Climate change sceptics

From Nov 2009

Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government?
Alan Jones talks to Lord Monckton, British climate change sceptic, who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

 This really gets my goat. Lord Monckton is not a scientist (see his profile on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley) and has often been accused deliberately manipulated and cherry picked data to further his argument (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). Further, the one paper he ‘published’ on the topic was never peer reviewed (see Wikipedia article above) and is riddled with errors (see http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html)

Global Warming is real, there is incredibly strong consensus amongst the genuine scientific community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ). Like the theory of evolution, the fact that a few people (I’ll avoid calling them either crackpots or scientist) argue against it does not mean its not the theory that best fits the observations. Indeed Wikipedia – the online encyclopaedia maintained by the entire world – notes (emphasis added):

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

 In relation to the one world government claim, you can read the proposed text of the treaty at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf . The reference to government that Monckton discusses seems to be on page 18, where one of the two options for clause 38 state that The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. Clearly they are referring to the how the new arrangement will be governed, not trying to sneak in a New Word Government though the semantically correct use of this word.

However. if the Copenhagen treaty actually managed to get the world together to fight climate change through a democratic and representational world government – that can finally resolve the constipation of the UN security council and the inability to enforce human rights might actually be able to stop some of the evil that still goes on in the world today – then I say DO IT.

As for the accusation that this treaty will cede sovereignty, as with all treaties, the document has to be signed by the executive and then ratified by the legislature. This is the case in the US, the UK and Australia. Thus, if this treaty actually did transfer powers to the UN that should legitimately be kept within the nation, I suspect that our elected representatives might take objection. That said, depending on how you use the word ‘cede’ it is arguable that many UN treaties, such as the universal declaration on human rights take certain powers away from – or more accurately impose certain requirements on - national, state and local governments. What’s more I personally think this can be a good thing, as my experience suggests that the claim of sovereignty is often used to prevent interference when the government of country is abusing its citizens – take the ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the former Yugoslavia as an example.

You might also be interested in some of Monckton’s other views as cited by Wikipedia:

• On AIDS: "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."
• On the EU he would “leave the European Union, close down 90 per cent of government services and shift power away from the atheistic, humanistic government and into the hands of families and individuals.”

In conclusion, I must dismiss this as the sort of pompous right wing pseudo claptrap that tends to buzz around right-wing websites and talkback shows, and would suggest you do the same. That is, of course, unless you also a believe in the other extreme right wing notions that creation of a world government as a precursor to end of days the rise of the anti-Christ, as in the biblical book of the Rapture. If you believe that, I can point you to some websites and videos that ‘prove’ President Obama is a Muslim and that gun control is a step on the slippery slope to loosing the freedoms that America so cherishes.

As an aside, in relation to those so called “freedoms”, my personal favourite is the one that allows corporations to act as social psychopaths – as described in the documentary “the Corporation” available for free viewing online (see http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46).