Establishing a global government – The Real agenda

Video – Lord Christopher Monckton: “There Is NO DOUBT About What We Have FOUND!”

“The U.N. was trying to go for this power grab using climate change as a pretext,” says Monckton. “It’s a very convenient way to advance totalitarian agendas and control of the people other than the ballot box.”

“There is no basis for alarm about global warming,” says Monckton. “They left out of their calculations the fact that the sun is shining.”

Monckton addresses the basic and fatal flaw found in the mathematics of AGW models. He demands retraction of claims (the hoax) bu the U.N., or else police fraud investigators will be pointed at the IPCC, etc.

Thanks to TerraHerz for this video

17 thoughts on “Establishing a global government – The Real agenda

  1. For an action in the tort of Deceit to succeed in English Common Law the Defendant must have acted fraudulently ( i.e. knowing that the information is untrue) or with recklessness as to whether it is true or not. There must also be a pecuniary loss to the Plaintiff, otherwise the Plaintiff does not have Locus Standi. Civil liability for fraud must be proved to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lord Monckton, a campaigner against the Anthropogenic Global Warming, would not have locus standi to succeed in a civil action.. As regards criminal liability, most meteorologists genuinely believe in global warming, so they would not have the Mens Rea necessary for a prosecution to succeed. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The ony people who could be prosecuted are those very high up, but unfortunately the judicial system in the western world is controlled by the same elite.

  2. Seriously ?

    There is no climate change ?

    Of course there is – it has been happening forever !

    Mankind plays no part ?

    Of course we do – our actions cause deforestation, desertification, changes to aquatic systems and major changes to the natural organisms on Earth.

    Monckton is one of a group of so called sceptics that completely defend the idea that there is a greenhouse effect, that greenhouse gases trap radiation and this causes global warming.

    If you acknowledge that IPCC’s only basis for this greenhouse nonsense then you ARE acknowledging the IPCC could be right.

    To talk of equations that prove this or that is sheer nonsense – the whole ediface is built on nothing at all but some equations which have never been demonstrated as accurate.

    This will rightly be seen as arrogant nonsense and will have no impact on the juggernaut of IPCC driven climate alarm.

    They say they can prove there will be little warming but acknowledge the fundamental basis is right ?

    That sounds like an evangelist not a sceptic to me !

    • Thanks Rosco, you put it in a nutshell. Arrogance and pseudo-mathematics to “prove” that the very basis for AGW is in tact. There is absolutely no “greenhouse” effect as specified by the UN IPCC, not even in a real greenhouse. This guy is part of a cabal who think they have all the answers when in fact they have none, they are in fact the facilitators of the climate alarmists by defending the existence of a “greenhouse” effect. Shame on him and his cohorts.

    • Rosco, Monckton doesn’t agree with the equations at all. He’s arguing with them using their own vehicles for the argument. He’s simply proving they completely failed with the equations.

      I know you to be someone who sees reason in this business. Monckton does too. He knows as well as you or I that it’s nothing to do with warming as the Global Warmers are trying to tell us. He has repeatedly stated that they are using their bogus techniques incorrectly to “prove” climate change.

      I’m certain he himself doesn’t believe any of it. He’s just arguing using their language. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. 😉

    • Monkton although he has done allot to get at the IPCC and call it what it is a FRAUD,. but he is still a “luke warmist ” yes. John Ogden from Slaying the Sky Dragon has listed the luke warmists. Down side is that they somewhat play into the hands of the alarmist warmists but saying there is ‘some’ GHG effect. Which there is not as it breaks the laws of thermodynamics..

  3. Puts an interesting slant on the graph of warming periods in the next article – we are presently near the lowest global temperatures of the current interglacial period, approximately 1.5C lower than the highest. The entire warming that we can expect would not bring us to that maximum.

    Since we know through Robert’s work that we are likely at this juncture going through a period of unstable climate directly preceding a final decline back into another glacial period, we probably need all of the warming we can get!

    • “Since we know through Robert’s work that we are likely at this juncture going through a period of unstable climate directly preceding a final decline back into another glacial period,…”

      Whilst totally respecting what Robert has done I sincerely hope that this is not right as it could be a disaster for several billion people and cause massive genocide as the haves fight to retain their status-quo.

      7+ billion people combined with even a modest percentage in food production is potentially a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

      A mini ice age will be difficult enough but rapid onset full blown glaciation – that’s unimaginable.

  4. When was the interview conducted ? Christopher Monkton alluded to “next week” but when was that ? Is it now or some time in the past ?

    • Sad to say, I’m on the road headed for my sister’s funeral. Comment approval may be spotty for the next few days.

      • Very Sorry to here of the passing of your sister Robert family for sure comes first take all the time you need so you can be there with the family in a hard time of need at the moment thoughts and condolences to you and family

      • OH, I guess that’s why mine never appeared at all. Not a problem for me, under the circumstances.

        Deepest sympathies for your loss.

  5. Global warming, to the extent it may be occurring, is a result of climate changes. Climates over the world have been changing since the world began. I see little to be concerned about.
    In the past few hundred years, northern Europe experienced what has been called “the little ice age”. The climate there was uncommonly cold. But it’s not now.
    Southern Greenland, as an example, was ice and snow-free a thousand years ago, and the Nordic people (Vikings) established settlements there to raise sheep for a few hundred years.
    These are only two of a great number of examples of on-going climate change.
    If more people studied history, more people would know that climate change is not new, nor is it anthropogenic.
    Climates have been changing since the world began, but I repeat myself.

  6. Rosco, what Monckton says is not that there is “no” climate change or human effect, but that the warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 is trivial, around one degree Fahrenheit. Anyone who has tried to independently reproduce IPCC level warming from first principles has always come up with trivial levels of warming. In fact, since the surface temperature of a planet can be estimated reasonably simply from atmosperic density and lapse rate and the mean radiation received from the sun, what Monckton claims is even reasonable, which has never been the case for a global warming “catastrophe.” AGW makes entertaining science fiction but we simply are just one more, minor input. If you consider planetary history, (see the Geocarb III model), right at this point in time, the ONLY comparable period (cold and CO2 impoverished) was the end of the Permian 250 million years ago. No one really knows what triggered the Permian extinction, but given it was biggest we know of, that comparison should be formost in in theorist’s considerations if they are wooried about climate. The earth is not hot; it is unusually cold in geohiistoric perspective. And, more importantly, the Permian ended in a glacial epoch.

    If you simply drop back in time about 20,000 years, we see estimated CO2 skirting the 200 ppm level, which means primary productivity was severely constrained. Plants like CO2 and even the minor bit we have contributed over the satellite period – ca. seventy years – has had important effects on plant productivity (possibly a significant amount of what big chemical companies are taking credit for through their fertizers and pesticides).

    The issue for most sceptics has never been whether there is an anthropic contribution to climate (ever sense agriculture became widespread there has been such an effect), but why blow a trivial effect into such a huge issue? There are genuine pollutants of far greater concern than CO2, which is not a pollutant.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.