Seen this?

1.5 million people have. It’s Lord Christopher Monckton arguing that the Copenhagen treaty on climate change will see countries, including the US, cede national soveignty. I’ll let him explain himself, but one question springs to mind whether he’s right about his claim or not. He’s strongly opposed, but if a shift in power is needed to stop climate change, is it necessarily a bad thing?

On an unrelated point, Lord monckton is also the man behind the super-successful Eternity Puzzle.

39 Responses to “Seen this?”

  1. 1 Jennifer
    October 29, 2009 at 14:32

    Why doesn’t WHYS link to the report that states that people are no longer believing in the climate change mumbo jumbo?

    • 2 patti in cape coral
      October 29, 2009 at 18:42

      Hi Jennifer – The science behind climate change is somewhat confusing to me, but as I understand it, there is not much doubt whether climate change is happening, (among scientists anyways) the debate is whether us humans are the ones causing it, or is it just a natural phenomenon that happens periodically.

      • 3 Jennifer
        November 2, 2009 at 15:21

        Hi Patti! 🙂

        What concerns me so much about global warming and causes me to more disbelieve than believe is that there are those who radically push the save the planet agenda. It seems to me that many, especially where it coincides with a political agenda, want to transform our everyday lives (personal freedom), economy, property rights for the sake of “saving the planet”. From comments here you can see that Obama is even mentioned.

        For as much “science” as some say proves the global warming “crisis” there is just as much to disprove. There is no denying that as humans our existence does have an impact. However, how much and in what ways as well as the short and long term consequences can not be definitely measured.

        Some things you can check out if you are interested are Al Gore’s movie (which is very inconsistent so check the “facts” there), the “consensus” of scientists that make some people say this topic is not disputable when other scientists do not agree. With all the problems Africa has is global warming truly their biggest issue? Should we be putting the earth before human beings?

        Global warming is contestable and changing our lives so drastically to counter it is radical. Of course, that is only my opinion! 🙂

    • 4 Dennis Junior
      October 30, 2009 at 16:42


      maybe…science is not mumbo jumbo it is a complicated thing to comprehend…

      ~Dennis Junior~

  2. 5 Jerry Cordaro Cleveland OH
    October 29, 2009 at 14:46

    Even on the wacko scale, Monckton is out there. Does anyone really think that the President of the United States is planning on ceding US sovereignty to anyone? Even if he were, are there 67 Senators stupid enough to vote for it?

  3. 7 John in Salem
    October 29, 2009 at 14:56

    Methinks someone’s been watching too much Fox news…
    Seriously, I don’t think the U.S. has ever signed any kind of international agreement without some nutcase claimng we were ceding our sovereignity.
    As Bill Maher advised Obama a couple weeks ago, “Stop listening to these people. You can’t change someone’s mind if they don’t have one to begin with.”

  4. 8 Sulayman Dauda
    October 29, 2009 at 15:06

    so much stories on global climate uncertainty. why not the world fight curroption as the most desarstrous cancer first before moving further to discuss climate and host of other things? because if I may argue the uncertainty of climate disorder can never be overcome without global eradication of curroption because all 21stcc governance is full of curroptions and negativity and no one or nations will be left of it.

  5. 9 Jens
    October 29, 2009 at 15:16


    since when are you the people……..there is overwhealming evidence that the globe is warming up. to me it does not essentially matter what is the primary course, since that will only lead to a dogmatic discussion. but to just blindly refute the existance of global warming shows a lack of understanding.

    • 10 No Thanks
      October 31, 2009 at 23:23

      I’m not sure that’s the point of the question being posed here. I for one, believe the science of climate change but I don’t believe that what is being proposed in Copenhagen (if indeed it will necessitate a wholesale abdication of sovereignty) is neither necessary nor workable. It could be that Lord Monckton is engaging in a bit of the same hysteria that the climate-change sceptics accuse environmentalists of but in this case, the political side of the enforcement debate.
      Let’s face it, if there’s anything to what Lord Monckton says, the US Senate will never ratify the treaty if indeed the US president does sign it.

  6. 11 NSC London
    October 29, 2009 at 15:24

    National sovereignty is an antiquated notion in many ways and one of the primary obstacles to world peace.

    To anyone doubting this man’s position I would encourage you to read The Report from Iron Mountain. This document is freely available online and clearly states that one of the primary tactics to get nations to give up sovereignty is a global climate crisis (a space program was another).

    I would also encourage anyone interested in this issue to read the writings of Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei.

  7. 12 gary
    October 29, 2009 at 15:28

    The cause or even the facts of climate change are unimportant, because these are not the only substantial problems facing humanity. At one time tribal allegiance provided security, but after a while, individual tribes could not stand against confederations. City-states worked for a long time too; but they gave way to yet larger organized entities. Perhaps we are at a time when nation-states no longer provide the necessary answers. The Earth is a limited resource and an excellent argument for minimizing resource use can be based solely upon the idea of minimizing waste. For instance, the wise person might look to the food on his or her table and ask, “What is contained in this repast and how did it arrive here?” A careful person might be drawn to its phosphorus content. There isn’t so much phosphorus around and modern agriculture depends upon it absolutely. Concentrated energy is likewise essential to modern farming. These are not silly conjectures; but things easily verified by short term observation. As always, practice makes perfect. Maybe we ought practice a bit thinking and talking on a global scale before the going gets really tough.

  8. October 29, 2009 at 16:06

    Well Lord Christopher Monckton, if when this Treaty is signed and as you prosits, the US will finally know what its like to have one’s civil liberties trampled on and taken away…

  9. 14 Josiah Soap
    October 29, 2009 at 16:32

    The countries that make up this planet are very diverse not only culturally but economically. I am not sure a world government blanket approach would work. Certain countries would try and find loopholes or not tow the line if it benefitted them. As for the arguments it might bring about world peace, I can see nothing further from the truth. If those in developed countries have to give up any creature comforts or liberties I could see riots en masse. A world government and world peace is a dangerous pipe dream. As for climate change, its happening, but why its happening, and the ultimate consequences cannot be known. If there is mass flooding and loss of land you can bet it will end in a global 3rd world war annihilation. Just look at what happened with Katrina and those people got to go back home afterwords!

  10. 15 Ann
    October 29, 2009 at 16:52

    Well!!! That silly little speech by Lord Monckton has to be one of the most purile and hilarious things I’ve seen in a long time. It’s got to be a joke right?????

  11. 16 Colin Sundaram
    October 29, 2009 at 17:05

    29. 10. 09

    I have been following/tracking Jennifer’s views on everything she wrote about so far and I’m in total agreement with her views. She is an extremely intelligent individual.

  12. 17 Tom K in Mpls
    October 29, 2009 at 17:09

    I bet good old capitalism will get and keep us ahead of government standards just as it has with automobiles for the past 15 years. Efficiency, lower operating cost is a selling point. As far as global warming, I haven’t seen it yet. The last reports show a cooling trend over the last ten years. Climate change is eternal but science is still unable to accurately say how much influence man has.

  13. 18 Ann
    October 29, 2009 at 17:23

    I’ve done a little digging on Lord Monckton’s activities…this may go some way to explaining where he is coming from …

    “Christopher Monckton and the Heartland Institute

    Monckton is listed as a “Global Warming” expert for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based freemarket think tank. The Heartland Institute frequently attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

    Christopher Monckton and the Science and Public Policy Institute

    Monckton is listed as a “Chief Policy Advisor” for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). The SPPI was until recently managed under the name “Center for Science and Public Policy Institute” by another freemarket think tank called the Frontiers of Freedom.

    The Frontiers of Freedom has received over $1 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.”

    Well well well – who would have guessed?


  14. 19 Tom D Ford
    October 29, 2009 at 17:55

    “… arguing that the Copenhagen treaty on climate change will see countries, including the US, cede national sovereignty.”

    I suggest that the question here is what or who will any nations sovereignty be ceded to, if at all?

    What if the good of humanity were considered to be sovereign over any artificial constructs like nations, counties, cities, Corporations, etc?

    Then the idea of ceding sovereignty would be seen as a good thing rather than a bad, benefiting humanity rather than continuing to hurt humanity.

  15. 20 Tom D Ford
    October 29, 2009 at 18:04

    “The Report from Iron Mountain”

    Was debunked around three decades ago. I fell for it when it first came out but I eventually got myself enlightened that it was a hoax, just propaganda.

  16. 21 Ann
    October 29, 2009 at 18:19

    @Tom D Ford

    “What if the good of humanity were considered to be sovereign over any artificial constructs like nations, counties, cities, Corporations, etc?”

    I love the capital C on Corporations – was that a Freudian slip or consciously intentional? 🙂

    The “good of humanity” – what a wonderful ideal. Can’t imagine the rich elite liking that idea much sadly. But things are a-changing and methinks they are a wee bit uncomfortable as their power is being challenged. Well done Obama!

  17. 22 NSC London
    October 29, 2009 at 18:54

    Ann, how exactly has Obama challenged the power of the rich? The last I read on Obama he was blocking the rights of the 9/11 families to sue House of Saud because that would have compromised US oil interests, not exactly the actions of a Capitalist Robin Hood.

    Tom, I’m well aware of the hoax allegations around Iron Mountain, I just don’t believe them. There was never any definitive proof that the document was written by Lewin other than his admission that he wrote it and in absence of anyone else claiming authorship, the courts upheld his copyright infringement case. A thorough debunking that does not make.

  18. 23 Jeremy from Lansing MI USA
    October 29, 2009 at 18:58

    I forgot to give credit to World Have Your Say for allowing people to debate each other rather than just dismissing them. Thanks, this is why I love this program.

  19. 24 Robert
    October 29, 2009 at 18:58


    Why doesn’t WHYS link to the report that states that people are no longer believing in the climate change mumbo jumbo?

    Most of the world thought it was flat centuries ago. Does that make it flat? No. On scientific issues like climate change science, the vast majority of people opinions are irrelevant. It’s science it follows its rules.

    Where the majority of peoples views are important is how we make any changes. The people decide if they want to risk the changes from climate change or not. This report is useful because it shows how much information has not been presented.

  20. 25 Tom D Ford
    October 29, 2009 at 19:08

    @ Ann
    October 29, 2009 at 18:19

    The capital C was intentional. Benito Mussolini and his fellow WW2 Fascisti, Hitler, et al, defined Fascism as the Corporate State.

    And over the last thirty some years Conservatives have made great strides in giving Corporations that power of Rule. Some global corporations are larger and more powerful than nations. And nations have ceded world government style power to the WTO. Citizens no longer have the power to vote for regulations over business and trade, that power has been taken away by Corporations and placed in the WTO.

    It is ironic that actual living humans have lost their power to artificial “persons” in the form of Corporations. Corporations ruling over humans is a shame.

    • 26 Tom K in Mpls
      October 30, 2009 at 20:13

      Fascism by definition is a rule by a domineering dictator. The WWII use of the term corporate state was an intentionally misleading statement. Spin if you prefer. And had nothing to do with reality.

  21. 27 viola
    October 29, 2009 at 19:11

    When my children were young, a friend complimented us on them, how well behaved they were and how I must have been proud of them. I was, of course, proud of them. What mother is not? However, my reply was, “Well, it remains to be seen how they will turn out, doesn’t it?”

    Isn’t climate change like that? There is evidence that it won’t turn out well, but it remains to be seen, doesn’t it? Nevertheless, as inhabitants of the earth, we serve the same function as parents do to try to make it turn out well.

    I don’t understand how a treaty between nations can be considered a world government. Legal language in which treaties are written is there to ensure that what is said is what is meant to be said and in the best of worlds cannot be misread by those seeking gain at others’ expense.

  22. 28 John in Salem
    October 29, 2009 at 22:29

    I love it when I hear someone say the jury’s still out on this – what jury is that, exactly?
    Say your doctor tells you that if you keep using a particular product, you, and all your family, will be dead within 5 years.
    But you want a second opinion so you go to 99 more doctors. 95 of them confirm the diagnosis but 4 tell you there’s nothing wrong.
    Are you then going to keep using it because “the jury’s still out”?

  23. 29 T
    October 30, 2009 at 01:16

    Apparently Lord Monckton didn’t get the memo re: the U.K. and U.S. economies. Obama says the States are out of recession. Brown says that the recession will end by next year.

    But with the massive amounts of private and govt. debt that both have, how is this possible? This debt is going to reduce both countries to a lower status. Not climate change.

  24. October 30, 2009 at 04:03


  25. 31 scmehta
    October 30, 2009 at 08:40

    Some people are paranoid just about everything; they are always on the look out to arouse suspicions, in order to arouse unnecessary hype or passions and gain cheap popularity, even as they well know of the futility of their illogical and absurd presumptions.

  26. 32 scmehta
    October 30, 2009 at 14:16

    It sounds as if Christopher Monckton has just coined a new propaganda slogan:-
    “To think or act globally is to cede sovereignty “

  27. October 30, 2009 at 15:09

    He is partially right.Mistake is that his assumption that US or advanced countries shall cede soveignity.In fact it is the developing Nations that have a lot to lose ,as the treaty shall place these nations at a disadvantage by equating them with the developed countries.All said and done climate change is to be addressed by individually by themselves, not by Talk Shops.

  28. 34 Jonnan
    October 30, 2009 at 15:56

    Oh for the love of Pete.

    Newsflash – Renowned English peer discovers that treaties resolve issues by holding parties accountable to fulfilling a mutually agreed set of interrelated responsibilities.

    Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that the people that consider holding the most powerful countries in the world to carefully negotiated mutually beneficial treaties a ‘violation of sovereignty’ never consider holding people to contracts they were forced into accepting from international corporations with thousands of lawyers and unlimited bargaining leverage as even slightly unfair?


  29. 35 Dennis Junior
    October 30, 2009 at 16:40

    I only saw the clip that was provided…And, he is absoltelty not correct…

    ~Dennis Junior~

  30. 36 Ronald Almeida
    October 30, 2009 at 16:49

    Whether climate change is caused by man or by mother nature herself. The fact remains the world is lot more polluted than it ever was before. And if in any way we can stop that, it is worth giving it a try.

    • 37 Tom K in Mpls
      October 30, 2009 at 20:18

      I agree, for many reasons we need to always reduce pollution. But it is wrong to undermine governments or economic systems to do it. ‘Any way’ is a bit strong.

  31. October 31, 2009 at 15:45

    As a chess player I know that you do not win without sacrifices. Whether its a pawn or a bishop, does not matter. Perhaps his lordship should play some chess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: