UPDATE: Monckton is being deported from Qatar. Such a show of tolerance from the “tolerant left” who do these sorts of stunts all the time (sometimes illegally). Monckton has been ‘de-badged’, meaning he no longer has a visa to stay in Qatar and had 24 hours to leave the country.
UPDATE2: Monckton says “I was very bad” see below. We now have video. There doesn’t seem to be any “booing” after his statement as asserted by the press reports, and his statement was more than a sentence as reported.
UPDATE3: Monckton gives his account here
An excerpt from an E &E Newswire story
…
After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president’s assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.
“In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.
The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.
As Monckton was escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his U.N. credentials, several people noted that just a few hours earlier a group of young activists had been thrown out of the convention center and deported. Their crime: unfurling an unauthorized banner calling for the Qatari hosts to lead the negotiations to a strong conclusion.
By late today, several activists attending the conference had posted calls to “deport Monckton” on their Twitter feeds
…
Full story:
Inhofe, Monckton crash U.N. talks with gusto
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, December 6, 2012
http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/print/2012/12/06/2
h/t Marc Morano
=========================================================
Lord Monckton claims victory over climate change scare stories – Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthvideo/9728622/Lord-Monckton-claims-victory-over-climate-change-scare-stories.html
Excerpt:
Earlier in the week he appeared in a video promoted by US lobby group the Committee on a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) riding a camel to promote a “different perspective” of the talks.
The two-week meeting, due to end on Friday is deadlocked on modest goals such as aid and an extension of an existing UN-led plan to combat climate change into 2013.
The European Union, Australia, Ukraine, Norway, Switzerland are the main backers of Kyoto who are willing to extend legally binding cuts in emissions beyond 2012 until 2020.
But they account for less than 15 per cent of world emissions.
Russia, Japan and Canada have pulled out, saying it makes no sense to continue when big emerging nations led by China and India have no binding goals.
=======================================================
[Monckton] has been banned for life from UN climate talks.
Speaking afterwards, he said he was acting on the “spur of the moment”.
“I don’t think it was my turn to talk, but the opportunity presented itself and I took it,” he said.
“I was very bad – I pressed the button and made a short statement.”
“I know it was bad of me, but I got some brief points across which the delegates probably didn’t expect.
“They have now taken my badge, but it’s not the end of the world.”
VIDEO:
vukcevic says:
December 7, 2012 at 5:48 am
“Once long time ago the Arabs were great scientists, numbers, algebra, mathematics, astronomy etc. ……
Obviously presiding doesn’t know difference between
AlGorithm and AlGore.”
The usual decay of a totalitarian ideology. It’s amazing that it has been rotting for 1,400 years and is still somewhat alive.
john byatt says:
December 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm
If they put this one up do we just say that Hansen fiddled with the data?
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just match it with this one:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif and what Ma Nature tells us
link and explanation of the last graph
Dead On Arrival: No consensus at climate summit despite ‘scare stories’
“The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event”.
http://rt.com/news/climate-change-summit-failure-518/
I’ve read through most of the 300+ comments on this article and a recurring them is the use of CAGW to impose a global carbon tax. Questions about the relevance of climate change aside (let’s pretend that it is fictitious), is it the general consensus that our economic model is complete and there is no such thing as externalizations? Is it, as Hazlitt says “the free goods of nature” which is the basis of neoclassical economics, a correct view? Even if carbon proves not to be a pollutant, should we not put value on the ocean and forests that serve as sinks for carbon.
vasper85:
At December 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm you ask
“Even if carbon proves not to be a pollutant, should we not put value on the ocean and forests that serve as sinks for carbon.”
We do, and that is one reason why we oppose the AGW-scare which justifies the forests being burned as biofuel and the oceans being ruined by offshore bird swaters.
You claim to share our concern for the environment so I assume you will be proclaiming the message presented by Lord Monckton in Doha.
Richard
Yasper I resent the use of duplicity and fear mongering as a means of social manipulation.
As someone has already said –
It is incredible that people so concerned to prevent thermal armageddon would not welcome Monckton’s statement, based on their mates own peer reviewed data, as good news.
The only people who are praying global warming is real and continues are those who should be praying that it goes away !
Too many have staked their reputations to the “consensus science” to let it fade – even if we were buried in ice.
Gail Combs says: December 8, 2012 at 7:23 am
I overlaid the 1980 plot-line on the 2007 graph. It is interesting how 1987 seems like Hansen was going for continuous rise then realized that wouldn’t make the sales pitch for recently rising CO2 with 60 years of warming prior to the alleged great post-WWII influx of that gas.
http://i49.tinypic.com/1hdo47.jpg
Fabulous, simply fabulous. And the MSM picked it up!
Here’s a version that is more rhythmic:
There once was a fellow from “Burma,”
Who spoke the truth in a murmur;
“In the sixteen-year range,
There’s been no climate change–
The science needs to be firmer.”
richardscourtney on December 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm said
“We do, and that is one reason why we oppose the AGW-scare which justifies the forests being burned as biofuel and the oceans being ruined by offshore bird swaters.”
I would agree that the replacing the biodiversity of forests with a biofuel monocrop is incredibly shortsighted and wind turbines definitely need to be rethought. But as you said that you value forests and oceans, how would you propose putting an actual price on them short of implementing a tax of some sort? Private industry is not going to recognize value (and therefore costs) when it doesn’t have to (and bites into their bottom line). Carbon taxes are an attempt to internalize these externalities. I think this entire debate would be moot, if our economic model was designed to capture full costs. But I also think there is an interest in not having such a model as the purpose of the economy is not to account, but to allocate.
vasper85:
At December 8, 2012 at 9:49 pm you say to me
I would NOT put a price on something which is too valuable for it to be lost. I would protect it.
Similarly, the Crown Jewels have no price on them: they are locked in the Tower of London.
Carbon taxes, biofuels and wind turbines are each an attempt to rip-off the public. They are NOT anything else. And the AGW-scare is an attempt to justify them. Indeed, if your suggestion of the reason for carbon taxes were true then biofuels and wind turbines would not be subsidised by those wanting the carbon taxes.
When the facts of AGW are known then the public will not accept such a false justification for them being ripped off.
The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley conducted his act of civil disobedience in Doha to present facts which those attempting the rip-off want to suppress.
Richard
richardscourtney on December 9, 2012 at 10:17 am
You said to me:
“I would NOT put a price on something which is too valuable for it to be lost. I would protect it.”
I am glad and confused that you find forests and oceans so valuable as to not put a price on it. But I think we can agree that it would be difficult to lock up the oceans and forests to protect them (indeed I think Lord Monckton has accused the left of trying to do just that). One might also note that although there is no actually price on the Crown Jewels, there is a dear price to be paid for anyone who would take them. So the value, is imputed.
So following this line of reasoning, the cost of destroying out oceans and forests could certainly be imputed and a value derived. To leave our priceless oceans and forests without a value would only encourage corporations to exploit them in a sort of perverse capitalist “tragedy of the commons”.
vasper85,
Your example of the crown jewels is a good one. But we already have that system securely in place. When the Deepwater Horizon accident happened, they agreed to pay $20 billion to the government. When the Exxon Valdez spill happened, Exxon was assessed $5 billion in punitive damages [later reduced on appeal].
So we already have your system in place. No need for more government; the current system results in a high degree of safety. Accidents will always happen. But U.S. companies are the world’s safest. The alternative is to stop using fossil fuel products. But no one is willing to do that, not even the most rabid enviros.
‘The most rabid enviros’, you mean like Bill McKibben!
The E&E link is paywalled.
J*** in Calgary;
Doesn’t help his credibility? On what planet?
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says: December 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“Offshore bird swaters” – LOL – Love that one!
D Böehm on December 9, 2012 at 7:41 pm
You said to me:
“But we already have that system securely in place.”
Which implies that our economic model is complete and fully values and costs every transaction. Of course this is not even remotely true. For example, unpaid house work by women the world over, not imputed into GDP. It is a given in neoclassical economics that nature provides “free goods and services”, but in reality these things would have value if provided by people/companies i.e. water filtration, oxygen generation, CO2 sequestration, etc.
And it appears that judgements that lead to an imposition of cost on a previously uncovered transaction can be reduced on appeal. Has BP exhausted its appeals to reduce the 20 billion dollar fine? Indeed how was the 20 billion dollar figure arrived at? Using traditional costing, ecological economic costing, or was it just plain punitive? I would be surprised if BP pays the full amount. Union Carbide got away with a pittance for Bhopal.
vasper85 says:
“Has BP exhausted its appeals to reduce the 20 billion dollar fine? Indeed how was the 20 billion dollar figure arrived at? ”
The $20 billion was assessed by the arbitrary decree of B. Hussein Obama. There was no judicial procedure involved. Welcome to the new totalitarianism.
How did the President describe this Non-Party, To an UN-conference. Was it Indios he said ? What’s that ?
Anyway, Monckton must have nerves of steel, pulling this off, so composed & calmly. is it his classical training ?
Monckton proves the uncertainty principle. He cannt just be an Observer, without influencing the outcome. Heh, Heh.