead?
For the past 5,000 years, power has tended to grow out of the size of any army one can field at critical times, not out of one’s bank account. But then, you may not put any stock in the claims of Christian and Jewish scripture, either.
You say you can deal with them when the time comes. And if the time doesn’t come, then what?
I’ve studied history, and I gotta say your view is unique.
I have replaced the Monckton presentation PDF file (17.4 MB) with a smaller file of selected slides from the presentation. It is now 7.3 MB with 86 slides, down from 174 slides.
The Friends of Science Society arranged and sponsored Lord Monckton to give a cross-Canada tour, September 29 – October 8, 2009. He gave presentations in five Canadian cities.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=441
I am please that he was able to continue with speaking engagements in the USA. We got a fair amount of media coverage of his talks in Canada, but he has been a lot more successful in getting media interest in the USA.
The Monckton presentation file on the Friends of Science website is linked to numerous websites has been viewed 50,765 times to date. At 17.4 MB, the bandwidth charges are excessive, so I reduced the file size.
We need more people like Lord Monckton .
Straight talk. Smart talk. Real answers.
He cuts through all the double speak with scoundrels like Al Gore who only gets richer ,fatter and clearly more plastic surgery preying on the people duped out of their money .
we all love America ,and want the world to be a beautiful place for mankind ,and animals alike. stop paying these elitists who care not for anything, anyone
and just want more and more money .
the problem with America is that Most of the people are good people.
they refuse to believe that anyone who lived here could be evil .
thats whats killing us all.
Byan, great post. Except for one thing. You’re looking through your telescope backwards.
Throughout recorded history there are some among us including elected officials with their own agenda who sought to control humanity by manipulating facts (valid science) using peoples inalienable fear of the unknown with hypothesis (incomplete science).
Our most valuable possessions are our lives and our freedom both of which are at risk of surrender when we allow incomplete science to hypothesize about our future.
I take heart from the comments of the many contributors here, they remind me of the Dawn of the Dead remake, the words “alive inside” painted on the zombie beseiged mall roof. Given the Global situation they never seemed more appropriate. The New Zealand Government pushed through our ETS Scam under urgency a couple of days ago, unlike the Australians, our MP’s lack the moral courage to denounce this repellent farce. While local action may be appropriate, a global movement is needed, if any of us expect to retire on a planet free from tyranny. We’ve got to stop believing we’re speaking the same language as the doomsayers, when we say we’re sceptical, they literally hear us say “Burn more oil”. Literally. We need a major, major MSM to broadcast a genuine and balance debate, its got to be transparent, so that leaves out the polarised usual suspects. Its got to be accessible by the public everywhere, at least to contribute questions. It can’t be spun by any vested interest, and it needs to be NOW. It also has to distance itself from disparaging invective, we’re all in this together, if there are any idiots, look in the mirror, we all stood by while this went on. Get past that in yourself and get past that in others and lets have a real discussion, possibly for the first time in Human History. The calamity of this is that one loose thread reveals our species foible, all the fields of science should now be viewed as host to undue influence, just as the free market has been gamed, regularly, just as politics is By the Wealthy for the Wealthy.
Thanks people, there’s hope yet.
Please leave this post up. When Copenhagen is over, and Monckton’s words make him look even more foolish, and less treasonous because what he claimed was going to happen didn’t even get to the discussion phase, please paste it to the top of the blog so everyone can be reminded.
Thanks.
REPLY: Be sure to leave all your posts up over there in bathtub land too, Ed. – A
Someone please give Ed Darrell a shot of this.
AFter all of these comments, has any of you read even a little bit of the IPCC report? You can go to almost any section of that report and find disqualifying statements, and admissions of uncertainty.
If it were not for “if” and “may” they could not have published anything. Reminds me of a statement from 15 years ago. It all depends upon what the word “is” is!!!