Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here
Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words
[picapp src=”b/2/3/7/IOC_2016_Olympic_c1a5.jpg?adImageId=5771484&imageId=6683524″ width=”500″ height=”361″ /]
Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 1z0-053 online course to pass 642-812 exam plus get free link for 642-973 exam material.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Lord is slightly off on his assessment of the USA constitution. A treaty is only a treaty once ratified by the senate, I believe 2/3 for memory. A president signing a treaty is merely a statement that his administration intents to follow the treaty. From memory only, this happened to the SALT II treaty.
As to impossible to break, it would take a constitutional amendment to change. Three fourths of the states.
IMO, unless the weather stops turning colder, this treaty will be a forgotten document in 10 years.
Hi, Blondie. I’m the guy who posted the above at Fightin Words, my blog. Your comment shares the tone of a couple others I received. My thought, as I shared elsewhere, is this:
There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.
Is it me or is Lord Monckton becoming the Al Gore of our side? Our president can’t sign any treaty that will mean anything to our country without our Senates approval. I think Monckton is just riding the wave of his early success and milking it for all it’s worth.
Oops…blondieBC hit the nail before I even grabbed one. There is no way 2/3rd’s of our Senate would ever agree on any treaty on “climate change” at this time.
The limitation is this, Obama loses re-election, the next president can reverse by executive order. As to how the american public actually feels about this issue, i am unsure. I believe it is possible that the majority of americans will actually support this treaty.
If the American public supports a bad idea (i.e too small a military in the 1930’s), it is a failure of the american people, not our system or our leaders. We elect our leaders, and we are responsible for there actions.
So now we know where those quotes came from, that were picked up by the BBC and Daily Mail – it is likely to have been a press-release for Lord Monkton’s Wednesday conference.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/daily-mail-joins-bbc-in-writng-about-climate-skepticism/
Shame none of these media outlets could be bothered to name their source. But then they would not want to point too many readers towards an honest news outlet.
Here is Lord Monkton’s website:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
The biggest problem you have is educating the masses. You start explaining the real meaning of the Copenhagen Treaty to them they start calling you a conspiracy nut. This happened on the blog by a former Australian Government minister (Peter Walsh):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26215154-5015664,00.html
Quote:
>>He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
>>course he’ll sign it.
Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…
.
Walter Scott Hudson (00:35:34) :
“There is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced.”
I don’t know where you are from, but the things you speak of are strictly specified in our constitution. I know that our current president is circumstancing some executive limitations by allowing appointed agencies to create dictates (laws), but they are going to have to pass judicial review if challenged.
Lord Monckton’s analysis of the Copenhagen Treaty document and of Obama Administration’s intentions is correct. He and the Czech President Vaclav Klaus are doing a great job warning the American public about socialist fanatics inhabiting the White House and the Congress. The “Save the Planet” pretext is being used to rob and enslave the remaining free population of the Western countries.
As to exactly how the friends of Chavez and Ortega in Washington are going to drag the USA into a submission to the Socialist World Government, it remains to be seen. There is no doubt that they will try everything at their disposal, including making changes in the Constitution, to achieve their goals. They understand that this may be their last and only chance to destroy freedom.
Obama won’t sign anything. He is a do nothing governmental lefty. Heck, the White House made a big deal about the fact that he is now in a “decision making mode’ about what to do in Afghanistan. That what “progressives” do: They sit around and talk and talk, but nobody makes a decision. So no it is a big deal that Obama is in “decision” mode. I am sure that if he even makes one, it will be his first.
So don’t expect much from him as he freezes his arse off at Copenhagen. He will just probably give a cute smiling speech. And then go get laid.
It’s far worse than we thought.
Gawd, my typing is bad.
Did the Founding Fathers of the United States say that in such cases the American people have a right to oust their leadership by use of force? I think the militias and patriotic elements of the military in this case would help oust the President and call for fresh elections.
Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.
And if this is what you are all really about you’ve losy me.
I’m a conservative and as such cherish diversity of opinion and that includes people having leftwing views, they are not evil, if you all think that this is just some evil communist conspiratorial plot you are living in the fifties and sixties, the world has moved on people, if you stick to the science I’m in if you travel the political BS route I’m out as will be many people from all walks of life who come here to get a second opinion on the science debate of AGW.
I normally take heed at least of what Monckton is saying, but this does sound a little outlandish and playing to the American right gallery. However, moves in Europe such as the Lisbon Treaty do point towards the development of a super state structure becoming rapidly removed from a democratic brake, as the people of Ireland recentlyfound out.Surely, the UN is currently a form of world government but is rather unwieldy and inefficient. I cannot believe that world leaders would become turkeys voting for Christmas,indeed the opposite would seem to apply- namely that self interest will always triumph with governments attempting to appear decisive without conceding very little. Give Obama some credit!
Apologies – penultimate sentence should have read “while conceding very little”.
Politics at WUWT.
What’s up with that?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful you picked the story up. I just didn’t expect it. I’ve noticed very few political articles make its way here and those that do always seem to have science to prop it up, so to speak.
Does this mean we should expect more coverage from the political front lines leading up to Cop15 ?
If that’s the case, WUWT readers should buy lots of popcorn, because the show is about to get a whole lot more interesting!
-David Alan-
. . . duh . . . the dumb award goes to . . . . . . where WAS Obama born?????
Scary, that this administration would even consider these things.
Monckton is a political embarrassment. Stick to the science and not the rantings of a Thatcherite clown.
Figthing CO2 or in alternative global warming or climate change is a old plan with other propaganda methodes and objectives. The real plan is Morgenthau Plan and was introduced in west by the URSS american spy Harry Dexter White.
You can learn about that plan in the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, by John Dietrich.
That plan was rejected by Allys but during the Cold War was inplanted in West and the Green Party in Germany made his first paradigm and inspiration.
Today The Morgenthau Plan is the climate change fight or CO2 fight because to ensure that West will turn to agriculture society without industry the russian soviets knew CO2 is the main gas produced in the economic produtive system. And eliminating CO2 emissions is aliminating industry and weapons capacity, the main goal of URSS during the Cold War.
Please learn about that plan because is so important to understand today that kind of new communism: radical environmentalism.
anti-comuna
Sobering prediction.
And our “impartial, unbiased press” is NEVER going to critically examine the AGW issue, nor this part of Obama’s response to it.
“(q) [Adhere to] the precautionary principle [, agreed upon in Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration and Article 3.3 of Convention, in adaptation planning, decision-making and
implementation, with regard to the scale and nature of adaptation actions and to prevent
maladaptation. Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to
postpone or scale down action on adaptation];”
It not about the science.