''copenhagen treaty'' Say hello to world government?

[DODGYDODDS]

Alot of knowledgable and learned people on here, so i thought this would make a good discussion. If you havent heard of it, the Copenhagen treaty on climate change is soon to be signed by nearly all countries of the world, Of course main stream media, is keeping it hush, as if the populous knew, i think there would be alot of dissent.

 

Lord monckton, former science adviser to margret thatcher during her days in office, recently gave a scathing critique on the treaty, In America at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference.

 

Here are some excerpts of Lord Monckton’s closing speech, as transcribed from the audio recording of the conference:

 

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 satisfaction 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.

 

Safe to say i dont think he supports it. He claims to have read it, and this is his conclusion, i only hope he is wrong as to add gordon brown is all to keen to put pen to paper and flush our futures down the pan also. What a bright future we have, no wonder the news was telling us our fuel bills could go up by 60% in the future.

 

Heres an aritcle on moncktons speech

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100014325/copenhagen-a-step-closer-to-one-world-government/#

 

Lots of info can be found on it across the web.

 

worth a watch also

cCcW-iu5y1Q

[imi]

One world order.......

[RedM]

Do some research. You're pretty far wide of the mark.

[tbourner]

Sounds interesting, I'll do some reading later. Any more info posted on here would be good though cos there are some clever folks on here.

[Gaz6002]

Do some research. You're pretty far wide of the mark.

 

Care to elaborate on that? I'm interested in your take on it

[AlexJames]

.... the bible says it will happen

 

[Gaz6002]

.... the bible says it will happen

 

 

Dude, the bible says bushes can talk.

[AlexJames]

Dude, the bible says bushes can talk.

 

Haha, technically it wasnt the bush that was talking ...

[JustGav]

Haha, technically it wasnt the bush that was talking ...

 

7yNV-GXoeCM

[Gaz6002]

Classic film!

[martini]

I find it hard to listen to this kind of crap when someone says "as we breathe out CO2, we are part of the pollution of the planet. This is an anti-human doctrine".

 

These people are so far off the mark.

 

I love the irony that the best way to save everyone (lit. 'the planet') we must kill lots of people to reduce CO2. Why bother killing them to reduce CO2? Why not just let the numbers go down when the climate goes bonkers?

[AlexJames]

I find it hard to listen to this kind of crap when someone says "as we breathe out CO2, we are part of the pollution of the planet. This is an anti-human doctrine".

 

These people are so far off the mark.

 

I love the irony that the best way to save everyone (lit. 'the planet') we must kill lots of people to reduce CO2. Why bother killing them to reduce CO2? Why not just let the numbers go down when the climate goes bonkers?

 

This is interesting, if anyone can be bothered to read it all! The article can be found here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

 

What happened to global warming?

 

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

 

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

 

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

 

So what on Earth is going on?

 

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

 

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

 

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

 

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

 

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

 

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

 

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[Gaz6002]

I love the irony that the best way to save everyone (lit. 'the planet') we must kill lots of people to reduce CO2. Why bother killing them to reduce CO2? Why not just let the numbers go down when the climate goes bonkers?

 

That's exactly my view on the subject.

[Tannhauser]

Lord monckton, former science adviser to margret thatcher during her days in office, recently gave a scathing critique on the treaty, In America at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference.

 

"Former Science advisor", my arse. Christopher Monckton has some sort of journalism qualification and a degree in something like literature. He was one of Thatcher's right-wing think tank people. I don't know what he advised her on but it sure as hell wasn't science.

 

The fact that he gets widely reported in the Torygraph and that his address was to the 'Freemarket Institute' tells you most of what you need to know. Hard-line free marketeers will resist anything that might cut into the profit margin. So there is this relentless effort to politicise climate change, painting it as some sort of conspiracy masterminded by....who? Anything that will play to popular prejudices will do. In the USA, it's usually the dreaded 'liberals'. But these jokers would claim it was aliens behind climate change science if they could get away with it.

 

Every treaty or international attempt to deal with the problem has to be reinterpreted as some sinister, liberty-eroding plot. This goes down well with the more paranoid members of the population, who in an earlier age would have been hunting out secret communists (or earlier than that, reporting witches to the authorities).

 

There is a difference between maintaining a healthy scepticism and believing any old bollocks propagated on the internet.

[Mike]

So I can put my tinfoil hat away?

[Tannhauser]

If you havent heard of it, the Copenhagen treaty on climate change is soon to be signed by nearly all countries of the world, Of course main stream media, is keeping it hush, as if the populous knew, i think there would be alot of dissent.

 

 

What, keeping it hush like this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

 

Sneaky! How are the general populous (sic) supposed to find out when all the major newspapers hide it in full public view like that?

 

There's even a 'Countdown to Copenhagen' timer on the Guardian site.

 

(You can pick any major news source and find the same thing e.g. The Times)

 

By the way, just googled Christopher Monckton. His degree is in Classics, not literature.

[martini]

By the way, the global warming phenominon shot to fame in the late 90s.

 

Global Warming ≠ Global Climate Change

 

It doesn't matter if we get hotter or colder, we're all going to die anyway.

 

Enjoy your Supras

[AndrewOW]

Enjoy your Supras

 

 

While you can.

[martini]

While you can.

 

Yup.

 

I think you can clearly tell I am not a scientist with an agenda.

 

The latest data and analysis (lit. interpretation) shows that the planet will still warm, on average, over the next century. That is average.

 

That means we could have a very cold decade, a bitter winter or any combinations of the above, but that average temperatures in 50 years are predicted to be hotter than 50 years ago.

 

That is all. It's prediction. It's a best estimate. We have to make them because there is no point in taking science as far as you can and then not trying to use your knowledge of what has happened to make informed predictions on what will be likely happen.

 

We might better understand cloud formation for example, and that *could* mean that the predictions are completely reversed. In the scientific community, you need more than one person to make such a claim, but if the community agrees that the data and interpretation are valid, it might happen.

 

If that does happen, the public tend to get very confused and distrustful, and then say "scientists are just guessing", which is correct to a point, but if we don't attempt to understand the world around us any better... we may as well all turn to religion.

[AndrewOW]

Because in the bible it tells that smart people that own Supras will inherit the earth, or something like that, then?

[RedM]

Care to elaborate on that?

 

No, because....

 

"Former Science advisor", my arse. Christopher Monckton has some sort of journalism qualification and a degree in something like literature. He was one of Thatcher's right-wing think tank people. I don't know what he advised her on but it sure as hell wasn't science.

 

The fact that he gets widely reported in the Torygraph and that his address was to the 'Freemarket Institute' tells you most of what you need to know. Hard-line free marketeers will resist anything that might cut into the profit margin. So there is this relentless effort to politicise climate change, painting it as some sort of conspiracy masterminded by....who? Anything that will play to popular prejudices will do. In the USA, it's usually the dreaded 'liberals'. But these jokers would claim it was aliens behind climate change science if they could get away with it.

 

Every treaty or international attempt to deal with the problem has to be reinterpreted as some sinister, liberty-eroding plot. This goes down well with the more paranoid members of the population, who in an earlier age would have been hunting out secret communists (or earlier than that, reporting witches to the authorities).

 

There is a difference between maintaining a healthy scepticism and believing any old bollocks propagated on the internet.

 

and

 

 

What, keeping it hush like this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

 

Sneaky! How are the general populous (sic) supposed to find out when all the major newspapers hide it in full public view like that?

 

There's even a 'Countdown to Copenhagen' timer on the Guardian site.

 

(You can pick any major news source and find the same thing e.g. The Times)

 

By the way, just googled Christopher Monckton. His degree is in Classics, not literature.

 

is my points made far more eloquently and with much less swearing.

[Gaz6002]

 

I almost pre-empted that, fair point

[DODGYDODDS]

I find it hard to listen to this kind of crap when someone says "as we breathe out CO2, we are part of the pollution of the planet. This is an anti-human doctrine".

 

These people are so far off the mark.

 

I couldnt agree more.

 

"Former Science advisor", my arse. Christopher Monckton has some sort of journalism qualification and a degree in something like literature. He was one of Thatcher's right-wing think tank people. I don't know what he advised her on but it sure as hell wasn't science.

And tannhauser, i often wonder why you must correct mistakes i make, but i cant get in the head of someone, who's:

 

 

Let me be a bit like you here tannhauser. picking up on your error, whilst ignoring any good point you may be putting across.

 

Here is LORD MONCKTON SAYING HE WAS MARGRET THATCHERS ADVISOR MAINLY ON SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE. And before you say anything i did not call him a scientist i said science advisor And lastly btw way he is qualified as A CLASSICAL ARCHITECT, not journalist get your facts right.

 

@4:00 in

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.

 

NY5msesd-2c .

 

I gave her advice on all manner of policy but particularly science policy

 

That in my eyes makes him a science advisor, We cant all be right all of the time mate ey

 

"There is a difference between maintaining a healthy scepticism and believing any old bollocks propagated on the internet"

yes cliff, couldnt agree more. But it swings both ways, you can be too sceptical sometimes

 

(OP awaits being taken apart)

[Ian C]

I started reading this thread and I thought "Hey, that invective from 'lord' Monckton sounds just like something you'd read on Snopes as a spam email chain letter thing". So I dismissed it. The use of sweeping generalisations, obvious stereotyping, hysteria-inducing phrases... all too familiar, tedious, and dismissable.

 

Then I was awaiting Cliff's addition to the discussion and I wasn't disappointed as he tore the whole thing to bits in his usual inimitable style

 

And the response to all this? A (very old) picture of a man with his head up his ass. And all-caps sentences. Wow, just... wow.

 

-Ian

[Kevan]

I am not a scientist, but I am a sceptic.

 

That said, the climate is changing and those changes will have far reaching effects. Who's to blame is irrelevant. Instead of beating people up because they like fast, thirsty cars, why can't we all just settle down and work out a plan for coping with the changes?

 

As far as I can see, the main intent of all these agreements, treaties and protocols is to extract as much money out of us as is possible under the 'green' umbrella which is one guaranteed way to alienate a lot of people and stop them from contributing sensibally to the debate.

 

K.