Wednesday, March 7, 2012

143 Lord Monckton: Climate Change Treaty = End Of U.S. Sovereignty, and World Government

(1) More from Niki Raapana on my "Communist" ideas
(2) Reply to Niki on Communitarian "National Bolshevism" - Peter M.
(3) Obama Will Sign Hate Crimes Bill Wednesday - by Ted Pike
(4) Lord Monckton: Climate Change Treaty = End Of U.S. Sovereignty, and World Government
(5) Monckton’s litany
(6) Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

(1) More from Niki Raapana on my "Communist" ideas

From: Niki Raapana <> Date: 27.10.2009 08:21 PM

Hi Peter, I took the night to answer your reponse in notepad as best I could. Thanks for opening the topic up for discussion. It really is time. Niki

(4) Reply to Niki on my "Communist" ideas - Peter M., October 27, 2009

{Peter I'm borrowing your way of using brackets for my responses to your response}

When I first read through your Anti-Communitarian-League (ACL) material some years ago, I was aware of the difference between your ideas and mine, but I, too, did not want to challenge you over it.

{I always figured you'd start seeing what communitarianism was and that your contribution to exposing it would be invaluable. I still think that. I guess I got tired of waiting..}

I'm glad to see you distance yourself from the Libertarians. What can I call your position? Anarchist? I don't mean in a derogatory sense; Anarchism had respected intellectual credentials - Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin.

{No I am not an anarchist either. My position is based on the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the state constitutions that established the purpose of government in these exact terms: "ARTICLE I, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." So Peter, I simply support the legitimate rule of law where I live. My political beliefs or disbeliefs have nothing to do with my respect, honor and agreement to abide by the laws under which I was raised. My position is anti communitarian, which means I fight the illegal, covert introduction of communitarian laws, programs and policies in my country. My enemies are the people who seek to over rule US Supreme Law without following proper constitutional and lawful means. Communitarian Law is EU Supreme Law. This is the model for the emerging Asia Pacific "community" too.  I'm sure you must have heard about EU integration requirements by now, but here's a good introduction to communitarian supremacy guidlines if somehow you missed this major international communitarian coup.: Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court,3367,3368,3371}

For readers who don't know you, let me tell them about you. You are the "Alaskan tent lady" (look that up in Google) . You live in the wilderness in Alaska, in a Yurt you made yourself. You're a Home Birth nut like me. You've had two kids by Home Birth (I understand), and (as a lay midwife) helped your daughter Nordica to give birth that way too.

{I live in rural Alaska, the UN controls all the 13 million acres of wilderness out my back door. I am restricted to using it only as a tourist and may do business in it by permit only.  Local communitarans are busy teaching us all how to become better stewards of mother earth and what our new role is as citizens living in a designated wilderness corridor (see Y2Y). Both my own children were born in hospitals but I am a great advocate of individual's birth choices and supported my daughter's decision to have hers at home.}

You're single now, and don't seem to believe in marriage.

{This is kind of funny and I have no idea how you arrived at this. Must have been something I said. But no,  I don't actually have beliefs or lack beliefs in the way that you expect me to.. I believe I need to deal with everything and everyone I encounter and approach on an individual basis. I say I'm "off the market" because I am not for sale or rent. }

Like the Communists, I place the Common Good first. But let me try to clarify my differences with them.

Suppose you have kids who play soccer. Would you send them onto the playing-field without a Referee? There would be mayhem - the big kids would run over the little ones. Injuries, blood, a brawl.

So I believe in the Strong State. Strong, but not Totalitarian. Authoritarian, yes, but bestowing new freedoms too.

{My freedom came from my Creator the moment I was born. No state can bestow anything on me or my children, and no state can take my freedom away; that is not part of my contract with them. This is not to say the state here isn't as anxious to be my Big Mother as any other authoritarian state. Let me cite my thesis from Part 4 in response to your belief: "National governments are supposed to protect the common man from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. They insure their workers against imperial slavery by protecting markets. But if you use Hegel's twisted logic, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become a slave trader, just for a while. "

Although no state is perfect, we had good Governments in Australia in the 1950s & 60s. Admittedly, that system was racially based, but that was no reason to abondon the good aspects too. So I'm not just dreaming this up.

{Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't socialism created as a temporary stage of social evolution leading to the ultimate Hegelian synthesis?}

Take policy on Gambling. I believe that liberalizing the Gambling laws has been disastrous. Poker machines have ruined countless lives. We didn't have them back then. Nor were Casinos legal. There was horseracing, but that was comparatively harmless. At least horseracing got people outdoors, to the racetrack. There's nothing more depressing that walking into clubs & pubs where people are feeding those machines. It's so mindless, and devoid of social interaction - unlike, for example, playing poker around a table.

But the Casinos and other forms of Gambling are Big Business. They cannot be brought to heel, except by a Strong Government. If I were running the country, I would give pubs, clubs etc one month to destroy all their poker machines. After that, a fine of $1000 a day per poker machine on the premises.

I'd stop the media from corrupting the minds of our young people by imposing fines in the form of shares (ie ownership of the company). Each serious breach would attract a penalty of 1/10th of a % of the capital of the company (meaning that existing shareholders would have their holdings reduced by the same amount). After 1000 breaches, the company would be state-owned.

In doing so, I would be freeing the families and the young people from destructive influences.

{In otherwords, what you believe would become law? Would there be any restraints on you if you were running the country?}

We would get rid of Free Trade, and restore Tariffs instead. The Free Traders blame Tariffs for causing the Great Depression, but they never mention that we had Tariffs all through the boom years of the 1950s & 60s - without a Depression. Contrary to their mantras, it's Laissez-Faire which causes Depressions.

{The Thirty Year Tariff War that began in the 1830s is the least understood of all the American events leading up to the War of Secession. The original American System of Political Economy is not even taught to American students anymore, that's how much control Communitarians have over public education here. The very idea of a protected local economy is sacrireligious in a world held captive by the collective  communitarian consciousness.}

Companies would not be allowed to drastically Downsize or Offshore their workforces, unless there was already full employment. This is because the economy belongs to everyone, not just those who "own" it. Economic statistics would be calculated the old way, not as at present where unemployment is hidden.

Call me a "Communist" or "Communitarian" if you wish. But I don't do so - I call myself "Socialist".

{I can see you are still very confused by this whole dialectical evolutionary process. Socialism and communism are as outdated as capitalism and nation states now, the world changed quite a bit since you learned your theory. Marixism merged with British free trade capitalism into a theosophical political and legal system called communitarianism. Here's a couple quotes that may help you: "In a passage that is notable for its vagueness, Azevedo says that the CEBs should be the basis for a new communitarianism that rejects the two "bankrupt" models and systems "that are now polarizing the world," capitalism and Marxist socialism. This communitarianism is to be "a dialectical synthesis, a new creation, superimposing itself on thesis and antithesis rather than retrieving them." The passage illustrates the controversy in Latin American Catholicism between those who continue to endorse the "third-position-ism" (tercerismo) of Catholic social teaching and those (including all liberation theologians that I know of) who believe that only socialism can be in accord with Christian values." Theology Today-Basic Ecclesial Communities in Brazil: The Challenge of a New Way of Being Church By Marcello deC. Azevedo, S.J.Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1987. 304 Pp., and this: "Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century" (47). From MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM. . What these two quotes don't explain is how many other political and religious theories are included in the communitarian philosophy of justice.}

About 1991, I attended a media weekend in Canberra run by a Green group, the Australian Conservation Foundation. I happened to mention to Phillip Toyne (head of the ACF) that in the days when I lived in the Tasmanian bush I'd eaten a snake (two actually).

{Snakes are one reason I live in Alaska, there aren't any.}

"Were you with Aboriginal people?" he asked.

{Who started calling your locals that? Henry Lewis Morgan put the American Indians in "Middle Barbarism."  Now of course the communitarians use the Natives to introduce all the new laws that give them more rights than their non Native countrymen. It's so bad up here there have been serious suggestions that white men should not be allowed to hunt or fish without an Indian guide who can show them how to homor the earth and it's bounty. I asked an Ahtna friend if I could still go fishing alone if I was black or Asian... she said they never even considered it. I want to honor my ancestors too, those Prussians and Norwegians who farmed and fished and hunted and soldiered and made cute huts and lots of babies... both my parents came from families where their parents had 12 siblings each.. now my family of five siblings has dwindled to one or two children each. We'll disappear within a few generations.}

"No", I replied. But he meant that it was illegal for a white person to do it. I might have mentioned that I've eaten a couple of possums too (these are quite different from the American O'possums). And a Tiger Cat (quoll) and even a Feral Cat - I caught them in rabbit traps.

All illegal now. But who's made them illegal? Greens and Marxists - that's who.

{A more accurate description would be the Communitarians - that's who.}

It used to be legal to travel in the back of a ute (pickup). Now it's illegal - except for Aborigines.

{Communitarian civil society could easily be defined as "Life by permit only."}

I've also built rural buildings, and done rural plumbing, without Government "approval". So in many respects my values are like yours.

{This is why I like you so much!! I'd enjoy being a neighbor of yours, I'm positive of that.}

Back in the 1950s & 60s, we had strong central governments to control the Barons, but we didn't interfere in the minutiae of people's private lives the way we do now.

{That's because communitarianism also includes fascism, corporatism, totalitarianism, dictatorships, eugenics, mysticism, alchemy, theosophy, elitism and Pagan/Talmudic/ Morman/Catholic/Puritan/Islamic/Protestant/Satanic control over homelife. The Greens control the land and resources but the churches control the neighborhoods (aka Faith Based), and the citizen's leadership roles and regulations are based on what worked in Communist Chinese neighborhood collectives. Etzioni recently told cartoonist/writer Chris Katko during a phone interview that communitarianism is bascially like life on an Israeli kibbutz. Community Policing, a global to local enforcment agency, was Etzioni's idea. So was Americorps and Citizen Service.}

Many local Councils in rural areas used to allow owner-builders to build unapproved houses. Now, that's suppressed with the uniform (federal) "Building Code of Australia". Brought in my Bob Hawke, the same Prime Minister who Deregulated and Privatized the economy. We lost out at both ends of the stick.

Yet, although "Standards" are supposedly rising, buildings are weaker than ever before. Hardwood (eucalypt) has been replaced by Pine; the cross-sections of the studs which hold houses up has been reduced. Owner-builders of the old kind never built such weak houses.

{Doublespeak applies to more than just the language, doesn't it? You cannot Rebuild Communities if the communities aren't falling apart at the seams.}

Similarly, refrigerators and washing machines don't last as they used to. Even servicemen tell me so.

{Communitarian regulatory power weakens every part of society, for the common good, of course.}

As a result of our discussion, I have scanned in the writings of Ivan Illich.

{I'll study this, is one of the authors the same John McNight who mentored Obama?}

(2) Reply to Niki on Communitarian "National Bolshevism" - Peter M., October 28, 2009


Some of those you quote, proposing a third way, refer approvingly to "NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM". You give a quote about Jean Thiriart which you source as follows: "From MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM."

I could not find the webpage, or Could you check it and provide the correct link?

Anyway, National Bolshevism is scorned by genuine Communists.

If I am any sort of Communist, as you allege, I'm a "National" one.

However, the people who are roping us all up with rules are not "National Communists" but "INTERNational Communists". They have no time for people like me.

Tony Blair is quoted as an exemplar of the "Third Way" path. Let's suppose this refers to a synthesis between Capitalism and Communism, in which case it combines the WORST features of each (Laissez-Faire from Capitalism, and Hate Laws ie Totalitarianism from Communism).

If we are to have a synthesis between the two, why not, instead, combine the BEST part of each: Free Speech from Capitalism with Full Employment (a managed economy) from Communism. East European Communism had some private ownership - a mixed economy to a degree - unlike the USSR. Australia of the 1950s & 60s was a much better example of a mixed economy.

I spelled out my policies, and you poked fun at them, but you haven't provided any of your own policies. Isn't that a little unfair? Quoting the US Constitution doesn't tell your policies on, say, Gambling, and Trade Policy, and Family policy.

What ARE your policies on those and other matters? You can't just say, "I'd leave that to Congress" - you've got to say where you stand - how you'd run things if you were in a position of power. It's time to Come Out.

You seem to be adopting American Exceptionalism as your philosophy.

Like many Americans, you seem to be looking back to the mid-1800s as an ideal time, when settlers were pushing west, acquiring small farms, and living a self-sufficient lifestyle independent of Government - except for the US Cavalry when needed to fend off the Indians.

I know it well. It's what the Cowboys & Indians films I watched as a child were all about.

The other side of it is expressed in John Gast's painting "American Progress" (1872).

America has left the cities of the east behind, and the wide mississippi, and still her course is westward. In her right hand she carries a school book-- testimonial of the national enlightenment, while with her left she trails the slender wires of the telegraph that will bind the nation. Fleeing her approach are indians, buffalo, wild horses, bears, and other game ... ==

We don't make those  Cowboys & Indians movies now - because of the 60's/70s movement. We're now able to see things from the viewpoint of the Indians.

Equally shocking is the sight of the Native Animals (bison, bears) fleeing before the invading Whites. I suppose that's why we have National Parks now.

The story in that painting is one of Race Nationalism. It applied to Australia and the British Empire too.

It was also a story of Christian Identity. And it depicts Genocidal intent.

There WERE good things in those days. But we have to acknowledge the other side too.

Where does the Common Good fit into your picture?

(3) Obama Will Sign Hate Crimes Bill Wednesday - by Ted Pike
From: The Patriot Dames <>  Date: 28.10.2009 08:53 AM

Bye, Bye Miss American Pie.........

From: Ted Pike []


By Rev. Ted Pike

27 Oct 09

After 11 years and five defeats, the Anti-Defamation League's federal hate crimes bill will be signed into law by President Obama.   A representative of the Senate Armed Services Committee told me this morning that the White House has communicated its intention to pass the defense/hate bill.  Homosexual and civil rights leaders are now being invited to witness the signing at 4:45 p.m. EST, followed by a reception to commemorate the occasion.

Despite heavy email protest to this moment, the President has been forced by Congress to go back on his promise to veto an excessive national defense authorization act, with hate bill attached.  It is now clear Congress would simply have overridden his veto.  With scores of Republicans supporting the defense/hate bill, the necessary two-thirds majority required for override could be easily marshaled.

America is now following hate law countries such as Canada, England, and Australia in erecting a bias-oriented justice system existing parallel to traditional law.  The government will now become especially attuned to the question of whether bias has motivated a crime on the state level.  If they decide it has, the federal government will have complete jurisdiction to enter the case, forcing states to obtain the verdict the government wants.  If the state fails to do so, the government can force it to re-try the case until federal prosecutors are satisfied.  Thus, federal law enforcement will be uniting tomorrow afternoon with local law enforcement in a seamless unity of jurisdiction and power -- the definition of a police state.  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution, reserving generous rights and protections to states, especially in law enforcement, will become irretrievably shattered.

Tomorrow, the 14th Amendment will suffer the same assault.  The federal government will be empowered to discriminate against most Americans, granting initial law enforcement favoritism at least three levels higher to every form of sexual deviant (547 kinds of such deviancy are listed by the American Psychological Association).   The majority of Americans will descend three levels lower in our rights and protections in the face of the accusation, "Hate crime!" Blacks, Jews, Latinos, and Muslims will enjoy the same federal preference in hate crimes law enforcement over the majority as will homosexuals.

As indictments are handed down by the government against alleged hate criminals in the months and years ahead, these cases will be appealed.  Predominantly liberal judges will broaden this legislation, protecting minorities not only from physical hate crimes but from "verbal violence," e.g., Biblical "hate speech."

Thus, as of tomorrow at 4:45 p.m., despite ostensible safeguards of free speech within the hate law, including the Brownback amendment, the great momentum of this law will descend toward an end of free speech.

How could This Have Happened?

How could it be that legislation so destructive of our Constitution is now becoming reality?  In the broadest perspective, it began when, with the rise of the Zionist movement a century ago, evangelical Christians made the unbiblical, heretical decision that there would be no allowance of inquiry into or criticism of matters Jewish that might instill controversy.  This allowed the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in 1913 to begin a universal and systematic attempt, through media, the justice system, education, and government, to erode and tear down the pillars of Christian society and western civilization. (See, Who's Behind the 'Pedophile Protection Act?')

If a parent grants immunity from scrutiny or criticism to a child, then within a year they will have created a spoiled brat and in five years a psychopath.  It is not surprising then that, by granting anti-Christ Jews such immunity for at least a century, evangelicals have created a monster which now, through its empowerment to manufacture Orwellian legislation, is free to devour the hand that has fed it as well as the civilization which has given it protection.

Such protections provided by the Christian right have allowed ADL to not only create the whole idea of hate laws but to proliferate them uncontested to nearly 45 U.S. states during the 1990s.  To this very moment, upon the threshold of passage of ADL's federal hate crimes bill, this vilest of all political and religious organizations remains entirely unresisted and unexposed by Christian conservatism.  Over the past century, the evangelical movement has laid out a red carpet and rolled it right into the Oval Office for delivery of ADL's freedom-destroying hate crimes agenda.

Recently interviewed on a Christian talk show, I was asked by the host how evangelical leadership groups regard me.  I replied that both they and ADL are terrified by my message.   Having played a pivotal role in defeat of the hate bill four times over the past eight years, I am an obvious threat to ADL.  But I also bring with me a testimony against misguided evangelical leadership over the past century.  I bear witness that they and their fathers carry a heavy burden of guilt for having bidden Godspeed to those of whom Christ and the New Testament repeatedly warn Christians to beware: "the synagogue of Satan," "those who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie" (Rev. 2:9).   Evangelicals have coddled, flattered, and sided with those whom Paul warns are "enemies" (Rom.11:28) "who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins.  But wrath has come upon them to the utmost" (I Thess. 2:14-16).

Not only have evangelical leaders unleashed the ADL juggernaut responsible for hate laws, but they have also assisted the rise of a Judaic one-world order, beginning in Israel, which will ultimately be presided over by Antichrist in Jerusalem.   It will eventually change all times and laws and reduce to rubble all that Christ and true Christianity made possible (Dan. 7:25).

Do I regret that I have fought on, and led countless others to fight, months after all other major Christian "watchdog groups" went silent, waiting for the axe to fall?

Considering the staggering threat of this legislation, I could not live with myself or stand before God if I had not pursued every conceivable opportunity to defeat it until the bitter end.

(4) Lord Monckton: Climate Change Treaty = End Of U.S. Sovereignty, and World Government

From: andrew luttrell <>  Date: 27.10.2009 04:04 AM

Here is a link Peter ; Lord Monkton speech ;

It was not a conspiracy theory after all .

Regards Andrew Luttrell

Lord Monckton: Climate Change Treaty = End Of U.S. Sovereignty and The Beginning Of A One World Government
October 19th, 2009 | Author: Drillanwr

(H/T Peg @ Chandler’s Watch)

Glenn Beck (transcript):

Glenn Beck: Global warming, global government?

GLENN: From high above Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. We go to Christopher monk con, otherwise known as Lord Monckton. I mean, call him Christopher or do I have to call him Lord? I can’t remember what we decided last time we spoke. Lord Monckton

LORD MONCKTON: It’s very simple.

GLENN: How are you, sir?

LORD MONCKTON: I am fine. Are you on one knee and wearing white gloves and touching your forearm?

GLENN: Of course I am, my lege.

LORD MONCKTON: In that case you may carry on.

GLENN: So you are quite the hot topic on Twitter and on the Internet. If we could just find a way to control the Internet oh, I remember. Net neutrality. We’ll get to that Thursday. Anyway, you are quite the topic because of this new global climate treaty that is coming in December.


GLENN: Tell me about it.

LORD MONCKTON: This is the conference of the state’s parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, which is a hell of a mouthful, I know. But this has been in the planning for two years, ever since the same conference met in Barley. They always meet somewhere nice. This time it’s going to be Copenhagen. And at Barley it was planned. As soon as they had got George Bush out of the way, they would push through a climate treaty which would involve the vast transfer of wealth from the west to poorer countries, in the name of what is called reparations for climate debt. Now, the extraordinary thing about the draft treaty which I have now seen is that it goes far further than anything that was planned at any previous session. What they’re now going to do is to set up a world government, and the word “Government” actually appears in the treaty. But you heard it here first. The word “Election, democracy, vote, or ballot” does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty.

GLENN: All right, you are talking hold on just a second. You are talking about Paragraph 36 and 38 from what I understand.

LORD MONCKTON: That’s absolutely right. The word “Government” appears in there.

GLENN: Do you have it in front of you?

LORD MONCKTON: I don’t have it in front of me but I can remember it quite well.

GLENN: All right. Of course you can.

LORD MONCKTON: And what it says is this: There will be a new vast interlocking bureaucratic entity created at huge expense to you and me and that bureaucratic entity will have three purposes, the first of which is twice stated to be government. The second purpose is stated to be the transfer or redistribution of wealth from countries like ours to third world countries in reparation for what is described in the treaty as climate debt. In other words, we’ve been burning CO2 in huge quantities. They say that’s altering the climate. Actually we now know it isn’t, but they say it is. And therefore they say we have to pay, get this, anything up to 2% of GDP every year to poorer countries. Now, the third element in the task of this new government will be what is called enforcement. In other words, the power of the new government to make Democratic countries hand over their cash, whether they like it or not. But more than that, there will be an interlocking series of so called technical panels which will have the right directly to intervene in the economies and in the environment of individual countries over the heads of their elected governments. So what we are talking about is a fledgling world government and because it’s not elected, it’s essentially a communist world government.

GLENN: May I where are you now?

LORD MONCKTON: I am at the moment in Texas. I’m speaking at Texas A&M tonight. But I will be in D.C. or New York for the whole of the next week because I’m trying to make sure that your congress does not allow any of this to happen.

GLENN: All right. You don’t stick out at all in Texas, do you?

LORD MONCKTON: No, I fit in just fine. I’m tall, I wear snakeskin cowboy boots.

GLENN: Right.

LORD MONCKTON: And, of course, my Texan accent is famous.

GLENN: Yes. You can just say, howdy, y’all. Go ahead.

LORD MONCKTON: Howdy, y’all.

GLENN: See? You fit right in. All right. So what I’d like to do is I’d like to, I’d like to spend an hour with you, quite honestly, Lord Monckton, and have you on the TV show and maybe bring in ambassador John Bolton about this as well.

LORD MONCKTON: He would be a wonderful man. It would be an honor to take part with you and him in such a program.

GLENN: Now, does he I mean, does I mean, have you ever met before?

LORD MONCKTON: I have met him briefly, but it would be really good to have a proper chance to talk to him on this.

GLENN: All right.

LORD MONCKTON: Because he would certainly, with his vast experience, be able to put this in context far better than I could.

GLENN: Well, now here’s what now, this is the global climate treaty that we are expected to sign, right?

LORD MONCKTON: That’s right.

GLENN: And this is something that the president has made a priority, et cetera, et cetera.

LORD MONCKTON: That’s right. The danger is that now that he’s been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow and Jim Hansen at the other in front of the teeming zombies in their tens of thousands, he will sign anything. And he won’t read the small print. Nobody seems to have read the small print until I picked it up. It’s quite extraordinary that this has got as far as it has with nobody noticing that what they’re going to do is what Maurice Strong who originally, he’s a Canadian bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change 20 odd years ago, he has always wanted this to transmogrify into a world government and he is now going to get his way far faster than any of us had realized unless we can stop him. And we only have weeks to stop this.

GLENN: Well, I do know that if you look at the transnationalism and the transnationalists, you know, that the New York Times has denied, you know, that Barack Obama is surrounding himself with.


GLENN: You know, this is the direction they’re going. Now, here’s the concern.


GLENN: The concern is that President Obama would sign this and then it would be ratified by congress.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, now I’ll tell you what has to happen. Under your Constitution, I think it’s Article VI, there has to be a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to ratify it. Now, I don’t think that he’ll get a 2/3 majority in the Senate. I’m reasonably sure there are enough senators including blue dog senators who will realize that if they hand over your democracy and your Constitution and make it subject to this new treaty because that’s how your Constitution works, Article VI taken with the Vienna convention on the interpretation of international treaties means that an international treaty prevails over your Constitution. And so if he signs away your Constitution, he is signing away for the first time your democracy to an alien bureaucratic entity that you don’t elect. That’s the danger. Now, if he can’t get it through the Senate, during his election campaign he and his staff began saying that they didn’t like that part of the Constitution but meant they had to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree. And the way that he is proposing to do it and this was announced during his campaign is to get a simple majority in both houses, which he can of course get because he has a reasonable majority in both houses so that the treaty will be enacted into your domestic law. Now, that is slightly less drastic than if the Senate were to ratify it because at least in theory you can repeal a domestic law, whereas you can’t resolve from a treaty and once you sign a treaty, the only way you can get out of that officially is by getting all the other states parties to let you go. And since you’ll be the country that’s big most in the way of reparations, there’s no way they will let you go once they’ve got you into it.

GLENN: Right. And here’s also the other problem


GLENN: that we have. When you can’t get the Senate to ratify it, what they do is they get the states to join in and the cities to join in and then have it contested in court. And what they do is then the Supreme Court looks for the movement of law.


GLENN: They look and say, well, which direction is the country and the world moving.


GLENN: And if the country and the world is moving into, well, yeah, there’s several cities, several states, several countries that are moving in this direction, well, then it’s okay.

LORD MONCKTON: Aha. There is one obstacle that they are going to face this they go down that route and they know it. It’s this: That we now know for certain by measurement that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature globally is less than 1/6th of what the UN says it is. This was a paper published just last month by the gallant professor Richard Lindzen of MIT who I’m sure you’ve heard of. He’s the Alfred piece professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences.

GLENN: We’ve had him on the program before, yes.

LORD MONCKTON: He is a lovely man and he is the guy who really understands what’s happening in the atmosphere. He has done a dazzlingly simple but dazzlingly careful measurement that was taken in 20 years, he’s been accumulating the data so that he could do it. And he’s just published the result. The amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space is supposed to reduce enormously as the temperature warms down here. That’s the official theory because of all the greenhouse gases getting in the way. What is actually happening is that nearly all of it is getting out into space just as before. So the warming effect of CO2 over the whole of the next 100 years is going to be well below 2 Fahrenheit degrees, just negligible, it might even be 1 Fahrenheit degrees. And now that that is known by measurement, all of the UN’s report on which this treaty is based are out of date, and the Supreme Court’s own judgment in Massachusetts V. EPA where they said CO2 was a pollutant because it might cause warming are now also out of date. Because the facts have changed, and it’s now been a measured result. There’s no argument with it. Nobody’s dared to argue with this paper.

GLENN: How does anybody argue with the fact that when sunspot activity was at its highest, the Earth was the warmest; and when solar activity is now at literally zero


GLENN: It’s cold.

LORD MONCKTON: That’s right. You’ve had your first snow in Pennsylvania in October since records began.

GLENN: Oh, we haven’t had snow in Connecticut we had snow last week.


GLENN: We haven’t had that kind of the last time we had snow this early or this kind of weather, we had 15 feet of snow that winter.

LORD MONCKTON: That’s right. And the one thing I think we can very safely say is that that is not consistent with a story of global warming. But now that we’ve got this measured result, all the previous UN reports were based on computer models. Now, computer models are another word for guesswork. They were just guessing. And their guesses were wildly implausible. I’m actually feeling very smart because a year ago in the Journal of Physics and Society, I published a long paper which established by theoretical need that the warming for a doubling of CO2 this century would be less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. And I published that result a year before Dick Lindzen did it by measurement. But it’s Dick’s paper with his formidable authority behind it and because he’s done it by straightforward measurement of the comparison between changes in surface temperature and changes in outgoing radiation, that is the paper that will bring this scare finally to an end.

GLENN: Well, I know you are the 3rd viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but what the hell does that even mean? Who are you really? I mean, you sound honestly, a lot of people listening right now, Lord Monckton, he sounds like Dr. Bombay.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, how very kind of you. My

GLENN: (Laughing).

LORD MONCKTON: I am a hereditary peer. In other words, I did not achieve anything I achieved by merit. I had it thrust upon me, you know, as Winston Churchill used to say, some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them. I had nobility thrust upon me by having very carefully chosen the right parents.

GLENN: Right, right.

LORD MONCKTON: So it’s only a matter of luck. I therefore can’t claim any special brilliance just because I am a Lord. On the other hand, the title does fascinate people, and I’m afraid I do exploit it quite shamelessly.

GLENN: Right, but what is your background?

LORD MONCKTON: My background is as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher on scientific questions including this one. I spent four years in her office when she was prime minister of the United Kingdom at 10 Downing Street. Mine was the office if you go two floors up just above the door and two windows to the right, those are the ones where I was. She was furious one Christmas when she was taking a picture of the Christmas tree outside Downing Street and the only two windows that weren’t lit in the whole building were mine because I had gone home. But I worked there for four years and I gave her advice on all manner of policy but particularly science policy. Not because I’m a scientist. I am not. I don’t pretend to be. I am a classical architect by training. So I do have a certain amount of mathematical knowledge. I’ve made a very good fortune out of mathematics over the years.

GLENN: As the guy who did this for Margaret Thatcher, what do you think of John Holdren, our science czar?

LORD MONCKTON: Well, I’ll tell you what I think of him. He was the guy who predicted 30 years ago that there was going to be an enormous ice age and so much ice would build up on Antarctica that there would be a tidal wave of enormous proportions when the ice fell into the sea and half of humanity would be wiped out by it. Now, that was the guy who was saying that 30 years ago and saying we must therefore close down everything. And he said we must have population police to tell you and me how many children, how many little honorable Moncktons there can be. He wanted to do that, worldwide population police. That’s the kind of guy he is. And if you ask me whether I like the sound of that, the answer is no.

GLENN: Well, it’s amazing that, you know, what country that sounds like is China. And there are so many people now that are in our administration that are revolutionaries and Marxist or Maoists.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, Glenn, can I say that you have been doing your country an enormous service by exposing who these people are, how they are connected and the unpleasant organizations who do not mean the West well with whom this administration seems to have far too many close connections. And I think had it not been for you, none of us would ever have known any of this. And I do congratulate you on having picked it up.

GLENN: Well, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it and, you know, I just wish I could be knighted or something, but we don’t do that here. I think I get a Slurpee at the end of it.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, I’ll tell you one thing you get. President Obama has decided he doesn’t like Fox News on which you appear so splendidly.


LORD MONCKTON: And I dare say that you are part of that.

GLENN: Yes. I’m very well aware of that.

LORD MONCKTON: So take that as a compliment.

GLENN: All right, I tell you what, Lord Monckton, let me get together and see if I can get a time when you can be on and also Ambassador Bolton. There’s no bad blood between the two of you, right?

LORD MONCKTON: Not in the least. I should be enormously honored to appear with him, yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Then let me see if I can arrange that and then we’ll take that and get people on this right away because, you know, these people will do it if people don’t wake up.

LORD MONCKTON: They will. And if you get that on the television for an hour, that will frighten them off. I think it will be enough.

GLENN: You got it, sir. Thank you very much.


GLENN: You bet, bye bye. Lord Monckton. So Stu, see if you can line that up.

STU: Sure, absolutely.

GLENN: Thank you. Splendid, isn’t it? Doesn’t he sound like Dr. Bombay from the old Bewitched?

STU: I think he’s funny, too.

GLENN: Yeah, he is. I like him.

(5) Monckton’s litany

Christopher, Viscount Monkton of Brenchley, is a good scholar and a fine writer. This clever recital pulls no punches but you may feel like responding 'amen' (at least you might…if you were a 'dissenter')

    * Canute couldn’t stop sea level rising. Officials can’t stop it either.
    * Even if global temperature has risen, it has risen in a straight line at a natural 0.5 °C/century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum, long before we could have had any influence (Akasofu, 2008).
    * Even if warming had sped up, now temperature is 7C below most of the past 500m yrs; 5C below all 4 recent inter-glacials; and up to 3C below the Bronze Age, Roman & mediaeval optima (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
    * Even if today’s warming were unprecedented, the Sun is the probable cause. It was more active in the past 70 years than in the previous 11,400 (Usoskin et al., 2003; Hathaway et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005).
    * Even if the sun were not to blame, the UN’s climate panel has not shown that humanity is to blame. CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did in 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004).
    * Even if CO2 were to blame, no “runaway greenhouse” catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian era, when there was ~20 times today’s concentration in the air. Temperature was just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
    * Even if CO2 levels had set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years, temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
    * Even if the planet were not cooling, the rate of warming is far less than the UN imagines. It would be too small to cause harm. There may well be no new warming until 2015, if then (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
    * Even if warming were harmful, humankind’s effect is minuscule. “The observed changes may be natural” (IPCC, 2001; cf. Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
    * Even if our effect were significant, the UN’s projected human fingerprint – tropical mid-troposphere warming at thrice the surface rate – is absent (Douglass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
    * Even if the human fingerprint were present, climate models cannot predict the future of the complex, chaotic climate unless we know its initial state to an unattainable precision (Lorenz, 1963; Giorgi, 2005; IPCC, 2001).
    * Even if computer models could work, they cannot predict future rates of warming. Temperature response to atmospheric greenhouse-gas enrichment is an input to the computers, not an output from them (Akasofu, 2008).
    * Even if the UN’s imagined high “climate sensitivity” to CO2 were right, disaster would not be likely to follow. The peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe (Schulte, 2008).
    * Even if Al Gore were right that harm might occur, “the Armageddon scenario he depicts is not based on any scientific view”. Sea level may rise 1 ft to 2100, not 20 ft (Burton, J., 2007; IPCC, 2007; Moerner, 2004).
    * Even if Armageddon were likely, scientifically-unsound precautions are already starving millions as biofuels, a “crime against humanity”, pre-empt agricultural land, doubling staple cereal prices in a year. (UNFAO, 2008).
    * Even if precautions were not killing the poor, they would work no better than the “precautionary” ban on DDT, which killed 40 million children before the UN at last ended it (Dr. Arata Kochi, UN malaria program, 2006).
    * Even if precautions might work, the strategic harm done to humanity by killing the world’s poor and destroying the economic prosperity of the West would outweigh any climate benefit (Henderson, 2007; UNFAO, 2008).
    * Even if the climatic benefits of mitigation could outweigh the millions of deaths it is causing, adaptation as and if necessary would be far more cost-effective and less harmful (all economists except Stern, 2006).
    * Even if mitigation were as cost-effective as adaptation, the public sector – which emits twice as much carbon to do a given thing as the private sector – must cut its own size by half before it preaches to us (Friedman, 1993).
    * Therefore, extravagant, futile schemes by the State and its organs to mitigate imagined “global warming” will have no more effect than King Canute’s command to the tide not to come in and wet the Royal feet.
    * We must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong. There is no manmade “climate crisis”. It is a non-problem. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Address by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the Local Government Association, Bournemouth, 3 July 2008. Thanks to Dr Benny Peiser's newsletter where this was first published <>.

References: Many of the references are spelled out in full in Monkton's recent article in the letters of the American Physical Society <>.

Posted on 07/18 at 10:58 PM.

Comment (Peter M.):

But we need to stop using up the earth's resources at such an alarming rate. We must leave some for future generations - ie centuries to come.

Consumerism, the Throw-Away society - these things must stop.

(6) Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

October 27, 2009

People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.

He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.

He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.

Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.

UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.

Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.

Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”

On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”

The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century

Reply to Lord Stern (Peter M.):

The idea that all grazing lands could be turned over to tillage agriculture could only come from a City-slicker. Anyone who has roamed the Australian rangelands, and similar arid lands in other countries, knows that crops cannot be grown in such places, because there's too little rain and the soil is too hard. When rain does come, machinery would get bogged in the floods that spread out because the land is flat.

If grazing animals are removed, wildfires will increase in those zones. Tim Flannery wrote that removal of the Megafauna (giant kangaroos, Diprotodons ie giant wombats, etc) from Australia - probably by early Aboriginal hunters - led to fires as the vegetation grew unchecked.

No comments:

Post a Comment