Jan
Lord Monckton calls out Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
The Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, shortly before Copenhagen, gave a speech (Part I video above, Part II here) where he said the “Denialists”, “Climate Change Deniers”, and “Skeptics” were entirely funded by special interests, and are now so dangerous that they’re putting our the planet, and our kids’ future in jeopardy. Rudd has a particular dislike for Lord Christopher Monckton. In fact, he derided Monckton six times by name in that speech.
Lord Monckton has penned a reply to the Prime Minister, and you can read it at the Science and Public Policy Institute website. It begins:
The Honourable Mr. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Prime Minister,
CLIMATE CHANGE: PROPOSED PERSONAL BRIEFING
Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.
Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.
You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No…
Full letter in this PDF
Possibly related posts:
Rudd must have an axe to grind to keep AGW going. He MUST have because he looks like an idiot making statements like that for no reason…
The only way this could be better would be to hear Lord Monckton actually reading the letter! (and seeing Rudd’s face at receipt of it.)
Sorry Australian Prime Minister, but no one pays me, I don’t belong to any groups. Just more blathering propaganda, he must be on Al Gore’s payroll if you ask me.
If there is any justice in this world, in a few years, Kevin Rudd will be selling cheap kitchen gadgets on late night television.
The Daily Telegraph, one of Sydney’s two daily newspapers, has printed Lord Monckton’s letter to Chairman Rudd in it’s entirety! The tide is turning!
We’re lucky to have a man like Lord Monckton going to bat for us. I accept what he says, that he’s concerned about us little guys who are in line to pay for the CAGW alarmism that’s afoot.
They guy is amazing. His breadth of knowledge and his dogged persistence in making his points are just incredible.
He’s exactly what our side (the side of reason and sanity) needed. Many thanks, dear friend whom I’ve never met. You are doing your excellent best to save us, Lord Monckton. I, for one, appreciate it more than I can say.
I appreciate the other fine individuals who do battle for us daily. Please don’t misunderstand. But you, Lord Monckton, bring a special something to this fight. I wish I could define it, bottle it and sell it. I’d be richer than Al Gore in no time.
The special someting Lord Monckton brings is common sense, and an ability to actually think for himself instead of acting like a lemming, both a scarcity nowadays. Thank you Lord Monckton.
Well said, John!
I was bowled over at his graciousness. Many readers had questions about his math, science and general methodology after the Rudd letter was posted on one of the skeptic websites. Lord Monckton came back and patiently answered (in a separate post) each reader’s question(s). Now, that is a true gentleman. I mean, British royalty don’t have to work; neither do they have to explain themselves to readers of an American website. It’s his choice to put himself on the line. I believe he’s doing all this because he gives a damn about us ordinary citizens who will be financially raped if the other side prevails.
I enjoy your comments, John. Thanks for replying.
He does care. He’s a man with a sack, it’s the principal, he doesn’t want these people getting away with it pure and simple. He could easlily blow this all of and probably make some bucks in the carbon trading scam. He’s like the Robin Hood of global warming. He’s going to screw the rich charlatans who will make billions off this scam and give to the poor. If there were only more people in government with his principals instead of politicians whose only interest is stuffing their pockets imagine what the world would be like.
John..
…” He’s like the Robin Hood of global warming. He’s going to screw the rich charlatans who will make billions off this scam and give to the poor…”
you keep outdoing yourself…just when I think you’ve made the most incomprensible remark possible…wham! you come back with something even more bizarro..
Hey don’t blame me if you can’t comprehend English.
You are a complete d**k, there’s a remark for you to sit and ponder
With the fall from grace of Tiger Woods, Lord Monckton has become my new hero and idol!
He defines the words “integrity”, “gentleman” and “honor”
Hats off to you once again Lord Monckton! And thank you for all that you do!
Truer words were never spoken.
“Hats off to you once again Lord Monckton! And thank you for all that you do!”
What a tribute to this courageous warrior. It really affects me (nearly to tears) when I think what his efforts (if successful, which I believe they will be) will mean to little granddaughter during her lifetime, after I’ve gone to my rest.
Excellent comment, Squidly!
Squidly..I don’t know if I would be so anxious to let the world know that my ex hero was Tiger Woods…c’mon..a golf pro? Actually, I think Tiger has become more fully human with the latest ‘scandal’..he was so squeaky clean and bereft of personality that I thought he was an android.
Humanpersonjr..I must admit that Lord Moncton of good life boulevard brings me to tears as well…of laughter.
Dont cry for Lord Monckton.
Refute him, if he’s wrong. I don’t think he is.
Ok – if you want a refutation of Monckton’s non-science, read this ACTUAL science paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Anything else you want?
Yeah – a real gentleman:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/climate-change-denial-lord-monckton
Well, do you deny the spoiled, little, rich, little, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives b*st*rds were acting Hitlerish? If you deny that, I’ll have to call you what you are: a denier.
It doesn’t matter how badly or otherwise the protesters acted. A ‘gentleman’ does not descend to name calling. And I won’t say whether they have worked a day in their lives or not – I have no evidence for it.
But, if you want to point fingers at ‘spoiled, rich bastards’, you probably should take a look at your hero. He may not be a bastard, but spoiled and rich are pretty well guaranteed. This is the same man, who’s cure for AIDS is (and these are his words):
“…there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”
Maybe its because he is bitter that he stood in a by-election for the House of Lords and got exactly 0 votes.
It goes to show I’m also not a “gentleman.”
I saluted him for his righteous anger.
I don’t know that I agree with his views on stopping AIDS (although his remedy seem efficient, it seems inhumane). His views on AIDS prevention don’t have one whit to do with his views on climate alarmism.
Has he suggested carting away the alarmists? Did I miss something? We might do better to sequester alarmists than to sequester CO2. Ha-ha. I made a funny.
I looked at the paper written by the denier Hansen et al.
I didn’t fully understand it, but the parts I did understand didn’t, in my view, contradict Lord Monckton’s points.
Lord Monckton seems eminently sensible to me, not at all a wild-eyed fanatic. Schmidt, Hansen and Mann (but particularly Gavin I-know-I-look-a-fool-why-won’t-the-cool-kids-play-with-me-oh-God-I-shat-my-underpants Schmidt) all look like Biblical frauds, I’m sorry, I meant prophets, claiming the end is near.
So, let me get this straight.
You didn’t understand it, but you are saying that it doesn’t contradict something else that you don’t understand either. Way to go with the evidence there.
You clearly perceive your wit as sharp, It isn’t.
You reveal yourself to be one of the dumb masses.
I have no problem admitting my ignorance. It’s the only cure for it, you know. If a body thinks he knows all, he becomes awfully hard to teach anything.
You’re not worthy of my time. I suspend this engagement. Carry on with your “witticisms.” (They are, in fact, half-witticisms.
Humanpersonjur..
I doubt you did it intentionally but you couldn’t have used a better expression than”wild eyed fanatic”, either positively or negatively with reference to Lord Monckton.
I sincerely hope that you don’t take this as an ad hominem attack on either you or his Lordship as I point it out merely as an observation.
Take a careful look at your denier boy Gavin I-know-I-look-a-fool-why-won’t-the-cool-kids-play-with-me-oh-God-I-shat my underpants Schmidt. You might notice some strange psychological undercurrents right off the bat.
I’m sure it’s mere coincidence, but it still makes me nervous that all the aging hippies (John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, etc.) who want the U.S. to hand out trillions in “climate justice debt” payments to third-world tinhorn dictators, are the same crowd that, thirty to forty years ago, wanted the U.S. to hand out billions to the same crew, as reparations for the scars of colonialism.
It seems suspiciously like this whole process began with a clear endgame (politically and economically) firmly in mind. Thereafter, it was merely a question of making the science agree. Conspiracy? You bet your ass.
Keep in mind that a political campaign is a conspiracy. The practice sessions leading up to a football game constitute an ongoing conspiracy. So conspiracies are all over the place. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the deniers in this conspiracy, particularly Michael “Stick” Mann, end up behind bars.
Over at WUWT they give Lord Monckton’s Open Letter to KRudd
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/
…as well as his subsequent response to selected comments there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/
Also, here’s Alex Jones’ interview with Lord Monckton that’s a good listen.
http://podcast.gcnlive.com/podcast/alex/0104102.mp3
Man..an interview with Lord Mockton conducted by Alex Jones…this would be a denialists vision of heaven..too bad they couldn’t have included Glenn Beck for the full meal deal – a complete 3 way workshop in idiocy.
Steve, we rationalists have to take the “high ground” when dealing with the anti-science deniers.
Argumentum ad hominem is neither graceful nor erudite, and you really do our important cause a significant injury by engaging in these tactics.
Respond to the deniers with science, not diatribe!
That is the only way in which we shall succeed.
I suggest that the alarmists are the actual deniers.
Kaboom
Yes, you are quite correct. Forgive me father for I have sinned. But after typing thousands of well-intentioned words in a vain attempt to squeeze something resembling logic out of CottShop I was in a weakened condition and couldn’t resist.
But as to your assertion that we must respond to the deniers with SCIENCE.. I’m afraid they are generally impervious to such attempts at outreach.
This, however, is no excuse and I shall try my damnedest to stick to the high road from here on.
[[But after typing thousands of well-intentioned words in a vain attempt to squeeze something resembling logic out of CottShop I was in a weakened condition and couldn’t resist.]]
Swell- now I see what kind of person I’m dealing with- insulting me in other threads without my knowledge? And by the way- in the other thread we were invovled in, you have continued avoiding hte main issues- so enough with hte yammering about how you ‘typed thousands of ‘well itnentioned words’- Al lyou did was avoid the facts while trying to drag the topic into off-topic territory
“Action being prosecuted” WOW Running farmers off their land. And writing a Eugenics document for the third world. All for the New World Order!. Now that’s what I call A vested interest!. WTF
I don’t get the reference.
Where does that phrase “Action being prosecuted” appear? Who runs farmers off the land? Who’s writing a Eugenics document for the third world? Thanks — I might just be slow on the uptake.
Boy was he telling lies about the secret agenda of the NWO and the World Bank!. Talk about others being dangerous this man is a walking talking extermination machine!. Sieg Heil Sieg Heil!.
I loved seeing the ad for Canada Goose outerwear above this article….talk about timing!
John..please..what in hell are you on about?
You have no sense of humor? I’ll explain my comment. This is a forum about Global Warming, I find it funny it would have an ad for goose down clothing, I find it funner that it’s very timely with the bad weather we’re having. Very simple concept (for me at least).
John
You do know that ads are specific to the location and surfing habits of the viewer, and change frequently? Just because you see something doesn’t mean anyone else does.
And you’re right about bad weather. I just came back from a lunchtime walk – its 41 degrees outside!!! And going to be hotter on the weekend. An ad for goose down clothing would be wasted.
Now, an ad for a cold beer might go down well….
I’ll agree on the beer (finally we agree on something, in fact I’m getting on in a minute – almost an Obama moment). Regarding the ads, I have to ask what makes you think someone else doesn’t see it besides me?
John, please don’t bother trying to show an amicable side to these despots. They’re hardly worth the effort, considering they’ve lost the battle and the war. Leave them to lick their wounds, and let us hope the wounds are most inconveniently located.
Someone else MAY see it – but if they are in a different country or have completely different surfing habit to you, they probably didn’t. I certainly didn’t, and I guess Steve didn’t either – hence my explanation.
And I’m jealous about the beer – I’m still at work for 3 more hours.
humanpersonjr
Despot huh? You do know what that word means right?
And I love your pun (you did mean it to be a pun about ‘inconventiently located’ didn’t you?)
Not so sure about your assertion about the battle and the war though. I’m pretty convinced that every government in the world accepts the science, and are actively – if slowly – taking steps to address the issue. So, by that criteria……….
“Despot,” in my view, could be used to mean any oppressor. You’ve certainly proven yourself oppressive.
No, I did not intend to make a pun.
Screw every government in the world. Governments and their over-reaching ambitions are the real problem facing mankind, not the CO2 levels in the atmosphere or the ocean.
The momentum was on the side of the deniers/alarmists for many years. However, the deniers have lost considerable ground with ClimateGate and its aftermath. One salutory effect of ClimateGate: Some scientists who were muzzled by the deniers early on have begun speaking out.
Don’t worry. We’ll never propose that you deniers are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, or that you should be locked away for your opinions. However, I’m fairly certain that some of your leading lights will end up in jail.
In the denialism/alarmism community, as in Scientology, there are puppet masters and useful idiots. Either/or, just like the ones and zeroes in digital informatio. Which are you?
Damn – I gave you the option of appearing witty and clever – you should have said you meant the pun!
Good, tough question there. Am I a puppet master or a useful idiot? But why pick on Scientology? (is it because it has ‘science’ in it’s name?) All religions are the same.
But of course, by framing your question using a digital analogy, you offered no other alternatives. So, if that’s all I have, and since I am not a politician or anyone with a lot of power, I am going for the ‘useful idiot’ option. But at least I’m useful, which is more than I can say for some.
However, I didn’t realise you were an anarchist. ‘Screw every government in the world’ huh? Did you think that 2 years ago? Or is it only because the Democrats are in power in the US now?
And I’m not sure who I am oppressing here though, since you can simply ignore me if you want, as I can you. But I won’t do that. I’m having too much fun presenting logic and evidence and awaiting the shrill, uninformed opinions in return.
You gave me the option to be dishonest. I refused. I can see why that would confound you.
Usefulness (also called utility) is a neutral term. A useful person, one who possesses utility, can be used for evil, as in the case of Scientology, climate alarmism / denialism and other religions, or he can be used to promote noble causes. So, don’t be overly proud of the appellation, “useful.”
I’m no anarchist. Yes, I thought that two years ago, four years ago and in 2000, just after G.W. Bush was inaugurated. However, it’s much worse since the Dimbulbocrats were elected (by useful idiots, what a coincidence!) to power.
You are oppressive, for two reasons: 1) your method here is cavalier, shrill and shallow, not allowing for any meaningful exchanges (in other words, a typical denier); and, 2) your views, if enacted into public policy, would enable the current crop of tyrants (Dimbulbocrats) to once and for all, well and truly, pin the little guy to the floor, with their iron bootheels firmly pressed against our necks. If you don’t see this as the logical extension of your views, you prove the aphorism: “There is none so blind and he who will not see.”