Lord Monckton, Cap & Trade, Copenhagen
Lord Christopher Monckton Gives a convincing presentation on how the Copenhagen Treaty will affect the United States. Lord Monckton has the experience and credentials to speak to these issues and concerns on Cap and Trade and the treaty. He believes that upon signing this treaty the US will cede sovereignty and we well send billions of dollars many so called non carbon producing countries.
Lord Monckton sued to prevent the showing of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected.
There has been considerable debate on this issue of ceding US sovereignty via treaties because of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
The bottom line is that ”At the onset, cap-and-trade is projected to cost the average family over $1,700 per year in new energy costs, growing to over $6,000 per year by 2035. Independent analyses of cap-and-trade proposals project the loss of millions of additional jobs and trillions of dollars out of the nation’s GDP.
The U.N. climate treaty being currently debated proposes a massive shift from American taxpayers to third-world countries by forcing the U.S. to make payments of billions of dollars in “climate debt”. In addition, increased energy costs will drive manufacturing out of the United States, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs.”
Here is a short video of Lord Monckton on this subject:
XX
Possibly Related Posts:
- Nuke power?
- Glen Beck Shows Schedule
- Unbiased News?
- Pick Your Reason For Why You Vote Democrat
- Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Crazy Times
The Common Man: I am just that, someone who spent 30 plus years working for the government as a mid-level manager and program manager. This forum allows me to have a voice and share my concerns. I have been a voting member of the silent majority my entire adult life, now however it seems voting is not enough and being silent is a bad idea. This forum is an attempt to move the conversation from the kitchen table, friends and families to people who would also like to voice opinions and Participate in a civil debate.
Loading ...
Rod
I’m interested in seeing the “experience and credentials” that you claim Lord Monckton possesses. He’s a crank. He appeals to a certain segment of the population that has already made up their minds on climate change and one world government conspiracies. He is a perfect example of the truism that believing nonsense has consequences. He seems to appeal to Americans who think being a British peer conveys immediate legitimacy to anything you say.
As we continue to dumb down our population by ridiculing science and demonizing anyone who thinks for a living, we’ll wake up one day to find that the movie “Idiocracy” was actually a prophetic documentary.
Much Like Al Gore I suppose? I wonder if the science were pure or doctored? I don’t know just saying check the email. I wonder why the courts in England sided with Monckton over Gore and his nine “errors” which he will not correct. I wonder why the Prez thinks we owe the world an apology and billions of dollars. I don’t know I just wonder. I think if we focused on energy independence and alternative energy and quit with the “hang dog” sorry about our success, we might just be better off.
Rod
I see that you have not actually read the British court case, but instead you’ve relied on someone else’s interpretation of the court case. Believe it or not, the courts in England didn’t side with Monckton over Gore. Monckton was not the plaintiff in the case, and Gore was not the defendant. the case was brought by a lorry driver (truck driver in US) named Stuart Dimmock against the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
Here’s some excerpts from the ruling. These are the words of the presiding judge, Justice Burton:
17. I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:
“The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC.
For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.”
The full ruling is here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
I’ll say it again. Lord Monckton is a crank. He is a damn good Sudoku puzzle developer though!
Rod
I forgot to make the main point of my argument: the nine “errors” referred to are actually instances where Justice Burton decided that Al Gore’s film differed in degree from the scientific consensus contained in the UN IPCC report.
So, basically the media completely misreported this story. Honestly, you can’t trust trained, professional journalists anymore–let alone partisans on the Internet with axes to grind.
Rod
To be clear, I was not referring to you as the “partisan on the Internet,” I was referring to people of all political persuasions who do not allow the facts to get in the way of their own particular “truth.”
Bridgid, first let say thank you for the thoughtful and intelligent debate you bring to Yes-23. Unlike some of the other responders, you provide reference and facts to support your arguments and as stated in our mission you elevate the discussion and move it forward. While I may not agree with your position I do respect it and your approach to the debate.
I will respond to your comments in the next blog posting and hope we can continue the discussion at that time.
RodZ