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.
Socialist always make claims about what are “rights”. For example, education is a right, healthcare is a right, housing is a right, food is a right. Now, if obtaining these rights requires the property of someone else, then we are all nothing but slaves. What about my right to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Do you mean to tell me that I have no rights if someone else decides they can just confiscate my property to obtain their rights. Too often “wants” become “needs” that become “rights”. I want new shoes, I need new shoes, I have a right to shoes. That is not freedom. Read “The Law” by Bastiat and tell me where he is wrong. Only a communist would find fault with the logic in “The Law”. And we all know how well communism works!
If something you have a right to requires someone else’s labor, then it is not a right. The only right we have is the right to work for whatever we want or need. Your rights cannot demand effort from someone else. Rights are innate(i.e.,speech, self protection) , not something given to you by someone else.
Mr. Haney, I understand your position, and agree in part. But in an ever more competitive world, some of these “rights” are more properly viewed as prudent investment. Maintaining international position will require a healthy and well-educated populace, just for starters.
Towels, too. It’s a rough world out there. Everyone should know at all times where their towels are.
I think Monckton did a terrific job! And the show was excellent and informative all around. Contrary to what some may think, I think the simple takeaway is this…
(1)Climate treaty is bad, but our Senate will never confirm even if Obama signs it (after all, didn’t Clinton sign Kyoto?)
(2)The climate models show the opposite of what the real earth is doing. That’s all that’s needed to know about the radiation charts.
(3)No matter how much we try to cut our emissions, it won’t make much of a difference but will cost us enormously.
The whole thing about rights is that personal awareness goes along way towards the effectiveness of a ‘good’ political system.
So far, under a ‘good’ system, laws exist to restrict the aberrant actions of some citizens, whereas a much more evolved system would use the transgressions of citizens as a form of negative feedback. The system would ‘recognize’ the connection between ‘bad’ behaviour and the failings of the system itself.
This is very analogous to parent/child relationships. Unfortunately even the most basic forms of verbal abuse are overlooked by the average parent (put downs, submission etc). Eventually the child reflects the teachings of the parent. In still not recognizing this mirroring, the problem exacerbates for the parent and thus becomes a form of positive feedback.
This may appear off topic but lack of personal awareness is the key obstacle to a more libertarian society which is largely self governing and understands the causation of ‘crime’ instead of creating it.
It has always occurred to me that politics is rather idealistic and always lacks the principle of wanting to improve society. I fear that in not finding equilibrium, we are destined to swing towards the left and the right forever.
Would you describe yourself as a sceptic, Smokey?
CORRECTION: Al Gore said 6 to 7 meters in his speech. We reported that as 67 meters. We have now rectified this in the copy.
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm
So the 220ft was incorrect. What about the 10 years…
“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.
Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres,
So the 10 year time frame refers to an ice-free Arctic, this is at the pessimistic end of projections, but not impossible. I think Al Gore is aware that the Arctic is floating sea ice and so its melt has negligible impact on sea levels. The 6-7 metres refers to the complete melt of the land based ice sheets. Gore does not give a timescale for this, but it sure ain’t 10 years.
A little more scepticism needed folks, especially about third-hand media reports of speeches…
This may be of interest to your readers:
Phil Clarke, thanks for the update, I had not seen that. But given Al Gore’s typical statements, it didn’t seem surprising that he would make yet another ridiculous assumption. Even his corrected prediction of a 6 – 7 meter [a 20+ foot] rise in ten years seems outlandish. But that kind of alarmism has been extremely lucrative for Gore, so he continues to make claims like that.
Recall also that in 1993 Gore predicted that climate catastrophe would occur within ten years.
In the same article I linked above, Gore also stated that 40% of the North Pole ice cap has melted. I tend to be skeptical about that claim, too.
Tor Hansson (22:21:49) :
‘So OKE DOKE:
You believe that Barack Obama hates America?’
Barack Obama does not hate America. He hates Free Market system. Just imagine, if back in the 60’s the government controlled IBM and some snot nose kid came up with a computer control system that allowed development of personal computer, would the government allow that kid to start his own business to compete with IBM? Or a film maker, in the 70’s, make a series of movies to over throw “Big Government”?
Chris Schoneveld (06:24:14) :
Glenn Beck (I like the guy) has the good judgement to invite Monckton but his comments about the proposed reform of the healthcare system are hopelessly antiquated.
Sorta like the US Constitution? You do understand that silly little document lays out specifically what powers the Federal government has and that nothing closely related to “universal health care” is listed?
This leads to two Constitutional options:
(a) Amend the Constitution
(b) Tackle universal health care at the State level (Amendment X)
And that, my friend, is the complete basis for his position.
old construction worker
Mainly, I meant to address the possibility that Monckton would be invited to appear on Olberman or Maddow’s show. Gore has been invited to O’Reilly’s show.
as to the president’s attitude toward America, I don’t know the man or what he “hates”. He doesn’t SEEM to have the same opinion of this country that i do.
that– i DO know
@NikFromNYC
As a scientist you should know that it pays to find other sources when trying to verify data sets.
The best sets to use are UAH and RSS satellite data – you can do your own cherry picking of data and trends to reinforce any of you own beliefs here :-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Even his corrected prediction of a 6 – 7 meter [a 20+ foot] rise in ten years seems outlandish. But that kind of alarmism has been extremely lucrative for Gore, so he continues to make claims like that.
Please re-read the Maktoob article. Gore made no such predicition. You based your claim on a report on the American Thinker website, itself reporting on an account of the speech in the Business section of an Arab news site. Even so, its clear that in Gore’s words as reported, the 10 year timeframe refers to Arctic ice, which has no bearing on sea level. To my knowledge Gore has never put a timescale against the melting of the land based ice sheets, which is where the 7m sea rise originates.
Message to the forum moderator/censor.
Please be informed that I am not using your site to SELF promote but to promote the truth. I suspect that as you are so cosy with Monkton and that you keep sensoring my posts about him and his relationship with the Thatcher Government that truth is not your first concern. You may have these people fooled but I can see all your troll steering comity members as clear as day. At first you had me going there, I thought WUWT was a place to share ideas about the truth.
Well it didn’t take long to see WUWT under the light. The pupose of this site is clear. Your job is the same as Monktons and your brief it, is clear to me is to cause the questioning minds to look in the wrong direction.
The answer to this AGW fraud is simple as you well know. It is CO2. That is all we need to talk about and that is what my book is about. It is available for free it took me 12 months to write and I do not expect to see a return on the money it cost me to put it together.
I will continue with my campaign to see this AGW fraud destroyed and will be happy to inform others of you censorship.
Thank you
REPLY: Monckton’s association with Thatcher is well known to me and most everyone else. For example it was in the titles on video of his Fox News interview we posted here at WUWT. Note the video screencap above says just that, so your claim is groundless.
Rant all you wish, make threats all you want, but I’m not going to allow your posts. Your document has elements in it that I don’t wish to be associated with, plus your website offers commercial things like “how to quit smoking”, which I also don’t wish to be associated with.
http://www.spinonthat.com/
See the WUWT policy page, link under the masthead. I have the right not to post things that I don’t wish to be associated with. Simple as that. Feel free to spread your message elsewhere, but I am not obligated to do so. Please don’t post your advertisements for your booklet here again. – Anthony Watts
Given the recent thread about DARPA”s contest to as a test involving the internet’s distributed resources to find weather balloons. I thought this example of using distributed resources for another purpose (breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be reliant here. This is an effort to have lots of people dig through the document and post quick summaries of the contents by page so people can get a quick idea of where various measures are talked about and perhaps where they want to focus their attention.
http://breakitapart.ning.com/forum/topics/copenhagen-treaty-2
Larry
I need to wake up —
DARPA”s contest to as a test
should read — DARPA”s contest being used as a test
(breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be reliant here.
should read — (breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be relevant here.
Larry
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.
Income transfer also is used extensively, and has been for a long time. The Agriculture Bill transfers vast amounts of income to farmers. The Defense Appropriations Bill transfers vast amounts of money to the aerospace and defense industries. Capital gains taxations transfers vast amounts of income away from income earners and to wealthier investors.
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. For anyone who cares to look, there is plenty of socialism in our economy. It’s just not for the poor, like Marx once imagined it.
And I’m not a Marxist, not even a socialist, so please don’t start.
Tor Hansson (21:32:28) :
The whole point, at least for skeptics like me, is to de-politicize the debate.
Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate. He is a demagogue. He often lies and speaks half-truths. (Yes, he does. He said, on the air, that Mr. Obama has a hatred for white people. I guess that includes his mother, who was white.) Glenn Beck does not serve any useful purpose I can see for AGW skeptics.
I am not saying Lord Monckton should not appear on Glenn Beck. Of course he can, provided he appears on a number of other shows as well, such as Olbermann, Maddow, Face The Nation, and whatever else can be mustered. But just appearing on Glenn Beck politicizes the issue, which in my mind is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.
Tor Hansson the whole point is that this is a political issue. It has been politicised by the IPCC. It was politicised when the political bosses over-ruled the scientific consensus in 1995 to say that there was a discernable influence of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate. Then in 2001 with the hockey stick and a “likely” influence and now by saying that this is “very likely”.
I am not an American and I only judge Glen Beck or Monckton by what they have said and how they have behaved in the videos I have seen above and they make sense. Does what they say make sense to you? Or would you reject it because Beck allegedly said that Obama has a hatred for white people?
It could be that the message Monckton is trying to put across, based on logic and reason maybe rejected out of hand because it comes from a person like Beck who some might view as being on the extreme right.
PS I would like a link to where he has said what you have alleged.
Phil Clarke,
You’re making this too easy. Quoting Al Gore, in your own comment above:
Are you defending Gore’s wacked-out doomsday predictions? Do you actually believe that in 5 – 10 years the whole north polar ice cap will be ‘totally and completely gone’ — in the winter months??
Do you seriously accept Gore’s statement that 40% of the northern ice cap has already melted? And why does Gore and every other alarmist only refer to the Northern Hemisphere? Global warming is global, don’t you see? Global ice extent is not declining.
Please don’t try to masquerade here as a skeptic. The scientific method states that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the purveyors of the climate doom scenarios, like Al Gore, who have the burden of showing that their CO2=AGW conjecture explains reality better than the widely accepted theory of natural climate variability. So far, they have failed.
But go ahead and defend old Al’s predictions all you like. We’ll see if all the Northern Hemisphere ice has melted in the winter of 2014. Somehow, I doubt it.
Alarmists have never provided raw data that confirms their CO2=AGW hypothesis. They certainly would be trumpeting it to the world if they had it. Instead, they hide behind computer models — which are not data — and behind self-serving pseudo-scientists like Al Gore. But I guess you play the hand you’ve been dealt.
Peter Wilson,
There is no data for arctic ice extent in the 1930’s, but the furthest north any conventional ship has ever sailed in recorded history was reached by a Russian warship in 1938. The captain’s radio message was reported in the New York Times at that time.
Tor Hansson (21:32:28) said:
Then Hanssen immediately politicizes his comment by going right into an unscientific, personal, ad hominem attack in his next sentence:
I’ve heard Beck. I’m not a regular listener, but from what I’ve heard, if Beck were suddenly transported back 50 years in time, he would probably be to the Left of John F. Kennedy, D-Mass. So rather than Beck being “far right”, perhaps it is Tor Hansson who is simply far Left.
And as Richard asks above, I would also like to see a verifiable citation of Mr. Beck saying what Tor claims. Mr Hansson needs to produce the actual quotes, in context, backing up his allegations. Or we will know who the real demagogue is — and who, in his own words, is telling ‘lies and half truths.’
I suspect that the attacks on the Beck program are being launched because the alarmist crowd is, as always, unable to provide unassailable data-based facts to support their AGW beliefs. Monckton knows what he’s talking about, which is why the alarmist contingent runs away and hides out from formally debating him. Instead, they take pot shots at both him, and at one of the only media outlets willing to let him speak freely and argue his position.
Coldest October in New Zealand in over 25 years
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10606697
Glenn Beck is a shark. if he “smells blood” , i.e. higher ratings, with the AGW issue, it ‘ll be back, and lots of it. Then O’Reilly will seriously pick it up, but right now, he’s on the “GW” but not the AGW side. if this winter is what we think it will be, they’ll all be on the case
~snip~
And, yes, I agree with Beck that Obama hates white people. He’s not alone in this, of course – many white people also hate white people.
OKE E DOKE (08:23:09) :
‘Tor Hansson (22:21:49) :
So OKE DOKE:
You believe that Barack Obama hates America?’
I was refering to Tor Hansson’s statment and not your comment that led to Tor’s statement. ‘….Barack Obama hates America.’
‘He doesn’t SEEM to have the same opinion of this country that i do.
that– i DO know’
Nor does President Obmana have the same opinion of this country that I do. And like you, that I DO know.
For those who care:
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 enlightened the viewers on the presence of “Communist” art at NBC headquarters.
Again, he is bad company.
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.