Climate Change

Climate Change: An [non-]issue to bring about the beginning of World Government?

Environmentalists listened closely in the plush surrounds of Melbourne’s Park Hyatt Hotel to a speech by Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton, who dismissed as ‘bogus’ fears of global warming.

‘‘Those who have been fostering what is essentially a baseless scientific scam have being trying to make the obvious sound absurd and the absurd sound obvious, and we are now going to turn the tables on them,’’ Lord Monckton said. … -i7ks.html

With a rapid-fire computer slide-show as counterpoint to the famed warnings by former US vice-president Al Gore, Lord Monckton set out to an Institute of Public Affairs conference what he called a litany of lies by the United Nations on climate change. Most egregiously, Lord Monckton said, UN reports on climate change ignored evidence of global temperatures that were higher during medieval times than now.

He also rejected often-cited claims that 2500 scientific papers have backed the case for climate change, as well as the analysis of data that showed the problem was worsening.

‘‘I’m calling these lies because that is what they are; they are deliberate attempts to mislead,’’ he said.

Mr Rudd last week repeatedly called Lord Monckton, an adviser to former British Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher, a ‘‘world government conspiracy theorist’’, warning that unfounded and sceptical claims were hampering climate change negotiations.

‘‘When Monckton speaks, prime ministers tremble,’’ the British peer quipped yesterday during a video link-up from London.

Lord Monckton warned that the treaty proposed for climate talks in Copenhagen next month would create a new tyranny in world affairs.

‘‘What I think will happen at Copenhagen is they won’t agree on how much emissions for each country,’’ he said.

''The bureaucrats will then sidle forward with their silky voices and their shiny shoes and their shiny pants, and they will say, 'Well, Prime Minister, you’ve come all this way, you need to go back with something. Why don’t we all agree just to carry forward the institutional framework.

‘‘And thus, by stealth - by bureaucratic coup d’etat - a world dictatorship, long the aim of those who set up the UN’s climate panel, will have come into being.’’

Whilst there aren’t relatively many mainstream news articles out about this guy, look him up. Youtube, Google, etc. Apparently, the Copenhagen Climate Change treaty will include, in his words:

An excellent speech by Lord Monckton at St Paul can be viewed here:

I do hope each of you find the time to view the said speech.

Kind regards,

What they don’t quote in those links, is something he and others have been doing their best to point out: A treaty takes precedence over our Constitution as stipulated in the Constitution itself. So, in effect, this will subjugate our Constitution to the UN, and once signed, there’s nothing we can do about it. We won’t be able to back from what we’ve handed over, because we’d have to have the consent of the other signatories–and why would they stop funneling our wealth over to them.

Well, maybe after they’d bled us dry, they’d release us. The real irony, the real stupidity, is that it would be our own fault, our own stupidity, our own ignorance and sloth that brought us down. And why would Obama sign it and give himself such a demotion? No doubt he has his eye on his coronation as the UN Secretary-General/Emperor-for-Life.

I disagree you backed out of the UNCAT quite effectively. You always seem to have managed it before. As America is so fond of saying anyway, isn’t the UN just a paper tiger? Why start paying attention to it now? What’s the worst that can happen? Security Council resolutions are the only legally enforcible resolutions, and you have veto power, so you can just ignore them, as could Russia and China if it so wished and the UK.

I’d like to know why we should take Lord Monckton seriously: is he a climatologist? If not which experts have given him his information and can we have a source so that we can at least dispute it on the issue of does AGW exist, does he know something we don’t? If you’re going to wax lyrical on scientific issues, opinion is less than worthless it’s a liability. He should I think be involved in debate rather than rhetoric. If AGW is bollocks he should be more open to rebuttal. AGW is not and has never been settled science, this most people agree with, there hasn’t been enough time to be sure of anything. I think even if AGW does turn out in 100 years to be nonsense, then the means to decrease it will still in the long run provide a better method of going forward than ignoring it and hopping you are right about it being nonsense before the facts are all in.

I’ve only watched a small part of that lecture so I can’t comment on it all but I certainly agree that making poor countries richer is the way to go and trying to make everyone rich is unrealistic. That’s a non issue.

I will say this though I don’t trust Al Gore for the same reason I don’t trust Monckton, this is not an easily dumbed down medium and exaggeration or focusing on non expert testimony serves no one. If you want to know where things are look into the whole story not the biased and propagandist great lie or inconvenient truth documentaries. Look into both the deniers and the accepters with several years research experience.

W.C., a quick google search revealed that he advised Thatcher, has a long history of ridiculous conservative think-tanks, preposterous political battles and views, and several favorable encounters with Glenn Beck.

My favorite was his view on AIDS. He thinks everyone should be blood-tested regularly, and those found to have AIDS should be quarantined for life.

Given the fact that he is not a scientist, and we are to take his word for it, this is all an abysmal failure.

You say torture, when all we were doing was playing boogy man.

The Constitutional issue still abides.

Oh, I could care less if a hobo said it – it’s whats being said that’s important, and any attacks on character are useless. Whilst I implore you to watch the whole video, the short version is this:

Like you have mentioned in your post, Monckton too, eventually begins by stating to not believe him or Gore or anyone, but to listen to what he presents and research the facts for yourself.

He then goes on and points out a number of massive exaggerations in Gores ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and AGW Science in general, like the amount the water level would rise over the next however many years, should the Science Gore presents be correct (approx 1 inch or 1ft [can’t recall] as opposed to 20ft). He humourously points out that Gore knows this too, and is why he recently purchased an apartment near the beach, wherever in the states.

He points out tactics Gore and the UN used to exaggerate their statements, providing their own data from past years with their newer presentation, where one notable difference was the removal of the temprature rise in medieval period from graphs and charts, which in turn exaggerates current changes in temprature. He points out quite a few instances where deliberately misleading charts and graphs are being presented.

The biggest fault in AGW Science that Monckton draws our attention to, is that rather than less radiation being reflected back into space as temprature rises (which is the basis of much of the result data and projections from AGW Science), the radiation reflected by the Earth back into space actually increases with any temprature rise. To which he provides his source, which is based on results from a satelite which measures the radiation being reflected from the Earth, against the temprature on Earth.

He presented some of these facts to a judge to stop the Inconveniant Truth from being shown in schools until each of the errors and misrepresentations in the film were fixed, to which the judge ruled ‘quite right’.

The video has a number of interesting facts and points which in themselves deserve to be listed here, but I haven’t the time honestly. The point is pretty much, there is no issue – and it’s being pedaled as an issue.

If naïve I would ask, why the lies and exaggerations? But the world is just not so peachy.

The problem with this all is, we’re getting carbon tax for what appears to be a non issue, and we’re going to get taxed more for it, which could result in a greater economic disaster than we’re currently in. We’re going to have to pay reparations to the third world and taxes for something that is not an issue; we’re going to pay money for a non issue, to set up and fund a government for this non issue, etc etc.

With the Copenhagen treaty, we’re potentially getting the beginnings of a world government under the guise of climate change, which can impose their will upon our governments and apparently, have the power to enforce it.

Here is the video with slides:

As a side note, he himself says not to take his word for it, but to research it for yourself. Meanwhile, his view on aids was at it’s onset, and he himself said such ideas would be rediculous now it’s spread so far. But what of his views of malaria?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. All you were doing was torturing people, let’s be honest here for once. We were complicit in it as well, but I don’t see the need to be an apologist for my nation when it behaves badly and reneges on treaties.

Just wait until another president with no integrity gets in and you can ignore any agreements the great God Barobama agrees to. Simple. Why worry.

I’ve listen to half the movie and the entire thing is “he lies, I’m right”. Character is all we have to go on. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but it does mean that him weighing in on the subject, to any reasonable skeptic, is irrelevant.

No, that doesn’t work. The bulk of information out there that is readily available supports anthropogenic climate change.

Interestingly, this being the internet, it is very difficult to find exactly where the science is coming from. I finally tracked down one of the sun spot papers. It was Usoskin 2005. Are you familiar with it? Here is the last paragraph of the conclusion:

Look!.. what they want is to do as much damage to the ENTIRE system as possible… .Google HAARP projects … Chem trails etc… and you begin to find out that they want to cause CLIMATE CHANGE… and in a HURRY at that…the quicker the better in aiding to eliminate a high percentage of the population… so that they can get on with the FINAL PLAN in implementing the NWO New World Order.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

[i]Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.[/i]

[i]Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.[/i]

[i]Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.[/i]

[i]Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.[/i]

[i]Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….[/i]

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

[i] “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”[/i]

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Why the lies and manipulation? Why the squeezing of any dissent? Is this science?

Is this what we are about to hand over our dollars for?

P.S. Thanks siatd.

A world government that both right wing nut-jobs and scientific illiterates hate, sign me up!!!
Just give me my uniform,rifle, and list of targets, I’m ready to go!!!

Thank you OP, this is the best news I have heard in ages!!!
Come on boys, we got a job to do and no time to waste.

Please send me the address of the Montreal recruiting center, I want in!!!

The information has been out there for a long time. There was never any conclusive evidence for AGW. Or any aberrant global warming at all.

I have been called an idiot and worse on these boards for saying so.

These hackers should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

(At least they actually did something.)

Assuming any of that is real and its not just a hoax. Could be stranger things have happened. That said I’ll let the scientists prove it doesn’t exist before I pass judgement, until then its BAU. The more time they spend the better the data will be, the closer the projections will get and the nail if it comes will be biting.

It’s funny, the offical consent within the scientific community of however many appears to be, ‘that humans have an effect on climate change’. It was this then, that was taken to such as extremes as it has been.

Cows have an effect on climate change for Christs sakes, this consent means nothing.

Meanwhile, check this: … _embedded#

30,000 Scientists sue Al Gore for AGW Fraud

Yeah, but if you look at the data, you will see just how little data there are to support that.

In the US at least, a great many academic research jobs (at the professorial level, as well as their attendant grad students) are dependent upon government grant money. Sometimes entire departments depend upon government money for their existence. Tax incentives and government startup money for businesses large and small are in play. The marketing of products such as energy-saving appliances and light bulbs is affected (again, with consumer tax incentives being only a part of that).

Global Warming is a huge business.

With billions at stake, the incentives to twist the truth a bit is too strong to deny.

Have you ever met any climatologists?

Are you assuming that you can’t get funding for debunking AGW? Because you can. Would the deniers be more respectable if they financed or even could finance themselves anyway, everyone is biased, but we have to have a consensus and if we are good scientists we have to overturn it. When the AGW deniers were pre-eminent back in the 70s and the IPCC stated global warming did not exist to any degree did you dispute their claims or did you have a reason not to, financial was it, is it less expensive to do nothing about something that doesn’t exist? When the consensus was overturned did you immediately think the scientists who weren’t getting money thrown at them were dubious?

In this case is the doing something, at the very least a cost cutting exercise at least in the long term? What’s the best way here to proceed, cautiously or simply refuse to believe the consensus because businesses can’t afford to clean themselves up, to run more efficiently or to pay people money to do so.

Even British oil companies are going green. If they can be turned to the dark side surely there is hope for the rest of us.

I am not assuming that at all. But, in fairness, I didn’t state that, so you make a valuable point. The game is the same for everyone. Right now, the government is on the side of AGW. But to be sure, corporations sponsor academic research as well. And I don’t mean to sound too cynical, as if neither side of this has any intellectual integrity. In many cases, the researchers are sincere. But the entities funding the research have their own axe to grind - which also doesn’t imply insincerity. It’s just the way things work. It’s not so much about the integrity of the researchers as it is about what gets funded, and about what research governments are interested in. It’s politics.

And it’s also business. If there are marketing opportunities, businesses will take them, if they are smart. I am beyond good and evil on this. I’m just following the money.

Not always a bad policy, invest in energy tech or global solutions companies, they are the new internet companies. Well invest when we are not in a recession anyway and pull out before they crash. :slight_smile:

Oh and invest in Gold as well, its bloody gone crazy for some reason, have the mines all closed down?

currencies backed by the faith of the government are SHIT especially when the current government spends more money than the money is worth… gold isn’t backed by the lies of socialist tyrants masquerading as american politicians…

the revolution is close friends, and it will be glorious.