Will Obama go to Copenhagen? Will he sign the treaty? We still do not know. If I were a betting man, I would say yes. Lord Monckton believes that becoming a party to the treaty would bind America irrevocably to its terms. I am not so sure about that. [UPDATE: And, as several commentators have pointed out, treaties must be ratified to be enforced: I ought to have noted that. Still, although Lord Monckton may have been hyperbolic at times,] I found much to ponder in his melancholy peroration:
So thank you America: you were the beacon of freedom for the world It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still freed. But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. . . . But it is here that perhaps at this eleventh hour of the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty, for there is no problem with the climate. . . . So I end by saying the words that Winston Churchill addressed o your President in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Watch the whole thing here:
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
103 Comments
1. MFM:Any ideas on what we can do about this?
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:55 pm 2. JOHN FRARY:A massive transfer of wealth to Swiss banks.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:09 am 3. maman:Mr Kimball,
When you write,
“Take a look at what the UN has in store for you: it has to be read to be believed.”
Your link at “read” takes you to a paper put together by the “NGO Community” – Indyact, David Suzuki Foundation, WWF, GreenPeace et al.
The link does not appear to be to an official UN Document. Are the NGOs writing the draft for the UN?
Have I gone to the wrong site?
Oct 21, 2009 - 5:33 am 4. Pajamas Media » National Sovereignty, Climate Mysticism and You:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:47 am 5. RE:1. MFM:
Any ideas on what we can do about this?
Reduce your reliance, dependence, and debt obligations in order to mitigate the misery that will accompany an economic collapse.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:05 am 6. anton:Get out and elect some Senators that aren’t watermelons (i.e. green on the outside -red on the inside). Obama believes the AGW nonsense, he is from all indications a Marxist, this is right up his alley, he will most definitely sign the Treaty. Only the Senate can refuse to approve it and save us (and thus the world) from this maddness.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:06 am 7. Sebastian Shaw:Obama believes America is the cause for all the evils in the world; therefore, he will sign it.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:08 am 8. robine:Why do I feel so helpless?
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:08 am 9. Terry:Will Obama sign it? Well, is it anti-American? Does it weaken America? Is it undemocratic? Will it cost us a lot of money?
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:09 am 10. EscapeVelocity:Is it part of the looney-left agenda?
Yes, to all of the above, so of course he’ll sign it.
Well, you puzzled that out perfectly.
Of course Obama will sign it….that is his reason for being.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:32 am 11. Pedrosito:You betcha. I am glad the marines trained me so well for the future. It’s coming folks.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:37 am 12. BackwardsBoy:Obama seems to be incapable of independent thought, just like the other politicians who believe in the “climate change” hoax. I think he’ll sign it.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:18 am 13. Peter the Bubblehead:Will Obama sign it? Are you kidding?!? He’s probably got his special pen all warmed up already!
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:22 am 14. Calvin Ball:You’re catching on. They also write the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:25 am 15. Banned by Huffpo:Of course Dear Leader is going to sign it.
Didn’t he say during the campaign that he wanted to give 4% of the U.S. GDP to “poor countries” becasue big bad America has polluted the world?
That’s a lot of dough.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:44 am 16. JED:National Sovereignty and Climate Mysticism is a great title Roger. Their inclusion may be misleading as the two titles are more of a reciprocal relation than combining factors. The treaty of Copenhagen is a pledge to one world government which enforces the UN. It is also payback for Bush’s shunning the Kyoto Accord. One world government under the UN is the predominate theme.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:54 am 17. Eowyn:On the last count, the UN was 172 countries of which 48 were free democracies, 49 were marginally free, and 83 were dictatorships. Giving them all equal voting powers does not equalize the world’s resources and people. Protest greatly the loss of common sense and freedom!
Get a shortwave radio and stock up on food and ammo. Now.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:02 am 18. Annie:“As it has always been, the forces of darkness try to imitate and mimic the forces of Light to lead people astray”
Of course he’ll sign it. Then he’ll apologize for arrogant America. He’ll then tell people America is at the root of alllll the world’s problems..not mentioning China and India.
America is no longer a rich country .
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:04 am 19. Patrick Sarsfield:Whether it’s treaties like this, any future terrorism from Iran, an impending nationalized health-care disaster and all the deaths and misery that will issue from those things (and more)…I hold everyone who voted blue in 08 PERSONALLY responsible.
We warned you, but you didn’t want to hear it…you dismissed us as fearmongers or racists…you were too wrapped up in the anti-bush and pro-progressive fairytales we’ve been decrying the whole time both were in existence.
And now so much will be rammed through, passed and signed before ever there is an opportunity to elect anybody else in 2010. The Democrats present more of a danger to the continued existance of the republic and its ideals than the British invasion of 1812…far greater even than the Civil War…
You cannot claim, “we didn’t know,” you voted for your team and justified it with BS because you didn’t *want* to know
and that is unforgiveable
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:12 am 20. paul_unalaska:Yeah, I’ve seen this movie before.
The African continent gets tens of billions of dollars, aid, volunteers, empathy etc., for more than half a century.
Results from Independence and apartheid? Totalitarian Governments and Zimbabwe boasts of the $1 trillion dollar bill.. nearly worthless are the norm.
Yep, this’ll ‘end well’ also..
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:18 am 21. paul_unalaska:‘A $Z100 trillion dollar note can only buy 20 loaves of bread’.
Yep, that’s the ‘Westerners fault’ too..
http://en.afrik.com/news12533.html
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:22 am 22. Delia:5. RE:
“Reduce your reliance, dependence, and debt obligations in order to mitigate the misery that will accompany an economic collapse.”
Good advice.
We are being sold down the river and it’s going to hurt all over.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:23 am 23. Delia:That youtube is utterly depressing.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:28 am 24. Harris Tweed:Global Weather is so unpredictable and therefore frightening: just think, right now, some places are cold, others are hot. It’s raining here, but the sun is shining somewhere.
There would be no place to escape a global government and the egomaniacal politicians who would run it.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:33 am 25. Bret:If Obama signs without consent of 2/3 of the senate, we would not be bound by it. Here is the first part of article 2, clause 2 of the constitution:
“He [POTUS] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”
Also, there’s a long history of terminating treaties.
Monckton, entertaining as always, is alarmist in his own way, and perhaps not quite up to speed on U.S. constitution.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:34 am 26. biblio44:3. maman: ‘Mr Kimball, When you write, “Take a look at what the UN has in store for you: it has to be read to be believed.” …. The link does not appear to be to an official UN Document. Are the NGOs writing the draft for the UN? Have I gone to the wrong site?’
Maman, shhhh! You’re disturbing Roger’s World Government fantasies!
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:39 am 27. paul_unalaska:biblio44.. fantasy?
Are you that dense?
The UN has spoken of implementing a new global currency for some time. You know, the UN.. the creators of the ‘Copenhagen Climate Treaty..’.
Ignorance is bliss, eh bub?
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:58 am 28. Mark Buehner:Obama can sign whatever he wants, until the Senate approves it with a 2/3rds majority, it isn’t binding. That will not happen.
Good thing too- I wonder what the nations with millions on the edge of starvation or languishing with an AIDs or malaria epidemics would say about their American aid being sent in the form of wind mills.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:27 am 29. jaymaster:Hmmm.
Obama will be in Europe the week of the Copenhagen conference, picking up that little prize he won a few weeks back.
How convEEENient…..
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:49 am 30. Irritant:Steven Den Beste had plenty to say on this topic sever years ago at his “USS Clueless” blog. Short version: The Senate still has to approve treaties, and the Constitution cannot be amended by treaty.
So as to Monkton’s one-world nation – keep dreaming, milord. Someday!
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:05 am 31. Irritant:Whoops, misread Monkton there, thought he was in support of this bungle. Ignore the crack at his being one of our self-proclaimed “betters” then.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:07 am 32. Knotacommie:Of course the COMMUNIST MOSLEM will sign it. Like everything else, they dont read it, dont care whats in it, as long as it gives them POWER. Well, from what I understand former Maggie Thatcher science adviser Lord Christopher Munkton has read it. Lord Munkton says it establishes a one-world, COMMUNIST government entity run thru the UNITED NATIONS. Im wondering what the ISLAMIC countries think about humanist, hateful communism. Tell me ALBORE ,are you and your pals SOROS,MAURICE STRONG AND RED CHINA going to start with Islamic countries and laying your phony guilt trips on them?
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:10 am 33. Rachel:Why am I not worried?
This is the same UN that could not solve the problems of a dinky little island called Cyprus. This is the same UN that time and time again complain about human rights violations around the world and them lets them continue. Why? Because the rules have no teeth, and never will because all of the countries have to back things up with military and they will not offer their services.
And Obama would have to fight Congress (and the American People) to transfer any US funds into the UN. To me this is just show. Not that it should be of no concern as symbolically it shows our capitulation to the pigs in the animal farm, but the UN is short for UN-able
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:13 am 34. biblio44:27. paul_unalaska: “biblio44.. fantasy?”
Who knows??? You may be right, Paulie. Keep watchin’ for them Black Helicopters — and keep your powder (and K-rations) dry!
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:19 am 35. Achillea:Reason for caution, but not panic.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:40 am 36. Thomas_L......:Skittle pooping unicorns! Will he sign it? Good one!
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:41 am 37. Jay Manifold:The hard fact is that the linked document is nothing but a wish-list, in draft form, written by the David Suzuki Foundation, Germanwatch e.V., Greenpeace International, IndyACT, the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, and WWF International. Given the authorship, no one should be surprised by its content, and no one should mistake it for the actual treaty, which does not yet exist. As other commentators have noted, the likelihood of anything like this being approved by the US Senate is nil. It is worth reading only for insight into the mentality of the NGOs involved, and we already know what they want anyway.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:46 am 38. Poor Citizen:The problem is that many people have never travelled the world to witness the devestation. Many of our rivers and lakes have become little more than open sewers and fish cannot even be eaten. Our ocean ports are sewers. Our forests have disappeared and in many big cities people breath poison and the cancer rates have quadrupled. And your telling me that greenpeace and wwf have caused this?…well, let me go get another bottle, then maybe I will listn to ya….
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:16 pm 39. paul_unalaska:biblio44, political discussion on a political site isn’t your forte.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:19 pm 40. lefroy:The real vice of this lunacy is not this big brother world government nonsense, which is right up there with birthing and truthing. No, it’s much more banal but equally scary.
First, there is the depressing certainty that the $160bn p.a. that we give to the “developing” countries out of an absurd and infantile sense of guilt will be dissipated by corruption.
Secondly, this is – in part – another manifestation of a dreadful loss of will and nerve by the west. We are proposing to hand over huge sums of money to governments that are not only utterly corrupt, but that wish us ill as well. There is a substantial element in all of this of weakening ourselves and strengthening our enemies. And lurking in the psychology of it all there is a substantial element of “if we’re nice to them they won’t hurt us”.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:26 pm 41. Trouble:Concerned, but not panicked. This is not an “O Noes!” moment just yet – first, there is no treaty, and second, any senator that voted “yea” on this turkey would be out of office as of the next election cycle.
The subsequent congress would then tell the UN to go to hell. On the bright side, this may finally be the ammunition needed to sell the public on the idea of withdrawing from the UN.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:42 pm 42. e:The question is if there are enough people in Congress to refuse ratification of this abomination.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:48 pm 43. biblio44:12. BackwardsBoy: ‘Obama seems to be incapable of independent thought, just like the other politicians who believe in the “climate change” hoax.’
You’re gonna feel awfully lonely and … uh … backwards soon, BB. As we speak (or, rather, keyboard), right wing think tanks that realize their deniability days are numbered — “Where DID I put that Polar icecap? — are working overtime to come up with arguments that:
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:54 pm 44. Satellite data confirms global cooling « Public Secrets:1. Claim the right was in the foreground of climate change concern and action, and
2. Blame climate change on the left (all that marijuana smoke from the ’60s).
[...] rays in the formation of clouds, not by anything anthropogenic. This is another example of why the alarmists and enviro-statists are desperate to sign a new climate treaty at Copenhagen and pass a cap-and-trade bill through [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:20 pm 45. Satellite data suggests global cooling « Public Secrets:[...] rays in the formation of clouds, not by anything anthropogenic. This is another example of why the alarmists and enviro-statists are desperate to sign a new climate treaty at Copenhagen and pass a cap-and-trade bill through [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:21 pm 46. HEPT:Send more blue helmets, the last bunch were good ta shoot at.
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:36 pm 47. Phineas:Lord Monckton (and Roger, surprisingly) seem to be forgetting that treaties only take effect with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. I seriously doubt 66 votes are there. Second, while treaties become the “law of the land,” they still have to conform to the Constitution. I suspect this treaty, if assented to, would face a huge court challenge.
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:37 pm 48. Sallie:When Bush 1 was in office, there was “much” talk of the “one world order”. So, it is something that has been in the works for many years.
I do not care for Obama and his dealings. I think he is a threat to America. But I think he is merely carrying out what is already in the works that we are not aware of, because we tend to keep our heads buried, until we end up with an Obam.
China’s gonna stomp on us soon, financially. Putin will laugh at us, and Europe will hide. So what they think of us is of no consequence, good bad or indifferent.
If you voted for this charlatan, you need his insurance, to have your head examined.
Ready for the dollar to collapse? ‘Cause then Obama and his cronies will step in and take over completely, shades of Chavez, brown shirts and jack boots. That will be our “new world order”. It’s out there ,just waiting….
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:52 pm 49. Don Rodrigo:“”"”" 21. paul_unalaska:
‘A $Z100 trillion dollar note can only buy 20 loaves of bread’.
Yep, that’s the ‘Westerners fault’ too. “”"”"”"
Ther are twenty loaves of bread in Zimbabwe? Wow, things are looking up!
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:19 pm 50. David W. Lincoln:When you have Al Gore, or David Suzuki (a Canadian who copiously imbibes the koolaid of kyoto) refusing to debate Lord Monckton, that should say something.
http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2009/10/lord-monckton-on-michael-coren.html
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:23 pm 51. buddy larsen:“The earth is a poor young colored woman
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:38 pm 52. Sebastian Shaw:The weather a rich old white man”
(such reduction once created Nazis,
can we do it again? Yes We Can!)
Congress better not budge–not one cent–on the issue while Obama cheer leads like the wuss he is while bashing America…again. With friends like Obama who needs enemies?
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:45 pm 53. Tom G.:LOL…after working at various and sundry locations w/ NGOs I don’t think they compare w/ Well’s Martians…those guys will undo themselves…
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:51 pm 54. newrouter:will the senate ratify it is the real question
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:59 pm 55. Michael:The earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age. In that time there has been several little ice ages and a time when Greenland was green and supported agriculture. In 1938 2 ships met in the Northwest passage in the arctic, one from the Pacific and one from the Atlantic. In the late 70s the “scientific communty” warned of a new ice age.
Nope, don’t believe in that AGW is a significant player here or on Mars, who’s ice caps are receeding. Maybe something more fundamental is happening? Maybe that thermonuclear furnace in our sky? May be it has something to do with the cycles of warming and heating that have been going on as far back as we can detect?
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:08 pm 56. gracie:51..Such a pitiful , pathetic comparison. Always gotta put “race” in there somehow.
It’s stupid, just stupid and incendiary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQvhdCyhe4
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:26 pm 57. buddy larsen:i know, gracie –that’s what i was trying to make fun of. The numbskull syndrome that gives ambition and confidence to people like the people behind the IPCC Report.
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:04 pm 58. Abi:Does this treaty “trump” our Constitution?
Does any one know?, for sure?
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:29 pm 59. rotto:And what about Obama’s carbon footprint? How many hours has he spent in Air Force 1 since Jan 20? Seems like every day the news has him giving a speech some location miles from DC. He’s got his own stimulus program going, using all that jet-a and dumping all that carbon miles up in the atmosphere.
It’s bad enough he is an environmental hypocrite that makes Al Gore’s carbon foot print look like a child’s size 2, but he is also wasting hundreds of millions of dollars flying all over the world, bowing to the Saudi prince, and a failed bid to get the Olympics in Chicago to pay off his political friends.
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:48 pm 60. ehunter:Lots of woolly caterpillars here in Maryland.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:09 pm 61. MG:Mother Nature has had it with Al Gore and his band of Eco-Weenies and is going to back hand them with winter rivaling 1976-77.
Treaties were made to be abrogated…
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:31 pm 62. XiaoMei:In addition to ratifying the treaty, wouldn’t Congress have to authorize the funds? Or would the treaty itself be an implicit authorization?
FWIW, I predict: Obama goes to Copenhagen, somewhat less expansively this time, and patronizingly plays the hero he imagines himself to be. He promises the moon to the Copenhagen cabal, comes back to America, offers it to Congress, and epically fails again. Obama-and-Copenhagen jokes spread like wildfire, and The One is burned so seriously that analysts declare another Turning Point in his presidency.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:52 pm 63. I know what happened to our PUBLIC SCHOOLS once the government started flexing its muscles. Do you think they would do something similar if all we had in healthcare was a PUBLIC OPTION? You bet they would. Once the public option successfully eliminates al:[...] Video—National sovereignty, climate mysticism, and you [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:08 pm 64. RagnarD:Patrick Sarsfield @ 19 said (among many things):
Patrick – Some I know call those who support this kind of crap ‘those-who-are-no-longer-our-countrymen’ = TWANLOC. Many ran around like our hair was on fire for months and months trying to get some to listen and it had no effect. The trolls who will come out here soon, moho, biblio, now and then, etc are TWANLOC. Plain and simple. They have abrogated their duties as citizens. Many in Congress are the same. 0bama is now trying to limit what certain people can be paid. Major industries have been nationalized, in effect.
So, back on topic:
Here is the site link for Global Climate Scam. Check out the entire 1:35 speech by Lord Monckton. It is a barn burner.
There is are also indications that shows the IPCC ‘hockey stick’ temperature curve was generated by cherry picking the data set and when valid data is used from a similar and closely local area that is much larger the curve actually is flat or trends slightly down. IOW, for you dim trolls, it shows global cooling. Go do the Google-Fu yourselves.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:13 pm 65. SukieTawdry:Are you kidding? Of course he’ll sign it. Good luck getting it ratified, though. He might just toss it in a drawer like Clinton did with the Kyoto Protocol.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:28 pm 66. Gregory Koster:A nitpick: the Longfellow quotation that Monckton cites was written by Roosevelt to Churchill, not the other way round. FDR sent it to Churchill via Wendell Willkie, the defeated 1940 GOP candidate, in January 1941. You can see the letter here.
Try to imagine this happening today. Depressing
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:04 am 67. SAF:#9 Terry: Well said.
Oct 22, 2009 - 2:51 am 68. RickGreenvilleSC:Will he sign it??!! Is the Pope Catholic? Does the bear defecate in the woods? Are blue helmets good targets? (I added that to see if I get censored again.The lib trolls seem to be able to say anything and get printed. I talk about defending my family or country and get the chop. . . .WTH? )
Oct 22, 2009 - 3:59 am 69. PMM:My question is why is this is not front page news? We are talking about the Travolta’s instead of this? Why are other articles like this following not published in the US ?
“Scientists pull an about face on global warming” see link
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html
Alarmist or not this needs to be talked about more widely. Even if it takes 2/3 of the Senate – if the public is sold they push and will vote anything in ….Like it or not information is hidden from us every day.
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:24 am 70. Benson:Here’s a very informative short article that puts this discussion into perspective. The author, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, has the academic qualifications to provide accurate information on the global climate and the factors that influence it.
He cites hard evidence that dismantles the AGW fable, and then discusses the motives of those who continue to promote junk science. The result is a devastating mix of facts and commentary.
For information on Al Gore’s “hockey stick graph,” both the original and the new (but no less rigged) version, see this, and then this.
Pass it on….
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:30 am 71. Benson:Sorry! The third link above does not work. Trying again:
The sentence should read,
“…both the original and the new (but no less rigged) version, see this, and then this.”
I hope that cleans up the mess! — Could we PLEASE have a preview feature here?
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:36 am 72. Tolbert:Poor Citizen said – “…cancer rates have quadrupled.”
Where’s the citation?
Cancer rates exclusively attributable to environmental factors have not quadrupled or even doubled or increased fractionally, what has happened is that the population is getting older and cancer is mainly a disease of the aged.
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:52 am 73. Lazar:Roger Kimball,
Amazing. Just who will you cite next?
It couldn’t possibly have something to do with…
But who needs peer-reviewed science.
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:07 am 74. Lazar:Roger Kimball,
Just who will you cite next?
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:08 am 75. paul_unalaska:#71 Tolbert – thank you for replying to PC’s comment.
It’s this mentality I encountered years back at a barby.
My brother’s girlfriend at the time told me not to overcook the hamburgers, for if the patties are burned the ‘carcinogens’ or blackened area on the patty can be cancerous. I’m sure I stared at her with an unable to hide look of disbelief..
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:19 am 76. Locked_N_Loaded:Do you hear that roaring sound that’s the sound of our country going down the DRAIN!!
___________________________________________
“A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.” Ronald Reagan
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:39 am 77. paul_unalaska:I’d meant Tolbert’s #72 comment in my last post, thanks.
#71 Benson, very interesting article from Bishop Hill you’d highlighted.
Sadly, statisticians, chemists and other investigators findings are ‘overlooked’ and shunned.
I’m sure you’re aware of the following site but it too discusses, exposes flaws in the AGW theory.
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/global_warming_sophistry.html
The WMO/IPCC, Climate section of NASA, NOAA are scofflaws..
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:53 am 78. John "birther" Samford:http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Dec_2002/treaties.htm
The UN charter has rewritten the Constitution already. Read it and weep!
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
Little snips;
“Article 104
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. ”
That means the UN ALREADY rules the USA. If the UN considers it necessary to outlaw handguns in America to exercise it’s functions and fulfill it’s purposes, it can.
“Article 102
1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
Basically that means you can’t win, you can’t quit and ties get played over.
Never forget that FDR was both a socialist and a tyrant. The UN Charter was negotiated by Socialists for socialism.
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:14 pm 79. buddy larsen:Longevity increase causes cancer deaths for sure. ‘Longevity’ is what wouldn’t be increasing if the doom-gloomers were right about anything. Poor citizen may dislike sharing the planet with others, but that’s his problem, not theirs.
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:27 pm 80. Dan:An acquaintance of mine, now retired, worked for the UN for 30 years. He’s told me he would’ve had to get out anyway since there’s an entrenched, militant cabal of homosexual staffers there that control much of its activities. If so, you know this president will back expansion of the UN for that reason alone.
Oct 23, 2009 - 11:36 am 81. Elizabeth:We should have gotten onto nuclear energy ages ago……we should be dependent on NO ONE – and the UN should slide into the East River. When their representatives originally arrived at Idlewild Airport (now JFK) they were running up the down escalators…..and they haven’t improved any since.
Talk softly and carry a big stick…a policy we should have kept….
DON’T TREAD ON ME!
Oct 23, 2009 - 1:09 pm 82. Hub:Sorry Lazar:
Oct 23, 2009 - 9:47 pm 83. Berlet98:There wasn’t a single scientific observation in your string of projections, just more simulations run by computer model geeks who may or may not know anything about climate science but seem to really enjoy spinning out alarmist sci-fi fantasies off other people’s (often) flawed data and models. Note well, Lazar: even the BBC has had to admit that global temperatures have not risen and have probably been dropping since 1998 and will probably keep dropping until 2031 (after which the 30-40 year mini-cycle will repeat again). Sorry to burst your bubble, but the sky isn’t falling. It’s time to grow up and get a life. Life does have its pleasures. May I suggest a subscription to The New Criterion? Or the Claremont Review of Books? Looks like it’s going to be a cold winter and there will be plenty of time for sitting by the fire and reading good stuff.
Climate Change Foolery
The End Is Near! If you’re not too busy on or about December 8th, make a note that on that fateful day climate change will wreak its final vengeance on the world’s polluters–and on everyone else.
At least that’s the view of the increasingly-odd British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Well, not exactly.
According to the BBC, Brown did say on October 19th in London that “negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the ‘impasse’ ” or face “catastrophic” floods, heat waves, and droughts for which there is “no Plan B:” http://bit.ly/13Os3h
So, that’s all, folks! Either the world gets its act together when nations gather in December in Copenhagen to try to scrap the Kyoto Protocol, or there is no hope, no future, no planet to speak of as of December 8th.
Sort of.
He did temper his remarks by adding that, ”within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe.”
By the time our grandchildren are affected, much of Europe will be Islamic so maybe we should seek answers in the Qu’ran?
Absent from Brown’s hot, bleak forecast was any allusion to looking behind that curtain and discovering the charlatan who cites one miserable European summer and ignores all the true science that points to global cooling over the past decade.
Mr. Brown, faithfully carrying on Obama’s Panic Philosophy despite being repeatedly rebuffed and insulted by the American president and with his Labour Party headed for a jolly good trouncing in the next election, seems a desparate bloke who would admit to Brit atrocities in Ireland if it would garner a few votes.
The man needs a feather in his tweed cap even if it means scaring the living bejesus out of Britons.
Also on the climate change front, New York Times’ environmental reporter, Andrew Rivkin, has come up with yet another muddled, liberal idea.
Why not, Rivkind suggests, make children the equivalent of smokestacks . . .
(read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1280)
Oct 24, 2009 - 12:06 am 84. Shackled Shadow:58. Abi:
Does this treaty “trump” our Constitution?
Does any one know?, for sure?
Check out the following article at American Thinker from 10/22/09 for some clarification:
Oct 24, 2009 - 5:58 am 85. Glenn Donovan:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/treaties_and_the_constitution.html
Hyperbole indeed. Monckton, while urbane, eleoquent, intelligent and a great speaker, is not a scientist. In this regard, he’s essentially no different than Al Gore and I’m afraid his popularity only reveals an increasing politicization of this topic by the right – the exact reason those of us who are skeptical are so critical of the AGW alarmists on the left.
I want to draw your attention to the key point in this enter issue. What are the AGW alarmists predicting? Positive forcings – meaning that at a certain point the dynamic nature of the climactic system will react to increases of C02 (and other greenhouse gases) and enter a cycle if accelerating warming. Their models seek to prove that we are in the early phases of this. What is Monckton’s refutation of this claim? That the models are bunk and we are seeing no warming in the past ten years. I think this is a valid, but ultimately technical criticism and as such, needs to be argued technically. If one was to go to a site defending the models (such as real climate) one can read a technical defense of the models, which while nor completely understandable by me, seems be a substantive refutation of the critics of the models. More importantly, they claim that the current lack of warming is within the predictions of the models. Having some experience with stochastic models myself, the explanations seemed plausible on the surface, but I can in no way determine their validity.
My point? This is how we should argue. Let’s get scientists to debate the precise issues – forget Gore’s nonsense – let’s have Lindzen et al, and others, debate Gavin Schmidt and other IPCC scientists in public forums. We can shame them into it, perhaps by convincing a cable or network channel to carry a series of debates on the topic?
The bottom line is that the case isn’t close. Lindzen and Choi’s recent paper isn’t a slam dunk – it’s been subjected to substantive criticism that I think needs to be answered. Moreover, if you look at Lindzen’s claims over time, he always says some warming is happening and C02 contributes to it – he essentially disagrees on the forcings, but is very cautious about claiming any certainty whatsoever. He has been much more certain in his criticism of the models, but there are refutations of his criticisms that have some merit.
My bottom line, we must be reasonable and not rejectionist of the arguments from the AGW crowd. Second, our disagreement should be led by scientists, not the Moncktons of the world.
Oct 24, 2009 - 10:48 am 86. Lazar:Hub:
Correct.
Fashion is for sheep, and the work of those ‘geeks’ may end up saving a couple of million lives.
who may or may not know anything
If you read their work, you can find out what they do and don’t know.
As if you know.
One statistically innumerate journalist wrote something rather foolish. “The BBC” is not a person.
Indeed, a satellite looking at earth in the IR band would observe the sky rising. Science is beautiful.
Oct 24, 2009 - 12:25 pm 87. Lazar:Glenn Donovan,
A forcing is a change in the earth’s energy balance, imposed by a process that is external to the climate system (volcanic, solar, GHG emissions etc.).
An increase in CO2 concentration is a positive forcing is a result of fundamental physics and observation; the earth’s atmospheric profile, CO2 absorption spectra, and the radiative transfer equation. From conservation of energy we know that a positive forcing will result in an increase in average temperature. But the question of how much (as well as it’s spatial distribution and innumerable atmospheric variables) are what scientists are studying, this involves understanding feedbacks.
Highly recommended;
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
also;
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Atmospheric-Physics-David-Andrews/dp/0521629586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256439614&sr=8-1
It is impossible to discern any change in the mean state of the climate system over that length of time. Except under truly exceptional forcing circumstances (Pinatubo) the stochastic component of interannual variability is greater than the signal by an order of magnitude. Even if a ten-year slope were equal to the warming trend of 0.15 deg. C per decade observed since 1970, it would be statistically indistinguishable from zero.
I couldn’t agree more.
Oct 24, 2009 - 8:57 pm 88. Nine Months of Obama, What an Abortion | The Planets Best Political Humor at RadioactiveLiberty.com:[...] but there’s another issue. Cap and Trade may be switched at birth. We might get the Copenhagen Climate Treaty shoved down our throats. That will put a UN commission in charge of the environment. In case you [...]
Oct 25, 2009 - 6:02 am 89. TopAssistant:I will believe in global warming when someone explains to me what happened to global cooling. Here is The New York Times-line, they have changed their position four times.
Oct 25, 2009 - 7:21 am 90. Ritchie Emmons:“MacMillian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” Sept. 18, 1924
“Americas in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” March 27, 1933
“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” May 21, 1975
“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” December 27, 2005
I cannot believe how many of our politicians in the House voted for this fraud, cap & trade. It needs to be called, “Send Our Jobs to Communist Red China Act.”
Can anyone explain the change in global temperature listed by the NY Times over the years?
Go to http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
to read more.
I have asked Sen. Hagan (D-NC) but she just says she is going to vote for it when it comes up for a vote.
Glenn Donovan #85, I agree that since Monckton isn’t a scientist, he can’t speak scientifically on the topic of AGW. However, it wasn’t, as I saw it, his point to discuss whether there was a climate problem. His point was that we couldn’t afford to let the US be part of some world government that would be economically ruinous to our country.
This all being said, I don’t quite concur with your assertion that the AGW scientist alarmists need to be debated by other scientists who disagree with them. Even a layman like me can debunk their “scientific” assertions with a few simple questions (that never get answered curiously).
If AGW is truly a viable problem, then why
1. Has the world temp remained the same or perhaps even declined over the past decade, despite the fact that India and China have both been polluting like crazy over that period of time?
2. In the years that the earth was warming, so were other planets, who don’t have an ounce of industrial activity?
3. If the ice caps in Artic circle have been melting, why are they increasing in Antarctica?
A couple of other questions. What, according to these vaunted scientists, could happen on our planet earth that would indicate to them that “climate change” has been reversed and all is well again? Have you ever heard an answer to such? Speaking of “climate change,” why was that term brought out of the bullpen to replace “global warming?” So that they could point to ANY change in the climate and assert it a “proof” that there’s a problem?
ALL of these scientists told us that, in the years between 1998 and now, we would have increased world temps. ALL of them were wrong. ALL of their scientific models were incorrect. Why, after they were wrong with all these models, should we believe that they will be right in the future?
If I could get these questions answered satisfactorily, then maybe I’ll revise my status as AGW skeptic. More likely though, no such answers will be forthcoming. The reason? They have no answers. That won’t stop them though.
So, while it doesn’t hurt to have “our” scientists debate “their” scientists, the AGW alarmists are so intellectually wedded to a theory that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny that even a layman like me can essentially debunk their assertions.
Oct 25, 2009 - 1:15 pm 91. Eric:The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change) treaty draft to be introduced at the Copenhagen climate change summit can be downloaded by clicking on my name.
Oct 25, 2009 - 5:52 pm 92. Nine Months of Obama, What an Abortion:[...] but there’s another issue. Cap and Trade may be switched at birth. We might get the Copenhagen Climate Treaty shoved down our throats. That will put a UN commission in charge of the environment. In case you [...]
Oct 25, 2009 - 6:13 pm 93. Eric:Annex I, item 38 of the draft proposes a government body to implement the treaty and enforce it. This government body will be “ruled” by the COP (Conference of Parties) and an executive board which will be the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity. The Catalogue of Funding Sources published by the Convention on Biodiversity (which can be downloaded by clicking on my name) lists the World Bank, various divisions of the IMF, most of the major oil companies or foundations started by these companies, several auto manufacturers, the ACORN foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation as well as several UN organizations and other major corporations as major donors of the Convention on Biodiversity. The groups funding this treaty are either (A) those who stand to gain profits from this treaty, (B) those who have an agenda to bring about world government, and (C) those with an extreme left-wing view on the environment.
Oct 25, 2009 - 6:51 pm 94. Eric:The representatives who will be elected to this government body will be elected by the COP. Not one person who will be in charge of making decisions about what aspects of our lives affect the environment and with controlling those aspects of our lives will be elected by or accountable to the people who are affected most by their decisions.
Oct 25, 2009 - 6:55 pm 95. Hub:Dear Lazar,
Oct 25, 2009 - 7:12 pm 96. Eric:Thank you for that (albeit convoluted and tortured) admission that I was right. Now to the larger point. You’re not a superhero saving the world and neither are they, although it may provide meaning for a life that would otherwise seem boring and insignificant. You should not submit to that temptation. There is nothing unique about climate as an issue. What a free society needs is truth. When we know the truth, we will know what to do. We don’t need people with ulterior motives creating a climate of fear in order to create an artificial crisis. Rational decision making does not thrive in an atmosphere of panic. This is definitely an example of bad means (falsehood) justifying ends (”saving” the world). Yes, science is beautiful, but many scientists (real and not-so-real) are not, especially when they allow their biases and prejudices to corrupt the process of science, which is what is happening today. If the science is so solid, why are so many scientists getting caught in outrageous lies and fakery and suppression of inconvenient truths? As I said, calm down, get a life.
Obama will be at the confernce towards the end. The dates of the conference are 7 Dec-18 Dec 2009. He will not be there at the time he receives his Nobel free prize. That will be in Oslo a week before he goes to Copenhagen. He will send his environment czars ahead to ensure the treaty is acceptable and he will sign it when he arrives with little scrutiny.
Oct 25, 2009 - 7:15 pm 97. Lazar:Hub,
For noting that a prediction of a future state is not an observation of a future state, and noting that the sky is not falling; you get a gold star.
You want a Nobel or something? Well you can have Obama’s.
In my eyes anyone who devotes their life to increasing human knowledge is a hero.
Life is not boring. I’m surrounded by an awesome, beautiful, fascinating universe to study. How could I be bored?
Why thank you.
Don’t be daft. Every ‘issue’ is unique.
Now you’re being silly, and boring.
Oct 26, 2009 - 1:40 pm 98. Steynian 393 « Free Canuckistan!:[...] ROGER KIMBALL– National Sovereignty, Climate Mysticism, and You …. [...]
Oct 26, 2009 - 4:08 pm 99. This Side of Glory » Blog Archive » Treading on thin, climate-controlled ice:[...] had just been reading about that upcoming conference on Roger Kimball’s blog — HERE. This “meaningful progress” takes the form of a treaty that guarantees that the [...]
Oct 27, 2009 - 11:02 pm 100. B. Johnson:Why aren’t more Constitution-defending patriots pointing out the following concerning any US commitment to the Copenhagen Treaty? Given that the federal Constitution is silent about climate issues, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate such issues to the states, not the Oval Office and the Senate. So regardless of Obama’s power to negotiate treaties, he cannot use that power as a back door to exercise constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers, forcing US citizens to comply with foreign laws dealing with climate issues in this case.
But if you don’t believe me then perhaps you’ll believe a constitutional expert.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm
Also, consider Jefferson’s remedy concerning constitutionally clueless socialist pawns like Obama who unthinkingly exercise constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
Oct 29, 2009 - 10:36 am 101. spawn44:Any polar bear hugging politician who still buys into the global warming hoax will be booted out of office in the next election cycle.
Oct 29, 2009 - 11:06 am 102. Hub:Lazar:
Oct 30, 2009 - 5:17 am 103. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Flushing our freedoms:Now you’re ready to make a little more progress. You believe “anyone who devotes their life to increasing human knowledge is a hero.” Albert Einstein said, “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” Past heroes of knowledge include aryan race theorists, phrenologists and T.D. Lysenko. I don’t believe in scientists. I believe in the superiority of the scientific method to discover truths about the physical world. Not because everything that scientists say about the world is true, but because science is, over time, self-correcting so long as scientists respect the process of science and separate political or religious (e.g., environmentalism) enthusiasms and pressures. The earth’s climate is by far the most complex phenomenon science has yet tried to tackle from a modeling perspective(says Freeman Dyson). Climate science itself is in its infancy. The greatest risk to that science today is the toxic contamination of progressive politics, symbolized by that grotesque mountebank Al Gore and others who, in unguarded moments, have been caught admitting that it’s perfectly alright to exaggerate (i.e., falsify) scientific findings to produce a favorable political climate to advance progressive legislation on the environment. These people may be heroes of knowledge to you, but they are enemies of understanding. Hence models whose alarmist predictions depend on preposterous assumptions regarding underlying parameters. Hence climate scientists and their politicized groupies resorting to ad hominem attacks on real scientists engaged in the real scientific work of testing hypotheses who discover inconvenient truths. Hence hysteria and propagandistic indoctrination of children masquerading as knowledge.
[...] And if you missed it last week and you still have the will to live, read Roger Kimball’s National Sovereignty, Climate Mysticism, and You [...]
Oct 30, 2009 - 7:37 am