Glenn Beck Interviews Lord Monckton - Reveals Inconvenient Truth About Copenhagen Treaty

Written by Kirsten E. Lombard
TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2009 02:39

Take That, Al Baby! Monckton Makes It to the Glenn Beck Radio Program...and Beyond Glenn Beck's third hour of radio this morning delivered a significant blow to the international treaty President Obama is expected to sign in Copenhagen in early December. Mr. Beck spoke for approximately fifteen minutes with Lord Christoper Monckton. A former advisor on science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Monckton has become known around the world as the "Anti Al Gore."

Those who read my previous article, or who have now seen the video of Lord Monckton's October 14th lecture at Bethel University, will already know that his message now extends beyond the global warming lie itself. Rather his Lordship is busily sounding an alarm about where that lie will shortly take us if we do not act quickly to stop it.



Beck and Monckton clearly have an easy conversational rapport. The two have spoken in the past, and both possess an excellent sense of humor. A few humorous moments aside, though, the seriousness of the subject before them was clearly driving the discussion part 1, discussion part 2 .







Monckton began with some backstory on the treaty President Obama is expected to sign in a few weeks' time. The plan it contains was apparently worked out in large measure at the 2007 Conference of the States' Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia. It's is the same conference that will reconvene in Copenhagen on-how oddly symbolic-December 7th of this year.

Let's not pretend. George W. Bush failed repeatedly to protect our southern border in any meaningful way. That said, he was no friend to the UNFCCC. One has to give the man credit for rightly maintaining during his eight years in office that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and any international agreement that smelled like it, remained an exceptionally bad idea for U.S. business and, um, what's that word again...? Oh yes...sovereignty. So, the UNFCCC has been biding its time. Now that W. is out of the way, they're ready to push ahead with the aims he inconveniently refused to share.

What precisely are the UNFCCC's aims where the Copenhagen treaty is concerned? Monckton summarized plainly: "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, Monckton continued, involves the broad transfer of wealth from first-world countries like the U.S. and Western European nations to the Third World for what is described as "climate debt." Here, then, is the reparations scam about which I wrote a few days ago. Billed as horrible, nasty, wasty polluters, we will be forced to pay up 2% of our GDP as payment for having ruined the earth for the people of poorer nations around the world. Never mind that we've now largely cleaned up after ourselves. Also, one needs to ignore the fact that some of the very nations to which our "we're-so-sorry-we've-been-horrible-monsters" money will go are now entering their own industrial periods and have begun belching out "dangerous" carbon emissions in precisely the same manner we used to do. Something is distinctly rotten in the State of Denmark.

The third task the treaty lays out is enforcement. The new government the document establishes will have the power to force countries to pay their specified contributions whether they like it or not. I have not yet perused the treaty closely enough to understand fully the nature of the enforcement program or the degree to which it is has been laid out. However, Monckton did explain that it describes "a series of interlocking, technical panels that will have the right directly to intervene in the economies and the environments of individual countries over the heads of their elected governments" (emphasis mine)

Monckton made no bones as to his assessment. The Copenhagen treaty, he asserts, goes much further than any previous document. It amounts to a fledgling communist world government.

Anyone who follows me on Twitter will know that just after President Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize, I alluded to it as a form of political bribery or graft. Monckton similarly labeled it during last week's dinner conversation and reiterated that opinion today in speaking with Mr. Beck: "The danger is, now that he's been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow and [NASA's] Jim Hansen at the other, in front the keening zombies in their tens of thousands, he'll sign anything," Monckton remarked. "And he won't have 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."

Monckton continued by identifying one of the treaties key origins: "Morris Strong, a Canadian bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) some 20-odd years ago...always wanted [it] to transmogrify into a world government, and he's now going to get his way far faster than any of us had realized unless we can stop him."

Beck and Monckton then launched into a discussion of how Congress will respond to the Copenhagen treaty. The Constitution's treaty clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that "[the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Monckton seemed quite doubtful that President Obama could count on a super-majority of that nature for this treaty.

Consequently, his Lordship strongly suspects that the administration would make an end run around the two-thirds rule by pushing for a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Far more likely to succeed, this strategy would enact the Copenhagen treaty into U.S. domestic, as opposed to international, law. Unlike a foreign treaty-from which it would be extremely difficult to resile-domestic legislation could potentially be repealed. Theoretically, that's a slightly less disastrous scenario. But for realists, the handwriting is on the wall: Should Congress enact such sweeping policy, even on a domestic level, the last finger will have been pulled from the protective dike that is U.S. sovereignty. It would not take long for that fact to become formally recognized.

In response to Monckton's conjectures about the way the treaty would be maneuvered into passage, Beck aptly noted that when the Left cannot get Congress to pass its cherished agendas, it has a history of enlisting cities and states to litigate those matters in court. Such actions have the effect of leaving a wide swath of judicial record-and often a very false impression about the movement of the country on those issues. Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to rule on any related matters, such "movement" would likely prove a factor in deliberations. Beck's fears on this score are unquestionably well founded.

Nevertheless, Monckton cited an important obstacle that now lies in the Left's path if it attempts this sort of litigious route...

Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space.

Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible.

Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling-much of it wildly biased-Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up.

Naturally, others will want to examine and test Linden's findings. But once his study and the careful workmanship with which he executed it gain wider exposure-and it shouldn't take long-Congress will find it much harder to justify any treaty that attempts to leverage the exposed lie of anthropogenic climate change.

Be watching everyone. Mr. Beck is not done with this topic. He's invited Lord Monckton to spend a full hour on his Fox News television program. Expect further discussion around the treaty's content, the political maneuvering involved in positioning it, and the implications for all of us should it be enacted in any manner. And look for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to be present for that discussion as well. No date has yet been announced, but Monckton will be in range of New York later this week.

*See paragraphs 36 and 38 of the treaty.

It's Never Been About Global Warming Or Even Climate Change Options

It's Never Been About Global Warming Or Even Climate Change Options

More options Oct 22, 4:50 am
k...@l.com

It's about the Third World fleecing the West without actually having to create that wealth for itself.
October 15 2009

QUOTE: It's a gigantic global welfare scheme that if it comes to fruition, will equalize the wealth of all nations, making poor nations wealthier. It will also make wealthy nations poorer.

Anyone who believes that the Kyoto Accord and all the subsequent meetings spearheaded by the UN's IPCC, is actually about global warming or climate
change, would be well advised to submit a wish list to Santa Claus in care of the North Pole.

Chances of having jolly St. Nick deliver what's on that list are better than the chances of stopping global warming. That's because global warming has already stopped with no help from Al Gore and his friends.

In fact, recent scientific discoveries have found the smoking gun of global warming isn't actually smoking when it was revealed that some of the IPCC's
data were, um, fudged.

The IPCC's lead "scientist", Keith Briffa has attempted to debunk archæological and historic records about the mediæval warm period, when Greenland was actually green, using as proof tree core samples taken from Siberia's Yamal Peninsula.

Only problem is, upon peer review of his 1995 paper, Dr. Briffa was discovered to have cherry-picked the core samples in order to support his assertion that the planet is warming. There were a total of 252 core samples taken from the
trees at Yamal and Briffa used a total of three to support his hypothesis.

Other scientists, also working for the IPCC have arrived at the same conclusion, using the same data, which was finally exposed as having been "cooked" by Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who had written countless letters to the IPCC and its individual climate "scientists" asking for the raw data that were used to arrive at their conclusions.

Another bit of proof consistently offered by the IPCC that the earth is warming is the so-called "hockey stick" graph that provided proof positive that the planet was undergoing unprecedented warming.

But Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick proved that the math used at arriving at the "hockey stick" graph was hokey, at which point the narrative changed to "yes, the math is flawed, but global warming is still a crisis, even if there isn't a
hockey stick."

And so it goes.

What hasn't occurred to most who have bought into the global warming hysteria is that it's never been about global warming or climate change, for that matter.

The whole global warming craze is a massive Ponzi scheme designed to separate wealthy nations from their wealth and pass it over to developing nations without them having to actually go through the process of creating and earning that wealth.

It's a gigantic global welfare scheme that if it comes to fruition, will equalize the wealth of all nations, making poor nations wealthier. It will also make wealthy nations poorer.

In fact, as the proponents of climate hysteria come to realize that developed nations' citizenry may not be on board for a gigantic wealth transfer, they are looking at other avenues to facilitate separating wealthy nations from their
money.

One such way is through class-action lawsuits. Recently the "Asian Peoples' Climate Court" in Bangkok found the G8 guilty of "planetary malpractice" in violation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

A mock trial heard a case "filed" on behalf of children from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines and Thailand.

Antonio Oposa, a Filipino environmental lawyer believes that such legal action isn't far off, as developing nations sue so-called "over-consuming countries" for environmental damages. Mr. Oposa went on to say "The countries most affected in
Asia and Africa will begin to stand up and take action if they get nothing from Copenhagen."

So you see, it isn't about global warming or even climate change.
It's about the Third World fleecing the West without actually having to create that wealth for itself.

And by the way, those endangered polar bears?
There are more of them today than at any point in recent history.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15827

Regards
Bonz0

"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009

Soren Kierkegaard

"Life must be lived forward, but can only be understood backwards."

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion... while truth again reverts to a new minority.”

BBC R4 on Qian Xuesen

QIAN XUESEN
Chinese rocket scientist who has died aged 97

Qian Xuesen was the father of China’s space programme, led the development of the country’s atom bomb and its intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But, if he hadn’t been expelled from the US as a spy, he could have been doing all this work for the Americans. He moved to the US in 1935 to study at California’s Institute of Technology, where he became one of the country’s most eminent rocket scientists, founding the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and taking part in the Manhattan project which led to the first atomic bomb. But as the McCarthyite Communist witch hunts began in the 1950s, Qian was accused of spying and issued with a deportation order.

Matthew talks to former NASA astronaut Tom Henricks, former colleague and friend at Caltech, Dr Frank Marble and to Temtsel Hao, journalist at the BBC’s Chinese section.

weapon of criticism

"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses."

“欧战时候的参战，我们不是常常自负的么？但可曾用《论语》感化过德国兵，用《易经》咒翻了潜水艇呢？儒者们引为劳绩的，倒是那大抵目不识丁的华工！”“一首诗吓不走孙传芳，一炮就把孙传芳轰走了。”