Monckton on Glenn Beck Today

It behooves us all to do our own research on how treaties affect domestic law in our respective countries.
In the US, treaties override state laws and so is a direct threat to our sovereignty. Not only that, courts and judges are beginning to refer to Common International Law in rendering decisions. This phrase is mentioned in the Constitution, but it was never the original intent that international law should be viewed as a unity with domestic law.
It is at least obvious that a judicial creep towards international laws is a battle we will be/are facing, and is only exacerbated by the signing of outrageous treaties signing away our GDP and setting up a world government.
A brief primer for the UK, the US and Australia from the Australian Dep’t of Foreign Affairs on the subject of treaties and domestic law.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/treaties/workshops/treaties_global/jennings.html

Here is an excellent post from another Monckton thread. I realize it is TLDR for many, but it is worth repeating if it is alright with the moderators:
alistewart (07:00:20) :
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.