In case you missed it live, Christopher Monckton spent an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program today on the topic of global warming, skepticism, and the Copenhagen Treaty.
The video is now available.
Watch it below.
I think Lord Monckton did a splendid job.
To see the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, see this essay on the subject here.
Parts 1-7 of the hour long video are below. YouTube has time limits on clips, so it is broken up into parts 1-7.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
`Tor Hansson (14:06:46) : ” For those making political comments here, some upholding a literal reading of the Constitution: our society and our institutions are far beyond the framework of the Constitution. If we would try to crawl back inside the words of the original document we would be shutting down institutions like the FAA, the FTC, the FDA, NASA, NOAA, the NIH, the national parks, and the list goes on, endlessly.”
Don’t take this the wrong way, Tor, but…lol… you’re such a rubber snake! I just don’t feel threatened (by what you argue). So while you sit there with your tongue perpetually sticking out at my simple, Constitution-thumping mind, I’ll just “pull the plug on government-sponsored science”…
Not because I am anti-science, but rather because it’s the right thing to do. I nor anyone owes a scientist or scientific organization any funding. And I realize that science can (and will) florish without any state or federal support, and probably more so than with all these agencies we have today. Our Constitution supports this notion as well. I THINK, off the top of my head, that Article I, section 8 says…
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries”
Or something to that effect. So it allows, for the specific purpose of promoting the sciences, the freedom for one to patent/copyright their work. It is theirs to profit from and distribute in any way they see fit. This is the best way for science to continue to florish. When I see a book that catches my eye… I buy it. Science doesn’t deserve (nor need) my tax dollar, but my hard-earned, freely given dollar is a different story.
So our founding fathers were not a bunch of antiquated idiots. They knew they didn’t need any federal agency to make science work, just the same way that they realized that a nation doesn’t need to support a particular religion. They learned from history what state-sponsored science and religion ultimately does, and so didn’t make any provisions for it.
“Income transfer also is used extensively, and has been for a long time. In the United States, capitalists have believed in income transfer for a long time… so maybe this can put an end to the socialist talk.”
The difference between socialism/marxism/collectivism and capitalism (as envisioned by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand) is that the former uses force and the latter, voluntary exchange. That’s a well-established difference between the two schools of thought (force vs free will), so I won’t go into that. What I will say is that if you don’t want the issue to be a political one, don’t blame Beck. Tell government to BUTT OUT of what it never had a right to butt into to begin with.
Experts say: Cap&Trade Global Warming Bill is a scam:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/11/01/cap-and-trade-global-warming-bill-is-a-scam-experts-reveal/
Here you find another warmist-skeptic debate with Christy versus Schelsinger:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/12/john-christy-debates-william-schlesinger/
`Tor Hansson (20:00:13) : For those who care: (I dont – have seen that video – no big deal) Glenn Beck calling Barack Obama a racist—and saying he has a deep-seated hatred of white people.
Can we put this to bed please? Glenn Beck is tainted by his own irresponsible comments. That is all I am saying. To say he would be to the left of JFK is a travesty. Glenn Beck has also …he is bad company.
Lord Monckton had quite a few things to say, some on the science and some on the politics. On all of this you keep mum on and instead divert the discussion to Glenn Beck.
I’m sorry Glenn Beck is not the issue. The political agenda of the warmists to impose taxes on us without our consent and legislate us back to the stone age is.
Debate those issues not the politics of Glenn Beck which I was totally unaware of. Should we reject all that was said, or refuse to discuss or debate it, because Glenn Beck, who was hosting the program, is allegedly, according to you, a jerk?
About de-politicizing the debate: of course the alarmists have politicized the debate. The point is to get back to sound science. That can only be done by reasonable people who stick to the science and meet inflammatory arguments with reason.
Shouldn’t be so hard to comprehend.
I’m afraid you have got it totally wrong. In his essay “Placing My Lance” George Rebane has said it very well and I quote from that:
“I just don’t think that putting all efforts in science-based counter arguments is the correct strategy. Wasting no crisis, AGW is the celebrated cause and the perfect storm to usher in worldwide collectivism. It is the culminating argument that the most hindered intellects everywhere can understand and answer correctly – ‘do you want to be free and cause an end to life as we know it, or do you want to work together (under state control) so that we can save the earth?’. Gore, Obama, and the one-world socialists, are correct that debate is over; their ‘science’ has won because the people don’t understand science, they understand slogans.”
“But that reality doesn’t mean that these radical left elitists want us skeptics (to them ‘deniers’) to quit tilting at their carefully constructed windmills … On the contrary, the more busy we are in shoring up the scientific arguments countering AGW, the less energy and resources we have left for the part of the battle that still matters. Please don’t misunderstand here. I believe the work that both scientists and bloggers (i.e. Anthony Watts, Russ Steele, and others) are doing to expose the holes in AGW ‘science’ is important and should continue. But that effort, being necessary to counter global collectivism, does not mean that it is also sufficient to achieve success.”
“Promoting AGW and its proposed fixes rests on three legs – the science, the economics, and the geo-politics. If the mind of the masses is to be illuminated, we have also to bring up on everyone’s radar the perfidy behind economic and ideological ‘solutions’.”
Emphasis mine. Which leads me to ask are you really a sceptic or someone from the sky is falling camp?
Richard:
I regularly go on Huffington Post and debate warmists. I believe the truth is on the side of the skeptics. There is—perhaps—a slight amount of warming which is most likely natural and nothing else, possible with a trifling amount of warming from human CO2. I believe the climate models have a predictive ability out to a two-week horizon and nothing more. I believe the press and other alarmists regularly overstate the case in a way that can only be termed dishonest.
Lord Monckton did a fine job, although you can read this thread and find some objections to his presentation and angle of attack. What you need to keep in mind is the old quote from Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” The Glenn Beck Show is not a good medium to win over the American mainstream.
I believe that what there is of a nefarious agenda on the alarmist side has to do with personal gain. Al Gore for instance has a clear conflict of interest in that respect, and needs to be called on it until he loses all credibility.
But world socialism is a bogeyman that doesn’t fly. To propose that the United Nations will be the one to introduce it is laughable. Come on—China, India, and Russia will not follow along with any limitations on their economic policies, and if they do, that’s when the U.S. takes its marbles and goes home, because the only reason those countries would go along would be to place the onus on the U.S. economy. So much for the fear of worldwide collectivism. It is a point of view that is just as alarmist as AGW.
I have no problem with calling out the alarmists on their suggested remedies, particularly because we know that they are completely ineffective even if there was an AGW problem. And yes, there are people who think we should all grow watercress in our bicycle handlebar baskets and shut down industry. Guess what? They will get nowhere with their arguments. They will be shut down as surely as the sun rises in the east, because Americans and Europeans will turn away from anything that threatens their jobs and standard of living. The more such suggestions are heard, the more people will take an interest in the opposing view. The more likely scenario is that nuclear power will make a comeback, hardly what those folks had in mind.
I am a communications professional. What is clear to me is that we are slowly winning this opinion war. This web site and several others (Climate Audit, Pielke, etc.) can take at least some credit for that. This movement (and it is one, albeit of the counter-kind) cannot afford to be pigeonholed with propagandists like Glenn Beck. This war is won by staying in the mainstream. We do not have the sexy end of the argument, the alarmists do. What we have are facts that win based on their ultimate credibility—that align with reality. They will eventually wake people up and make them wonder what the hell they were thinking, although the going can be slow and frustrating. Your proposition that the science argument is already won by the alarmists is contradicted by ongoing shifts in public opinion.
I would also say that I did not mean to make that big of a deal of Glenn Beck. Suffice it to say that he has little to contribute to this. Lord Monckton is a bit of an odd duck himself, but I respect his contribution.
And Benjamin: Your suggestion to shut down public research is not going anywhere, trust me on that. Government funds a massive amount of basic research that otherwise would be unlikely to get done, as the commercial applications are unclear or doubtful. Every major industrial power uses a combination of public and private research to further science. (Remember the Manhattan Project?) The medium you use to express yourself—the Internet—was in fact created through publicly funded research efforts. I don’t know what else to tell you.
`Tor Hansson (14:06:46) :
So my initial impression of you is that you were an ideologue of left politics. Now it has evolved to you being a radical leftists.
No wonder you are so opposed to Glenn Beck.
As I read more of your comments who knows where the rabbit trail will lead.
Tor Hansson (21:32:28) said:
“Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate.
After reading over your comments it would appear that anything to the right of Marx is far right to you.
`Tor Hansson (00:02:53) :
Lord Monckton is a bit of an odd duck himself
It’s good that we’ve found nothing odd about you, Tor.
It’s a funny thing Tor, isn’t it, that people on the left have a very hard time saying or believing anything other about themselves but that they are in the middle.
Dear Gene Nemetz:
I for one am relieved that you got that off your chest.
If you like Glenn Beck and subscribe to his opinions, that’s fine with me. I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse. You keep your opinion, I’ll keep mine.
`Tor Hansson
‘Tor, one of the flaws in subscribing to any debate is that you become pigeonholed. Unfortunately you are either conservative (liberal/republican) or or socialist (labor/democrat) , but there’s not a thing you can do about it because the press express views in dualities only.
Where’s the opinion of the centre? They don’t care and it will never get noticed. Individual accountability provides no scandal or hysteria.
After all this global warming nonsense is over, we’ll be back to the same ol’ rigmarole and history will repeat over and over, despite the best efforts of sites like this.
I really believe that most of us are getting off on the challenge.
`Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :
I dsidn’t ask to change your opinion.
And I didn’t say I was a fan of Glenn Beck either.
But you admit something that was clear from the first—politics are what is important to you.
`Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :
I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.
That’s funny…
from what I have observed over the summer he has influenced politics in America more than anyone else. Now the White House can’t stop talking about FOX.
But I think you are blocking that out from your view. It must be most unpleasant.
`Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :
I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.
I’d say that’s minimizing.
What I thought was revealing about President Barak Obama in regards to FOX News is the statement from the White House last week that said they are bringing up FOX in particular because they are ‘speaking truth to power’. Odd that. Very odd. They think FOX is ‘the power’ and not themselves.
So they think FOX News and Glenn Beck have power that you say is only a non-serious contribution.
All I can say is long live freedom of the press!! And of the internet!!
p.s. yes, that felt good to say too. 😉
I saw the “truth to power” comment from the White House. It is a very strange comment for them to make.
At any rate, I have no interest in discussing partisan politics on this site. I stand by my assertion that skeptics are better off in the AGW debate if they stick to the facts and the science.
And I stand by my assertion that the only audience that matters is the U.S. mainstream.
[Reply: OK then, everyone please leave it at that. ~dbstealey, moderator.]
`Tor Hansson maybe there are some people who will not accept Lord Monckton’s arguments because they were hosted by Glenn Beck, maybe he needs multiple channels in order for him to be listened to by a broader section in the US.
According to you “.. world socialism is a bogeyman that doesn’t fly. To propose that the United Nations will be the one to introduce it is laughable. ..China, India, and Russia will not follow along with any limitations on their economic policies, and if they do, that’s when the U.S. takes its marbles and goes home, because the only reason those countries would go along would be to place the onus on the U.S. economy. So much for the fear of worldwide collectivism. It is a point of view that is just as alarmist as AGW.”
The Copenhagen draft agreement is there for all to read. This is from the United Nations. Why should it be so hard to understand that the UN wants to sneak in a tax (as much as possible, allegedly about 2% of the income of western nations) for the supposed cause of “fighting climate change”, an imaginary enemy about to destroy the world.
UN officials pay lip service to socialism. They weep for the poor while paying themselves obscenely high salaries and perks. They go periodically broke because of these huge outgoings so they would be happy for a secure source of income. Thus funding is a favourite word in their document.
They say “It is also particularly important to provide adequate, predictable, stable, sufficient and timely funding for adaptation purposes particularly by developed countries. Developed country Parties shall support these developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.”
“They (we that is) shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development.” – Its all our fault you see. We have caused the climate change.
Now if we have to fight malaria it is not necessary to provide better health and sanitation we have to research on how reduce carbon. Pest control is tackled the same way. Hurricanes flooding New Orleans – better dykes and levees? Oh no no – sequester carbon and you wont have Katrina. Polar bears and other species dying? Simply declare CO2 a pollutant and tax it.
They need funds so they say “The establishment of a [Readiness fund][Special REDD-plus fund][a new and additional fund]. The funds shall come from contributions from [developed country Parties], [market-linked revenues], [innovative funding sources including auctioning of national emissions trading allowances or of assigned amount units at international level, and penalties or fines for non-compliance of developed country Parties with their emission reduction and financial resources commitments]. These funds shall be [new and additional to ODA], [complementary to GEF, and bilateral and multilateral funding].”
Alternatively “A window of the relevant financial mechanism established under the Convention through [an International Climate Fund][a special climate change fund][a mitigation fund].”
Of course the money must come from somewhere – from our pockets.
Obama is saying we must have an agreement, Brown is saying we must, our PM is saying so as is Kevin Rudd, the European Nations are saying so – why do you think it is ridiculous that is will happen?
PS Gene Nemetz you are discussing Glen Beck’s and Tor Hansonn’s political views, which I think are not relevant here to the issues raised in this topic.
Richard:
In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. isn’t even paid up on its regular membership dues in the UN. It hasn’t paid for years. We currently owe the U.N $1.3 billion, with no immediate plans of paying.
To imagine that Congress would approve a 2% tax (on what? the U.S. GNP?) that would be placed under UN control is not even remotely possible. It would be voted down in a heartbeat.
I am quite surprised that people here don’t realize that the United Nations enacts such flowery rhetoric all the time, and then absolutely nothing happens.
Richard (11:18:47) :
My point in this exchange was defend Lord Monckton and why he was on Glenn Beck’s show. You probably read the last few comments I posted and not all of them.
I couldn’t care less about Glenn Beck’s and Tor’s politics. I do care that people see who everyone is and their motivation for talking about Monckton the way they are.
I clearly see that ~dbstealey asked this exchange end. It has for me. I only posted this comment to clarify why I had been posting my comments. It appears the original intent was lost somewhere along the way.
—————————————
~dbstealey.
I won’t be back to this thread. I don’t want to be a dork and ignore the requests of moderators.
After following this debate since Al Gore’s failed BTU tax, CO2 Cap and Tax has never been about science. It has always been about forced transfer of wealth. A new tax system that we don’t need.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/MethaneMike/comment.html?entrynum=11
Without a discussion of electrics this isn’t a skeptical position but rather an opposing one to Al Gore. Indeed calls out Al Gore and appears on a political show. Opposition to an idea, especially one that is bad, is not science, and that fundimentally is the problem with the fascists right now like Beck.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/when_i_say_green_you_say_money/
…
Australian scientist, author and climate change activist Tim Flannery came to Ottawa recently to promote his latest book, Now or Never and to press the Canadian government to sign on to Copenhagen. Now I must say that compared to many Canadian green activists, Flannery seems highly reasonable and a nice chap; he even has a sense of humour, a quality that seems to have leeched out of our own green movement some time in the ‘90s.
When I asked Flannery about the notion reported in such climate change boosting newspapers as Britain’s left-wing Guardian, that the deal would mean a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, Flannery didn’t flinch. In fact he called this essential to the deal.
“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case,” said Flannery. “The negotiations now ongoing towards the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.”
…
As a Canadian, who is a naturalised Ozzie, “we” Ozzies, almost unanimously, think the Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, is a joke. He must be as surprised as the rest of us that every morning he gets up and still has a TV forum to spout tripe.