Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

There is no specific reference to page numbers or any quoted text from the treaty. The draft treaty is 181 pages, so of course I have not read it. A search of all instances of the use of the word "government" within the treaty reveals nothing, to me, resembling the claims made by Monckton.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would appear on the Glenn Beck programme if they knew anything about the man. Although this latest conspiracy theory would appear to put Monckton in the same boat as Beck.

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

Andrew,

So you missed this bit in your search for the word 'government' in the draft treaty document.

"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)
© 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].
"

As an englishman I often struggle to understand US politics and in particular why so many americans seem to have the strong opinions they do about certain characters within their MSM e.g. Glenn Beck. Could you please enlighten me as to just exactly what is wrong with Glenn Beck in your opinion as you appear to be questioning Lord Monckton's integrity/credibility largely on the basis of his appearance on the Glenn Beck show rather than on what he has recently stated in the video links above?

As the text I've posted above shows there is a fairly clear attempt (IMO) within this draft treaty to establish a means of 'government' which amongst other things will be responsible for 'addressing loss and damage from climate change impacts' i.e. that will ensure that 'damages' are paid from developed countries to developing countries (because I presume of the changes to climate that the developed nations have caused?)

Now I thought that the jury was still out on whether or not man has had or is continuing to have a significant impact on our climate due to our continued use of fossil fuels? For sure IMO, the science is most definitely NOT settled yet? It appears however that the 'facilitators' who have drawn up this draft treaty have already decided that there is no longer any doubt and that the science is definitely now settled and that we must ACT NOW!! and that we must compensate developing countries for the damage we have done and are about to do to them because our continued reliance on the use of fossil fuels to feed our populations, to provide our transport, to warm our home, to work so that we can pay the taxes so that we can compensate them etc etc. Do you agree with them?

KevinUK

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

My questioning of Monckton's credibility was based on my inability to find the relevant text within the document. What you have copied in your latest post is a version that differs from the text in the document that you provided at this link here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

The text you cite (which should be correctly cited as Annex I, paragraph 38) is similar to what appears on pages 18 and 19 except with the addition of "headings added" that do not appear in that document. How was I supposed to comment on the appearance of that text when it is not even within the document that I saw, which was the one you provided?

Perhaps you, and Monckton, are referring to a different draft of the document.

The phrases "World Government", "Redistribute Wealth" and "With Enforcement Authority" seem to have come from elsewhere. They are also headings that seem to drastically alter the meanings of fairly innocuous passages in the treaty.

So, is there another draft of the document that contains these headings?

You might have inferred from how I spelled the word 'programme' that I am not from the US. However, thanks to the internet I am able to follow US politics and watch US political programmes. Beck is unhinged. You need only watch past episodes to see that. Political figures from this side of the Atlantic who choose to appear on his programme, perhaps through unfamiliarity, are not really doing themselves any favours.

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

Monckton is blowing a dog whistle for American patriots who have always opposed the US joining multinational organisations because of an actual or perceived loss of sovereignty. In practice the US always does what it wants, anyway, because it can. Monckton can sound almost as weird as some of the enviro-fascists and climate racketeers at times.

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

These shows are meant to be entertainment and entertainment it was. I loved the bit where Monckton challenged Al Gore to meet him for a debate and told him to put up or shut up. Great stuff.
I have to say that it must be difficult to be able to broadcast viewpoints that question AGW hype, just like getting published in orthodox journals. So I guess one has to make do with somewhat contentious means.
I thought Monckton did a great job, the trouble with Beck was that he kept interrupting.
BTW What's the difference between world government by unelected colleagues and European government in secret by unelected commissioners? Get used to it - we're all mindless serfs.

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

Thanks Partington for pointing outthat the Glenn Beck show is first and foremost entertainment. Like you I also enjoyed Lord Monckton's challenge to Al Gore, but as we probably all know that isn't ever going to happen.

Now can someone comment on my original questions rather than have a go at Glenn Beck or Lord Monckton? Do you agree with what Lord Monckton is saying? Ibn case you still haven't got it, he is saying that if Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty then the US will be committing itself to a transfer of a proportion of its wealth (up tp 2% of GDP) to developing nations to pay for climate 'damages'. Please read the darft treaty. If possible reaad it in full, and you will see that this is clearly the case.

Lord Monckton's concern is that if Obama signs then despite the need for a 2/3 majority (which he thinks Obama will not be able to get) in the Senate to enact this legislation, Obama's people will find another way to circumvent the US Constitution. Is he right to say this or is he like the pro-AGW lobby just using scare tactics?

Andrew, just so you know thos eheadings were not added by me but were added via someone in a blog from which I cut and pasted the text. The addition of the heading IMO help you to understand the meaning of the subsequent text.

KevinUK

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

Well KevinUK, the words you give in your second post are correct, ignoring your headings which are actually helpful. The words don't look good to me, to be sure. I'm afraid Monckton is correct.
As an aside Monckton does reply to e-mails. Wonder if Al Gore does; haven't dared to try.

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

Partington,

Until Lord Monckton brought this to light, did you have any idea that the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty intends to introduce the idea of a 'government' that if it is ratified will be responsible for ensuring climate 'damages' are paid to developing countries from developed countries, for technology transfers to occur from developed to developing countries so that they can first adapt to and subsequent mitigate this 'damage' that we are supposed to have caused them as a consequence of our continued use of fossil fuels? I certainly didn't.

Now why aren't the MSM telling us about this? Why is it left to Lord Monckton and the blogosphere to inform us about this?

Now what I find most puzzling about Glenn Beck and Lord Monckton's interview is that it has manage to happen at all given the current 'true believer' status of Fox News' owner Rupert Murdoch and his 'Prius driving' son James.

KevinUK

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

KevinUK

Until Lord Monckton brought this to light, did you have any idea that the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty intends to introduce the idea of a 'government'......?

No I didn't and like Andrew I wouldn't have bothered looking at the document which is full of the usual turgid language.

Now why aren't the MSM telling us about this? Why is it left to Lord Monckton and the blogosphere to inform us about this?

They aren't as smart as they used to be I guess.

Now what I find most puzzling about Glenn Beck and Lord Monckton's interview is that it has manage to happen at all given the current 'true believer' status of Fox News' owner Rupert Murdoch and his 'Prius driving' son James.

Maybe it's just a system lag, or perhaps they're being smart and waiting to see what happens since the science is getting pretty hairy for the warmists at present

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

"Maybe it's just a system lag, or perhaps they're being smart and waiting to see what happens since the science is getting pretty hairy for the warmists at present"

I'ev been doing a bit of reserach today on Rupert Murdoch's 'road to Damacus like' conversion to the global warming religion. The consensus seems to be that Rupert ha sbene influenced somewhat by heir apparent son Jason who is the 'true believer' and not Daddy himself.

This sound plausible to me as Rupert is well known for his opportunism. Perhaps in allowing Glenn Beck the leeway he has had todate on the subject of climate change, Rupert is just covering the bases (as you imply)? Or perhaps not?

Either way discussion of the details of the Copenhagen Climate Change (draft)Treaty and its implications, are conspicious by their absence in the MSM. I know its only the beginning of November but you really would have thought someone else other than Fox News should have picked this up by now?

KevinUK

Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.

First off, I have had replies to emails I sent to Lord Monkton. I don't always get replies to letters or emails to my local councilor and only after an agonising wait from my MP.

Secondly, The EU is bound by its own treaty to address global issues through treaty making and not through unilateral action.

Treaties are generally arrived at through discussion and rely on several key factors for success which include:
Implimenation, enforcement, verification and monitoring.

Of course, a successful treaty is achieved through a process of negotiation which necessarily depends on no one treaty party obtaining or conceding any significant advantage over another.
Green activists refer to treaties as "compromises" by which they mean that the resultant treaty is less effective than it could have been but which studies suggest are actually more effective than if a more draconian solution were arrived at which did not achieve the consent of all the parties.
The reason for this is that the individual treaty states are each responsible for enforcement and monitoring within their own sovereign territory.

SO, if we instead create a new form of treaty which creates its own "sovereign powers" it means that enforcement and monitoring are then no longer a regional or state by state responsibility.
This means of course that the door is open to more draconian legislation.

This is a dangerous path to step down because once you have an organisation which has sovereign powers that supercede an treaty nations own sovereign powers we are indeed on the way to a world state which is probably not going to be a democracy but a totalitarian state, if the EU is any guide.

The main aspect of success of any conventional treaty is the willingness of the treaty states to accede to the legislation.
WE can see clear examples of supported and unsupported legislation if we compare speed laws with drink drive laws.
Both depend on the same enforcement agency but speed laws, which are the easiest to monitor and enforce as less well obeyed that drink drive laws and the difference is in the willingness of the population to be governed by these laws.

Of course, how bad laws are enforced depends on the degree to which the legislators are prepared to enforce them. Clearly in a totalitarian state even speed laws could be enforced by simply linking GPS readings into automatic roadside data downloaders so that motorists could be automatically monitored and fined. The technology is there but as yet, in the UK, the Government doesn't feel it has eroded democracy enough to attempt such a measure.

How might this affect global environmental legislation if we have an undemocratic global enforcement agency rather than individual nation states responsible for enforcement?