Comments on: Updated: Warming Up For World Government

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:59:16 +0000

The earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too;
for many dangers there’s nothing to do
(If there’s no God
we’re simply screwed).

But with CO2
it’s simple indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breath)

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:10:45 +0000

Come the cold,
I will be happy.
With global alarmists
I will be snappy.
They will cry;
not I;
their frozen tears
shall join the sky’s.
Sigh!

By: Bob Harrison

Bob Harrison — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:48:55 +0000

Now I wonder who stands to benefit from the carbon trading schemes that the watermelons have been pushing, certainly not politically connected organizations and individuals!
It is clever albeit sinister; tax the productive classes of the first world to pay your cronies in the third world and take a little off the top.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:32:50 +0000

I found another version that has the slides he’s talking to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:17:46 +0000

A link to Monckton’s entire talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded

By: nobody

nobody — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:38:18 +0000

I have a better idea than this treaty. How about the US cut off all foreign aid to these third-world countries and the UN? Then, since we're using evil green house gas fuel to grow food, we'll have to cut off the food aid for them as well and let them starve. This will reduce the global CO2 output by quite a bit wouldn't it? I don't believe that the US is being punished and expected to pay money to these third world "countries" when they use so much of our bounty to enrich their corrupt leaders and feed their own populations. The UN is a truly evil organization. I hope to live to see the day that it is destroyed.

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:20:52 +0000

I watched the entire presentation a few weeks ago. The man knows his stuff. No wonder the likes of Al Gore won't debate him. Monckton would make him look like the fraud that he is. [Send a link to the entire thing.]

By: George Pal

George Pal — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:11:05 +0000

I believe it’s worse than one might expect. In Article II, “… provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” the operative and lunatitc word is present . The implications roil the imagination.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:56:49 +0000

It is frightening. Also, Obama and Pelosi and Reid can just ignore the 2/3 requirement of the Constitution if the President and Congress will go along by fiat (majority). It is like fighting wars without a declaration of War … if the branches do not object, the damage is done.

The real limitation is the economy tanking – but should that happen, everything is in play.

By: Vic Jones

Vic Jones — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:29:49 +0000

State coercion via the vehicle of science is not a new M.O. Sadly we forget these lessons of history, or in the case of our government schools, we never learn the historical lessons. A major concern is the status we grant anything labeled “scientific.” A classic read on this issue is Michael Polanyi’s The Logic of Liberty. He addresses in that work the necessity of separating government from scientific inquiry. Although Polanyi’s work has been usurped by postmodernists, The Logic of Liberty is a good read. Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science is another important work. His distinction of science from scientism is readily applicable to environmental studies today. Hayek addressed what he considered a misuse of the methods of physical science when applied to the social sciences. He considered it an “abuse of reason.” Environmentalism today uses the status of “science” to engineer a social agenda. The abuse of reason is in full bloom.