The intolerability of tolerance
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Bonn via the SPPI blog
The UN’s international climate conference here in Bonn has decided that the wealthier nations among the 192 States Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change should make plenty of taxpayers’ money available to hold two additional weeks of pre-negotiation negotiations between now and December, when the legally-binding World Government Climate Treaty is to be signed in Cancun, Mexico.
Dr. Yvo de Boer, who will shortly retire as secretary to the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, told observers here in Bonn yesterday that the extra time was essential so that details which could otherwise wreck the negotiations could be sorted out before Cancun.
There will also be a meeting of Heads of Governments at the Peterberg Hotel, near Bonn, in June. The purpose of that meeting is to allow the UN to identify potentially recalcitrant heads of government and mount a charm offensive in their direction between June and December.
Dr. de Boer said he was not sure that a legally-binding Treaty would be agreed upon at Cancun: he thought a further year might be necessary. He said he hoped the negotiators would take the approach that had worked during the discussions that led to the Kyoto Protocol: they should keep the Treaty short and to the point, establishing general principles and allowing the details to be worked out once the Treaty was in force.
The world-government faction at the UN faces a dilemma. If the bureaucrats push the process too fast, as they did in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting last December, the train will come off the tracks. However, if they slow things down to allow the caboose to catch up with the locomotive, the passengers may start to notice that the climate is not in fact changing anything like as rapidly as the UN’s climate reports have been predicting.
There is a possibility that the UN may try to surprise everyone by persuading the Heads of Government to reach full agreement on a binding Treaty as early as the Peterberg meeting in June. The priceless advantage of this, from the world-government wannabes’ point of view, is that the Treaty could then be put before the US Senate while President Obama still has a strong majority there.
Everyone here is keenly aware that the Obama experiment has not been seen as successful in the eyes of voters in the US, and that an increase in the Republican presence in both Houses of Congress will, in practice, make acceptance of any climate Treaty – especially one that reactivates the now-ditched world-government proposals of last year’s draft – unlikely.
The US Senate has the power to ratify Treaties, and no Treaty can pass unless it receives 67 of the 100 available votes. This two-thirds majority will be difficult to achieve as things now stand: most serious observers reckon it will be impossible after the US mid-term elections this December, at the same moment as the Cancun climate conference.
For the world-government group among the UN’s bureaucrats and fellow-travelers, therefore, Cancun is too late. And, if Mr. de Boer is right that an agreement will not even be reached there, another year’s delay will make it still more obvious to voters in those countries lucky enough to have universal suffrage that the climate is not behaving as ordered.
In short, the climate train is about to tip into the gulch, and almost everyone here knows it. There are still some true-believers who have drunk too deeply of the Kool-Aid. One of these came up to the CFACT stand at the conference and conversed with me quite pleasantly until I mentioned that the science behind the IPCC’s documents is collapsing. He instantly changed his demeanor. His smile vanished, and he stumped off in a huff.
There is an interesting difference between the First and Third Worlds in the behavior of the delegates. The delegates from Western countries tend to be far less willing to question the science and economics underpinning the UN’s case for its own glorification, expansion and enrichment, and they tend to be considerably less polite than their counterparts in the Third World.
The African delegates, in particular, exhibit a charming, old-world courtliness that used to be universal in the West and is now loutishly absent. One of them, the Permanent Secretary of the Environment Department in his country, was fascinated to hear that a tiny fraction of the money wasted on the non-problem of “global warming”, if spent on addressing real problems, could help to rid Africa of starvation and disease. He had not previously thought about the opportunity cost of not spending the money thrown away on the climate in a manner that would be more likely to do real good.
CFACT’s policy of diverting some – or preferably all – of the cash now spent on the climate towards spending on real societal and environmental problems, such as deforestation or overfishing, won a number of supporters. Very few of those we have spoken to were wholly against it, and most of those gave indications that they were on the extreme Left politically. For the Left, belief in the wickedness of CO2 and of the filthy capitalists who emit it is at the very center of their credo, and anyone who disagrees with them is treated with contempt.
There have been some comic moments, though. At Dr. de Boer’s meeting with observers at the Bonn conference, two messily-dressed ladies of uncertain age, with untidy hairdos and a hectoring, bossy manner, asked why it was that “those climate skeptics” had been given the best display booth in the conference center, right next door to the entrance to the conference hall.
Mr. de Boer, far more urbane at this conference than he had been at Bali, Poznan, or Copenhagen, purred that any recognized non-government organization, whatever its views, was welcome to attend UN conferences, and neither he nor his staff had given any thought at all to the question which NGO should occupy which display stand. The two ladies quivered with displeasure at this answer. To them, tolerance was intolerable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Increase in the power to control the lives of people is the central tenet of the modern environmental movement. You hear it in the speech of the politician calling for “cleaner air” all the way down to the unwashed activist railing against development.
There is no “silly conspiracy theory” here. We have repeated examples:
For instance, take text from a leaked Obama Administration memo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/12/us-document-strategy-climate-talks
[i]Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.[/i]
There are plenty more examples; mostly they involve
UN treaties that trump the laws and protections of signatory states for their citizens.
There have always been people who desire domination, why is that such a far-fetched premise here?
Pamela Gray (19:02:48) : “Give me a level headed, educated, freedom loving, small government believing, non-”bail the babies out” opinion, defend what is ours, concealed weapons permit holder, keep religion in the bedroom where it belongs, stay out of my womb decisions, stay out of my paycheck, and promotes the idea that if you don’t like the climate, move to one you like, front runner…”
Do I sense a move to being a Libertarian? Welcome!
H.R. (19:10:23) :
” He said he hoped the negotiators would take the approach that had worked during the discussions that led to the Kyoto Protocol: they should keep the Treaty short and to the point, establishing general principles and allowing the details to be worked out once the Treaty was in force.”
Let me get this straight; everyone signs without knowing exactly what’s in there?
The US senators and representatives are experts in doing just that. I guess that makes us a world leader in such things…
I know I pointed this out about a year ago, but given Harry’s confusion it is worth doing so again.
Ian Wishart made the link between the climate change scare and the world governance agenda in his book Air Con, which I read when it launched on Amazon.
Monckton picked up on the book in June last year and obtained the rights to release a chapter free on the internet – http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/seriously-inconvenient-truth.html
It seems that Air Con sent Monckton and Willie Soon scurrying to find further evidence, and that’s when Soon dug up the draft Copenhagen Treaty containing the world government clause.
In the meantime, Wishart had used Investigate magazine to ping the UN and a low-profile, high power lobby group known as Socialist International, who have been advising the UN on steps to generate support for world government based on the UN – http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2009/07/global_governan.html
The source documents from Socialist International are on the UN site and are downloadable from the briefingroom article.
Fascinating stuff, and puts this debate in context
Get ready
Here is a morning headline;
“Britain Closes Airspace as Volcanic Ash Spreads”
The volcano in Iceland blew.
The Alarmists will find a way to blame this on AGW.
Jerome says: “The best argument against democracy? A five minute conversation with the ‘average’ voter.”
And the best argument for democracy is such condescending tripe from elitists.
I was busy transcribing Monckton from the video and by chance later on found it already virally transcribed and references being made to the vids length being 4 mins long whilst mine was over 2 mins lol!
So, there is a chunk missing. Monckton starts to say at: 02:07 → 02:10 What can you do about it?
If anyone is interested, the full transcribe I found is at: http://dotsub.com/view/b9a5b1a6-addf-4fc7-b58b-4885309ffe3e/viewTranscript/eng
Keep up the good work WUWT.
Yvo de Boer the quitter? Sign of failure or retreat?
Pauchauri was the VP of engineering for manufacturing demons and ghosts of warming.
here is the full length vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqx45LYl7PI&feature=PlayList&p=193491332D0B51EC&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=65
“Pamela Gray (19:02:48) : ”
You go girl!
Keep after it. We’ll have you voting the NRA ticket before it is over.
Regards
Steve in SC
Lord Monckton does well emphasizing the political consequences of the Climate Change scam, as there is no need of any scientific arguments since it was NEVER a scientific issue.
So, Post Normal Science for everyone?, uncertainty ethics?, random education?, relativistic laws?.
@ur momisugly graham g (00:33:48) :
Thank you to all the contributors, and especially Anthony for producing this excellent article.!
I suspect Peter of Sydney is correct. Powerful political forces seem to be using Climate Change as the ultimate fear weapon to get a world government for the peace needed to ensure that we don’t see World War 3 in the forceable future.
This was ramed home to me in the Orkney Islands, UK recently. At the end of WW2, the admiral of the German fleet scuttled all of his surrendered fleet as he had no desire for his ships to be used against Germany in the next war, which he believed was inevitable I’m reliably told.
As has been said; “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. To elaborate, violent conflict is a necessary ingredient of evolution, both biological and cultural. I’m nearing 70 years on this rock, and have zero expectation of any kind of “global” peace. Won’t happen, can’t happen, because if it ever does it will spell stagnation, and stagnation is one step before the grave.
Dear Mr. Monckton –
U.S. elections are in November – not December.
That’s like taking the Bank Holiday in September.
@ur momisugly Alberta Slim (05:26:19) :
Apparently we read the same literature. To sum up: “Real power is never given freely; it is always taken”. The only question is in regard to the means.
Curiousgeorge:
As has been said; “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. To elaborate, violent conflict is a necessary ingredient of evolution, both biological and cultural. I’m nearing 70 years on this rock, and have zero expectation of any kind of “global” peace. Won’t happen, can’t happen, because if it ever does it will spell stagnation, and stagnation is one step before the grave.
Amen to that, george. I don’t lust for the days when I will become a member of a Whole World Ant Colony. My apologies to the Ants, of course, who would do it much better than the CO2CAGW Communists.
Well I say, let’s Have More Climate Conferences.
I vote for the UN holding even more of these Climate Crisis Conference thingies , just for the pleasure of reading Christopher Monckton’s informative, entertaining and insightful accounts of them.
In fact the more of them they have the more they become a parody of themselves, as Lord Monckton so delights in showing us.
“the legally-binding World Government Climate Treaty”—aren’t they jumping the gun just a bit? I didn’t know the NWO had been declared yet.
Alberta Slim
Some of those quotes I am familiar with. Can I assume they are all accurate?
If so, they really need the widest possible audience.
I have been trying to persuade my excitable 23yr old son that conspiracy theories are for weirdos.
Maybe I’m wrong and Lord Monckton and Willie Soon are on the right track.
Alberta Slim (05:26:19) :
Harry Lu (20:31:16) :
……”Why would the IPCC want to form a world government?”………
Read this please—–These are published quotes.
How many time I see this misquote of Club of Rome. Unbelievable.
the mis-quote:
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
—————————
The real quote:
http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
———————–
Different Huh!?
\harry
ps. So the new world order is to be leaded by the UN. But who is the UN. Isn’t it made up with people from all member states? So who will be the NWO dictator?
robertsgt40 (13:45:17) :
You say:-
” “the legally-binding World Government Climate Treaty”—aren’t they jumping the gun just a bit? I didn’t know the NWO had been declared yet.”
It won’t be declared, it’ll just happen, under the guise of something else , Like Climate Change, before you know it.
Dr T G Watkins (14:17:03) :
You say:-
“Alberta Slim
Some of those quotes I am familiar with. Can I assume they are all accurate?
If so, they really need the widest possible audience.
I have been trying to persuade my excitable 23yr old son that conspiracy theories are for weirdos.
Maybe I’m wrong and Lord Monckton and Willie Soon are on the right track.
”
Not all conspiracies are theories. The best ones don’t look like conspiracies at all .
“JER0ME (05:20:14) : ”
Gordon Brown may have been elected as an MP in his local constituencies however, he was never the leader of the Labour party going into an election until the up and coming election on May 6th 2010, thanks to Tony “I’m getting out while the going is good” Bliar. Parties, typically, chose their leader, if not already installed, heading into an election and it is that person who, typically, becomes, or remains, PM. I have not witnessed any election (In the UK at least) where a party leader is replaced by another party member to become PM (Not withstanding resignations, death, loss of confidence, hung parliaments etc etc) on wining an election.
He now wants to change the way the system works in favour of more/better representation rather than “first past the post”. Let’s hope he does not implement a system used in Germany, or the system used in New Zealand (Based on a “fiddled” copy of the German system) allowing many “MP’s” to enter Parliament on the coattails of elected representitives (MP’s).
But this is democracy, right?
We have our own problems in the U.S. of A. [from Maggie’s Farm]:
Pamela Gray (19:02:48) :
Pamela! I want to bear your children!