Nope, he's long been known as an anthropogenic climate change sceptic, and anti-EU campaigner. You used an 'appeal to authority' argument, when I'm trying to show that he's not much of an authority at all. Or do you want me to start quoting some random PhD holding some random climate change beliefs as some authority?

Edit: To clarify, I'm fine if he states his beliefs, etc, etc, but please don't quote his beliefs as evidence of any kind to support your assertions.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 12:23 AM

Debate his points, don't attack his character/authority. AGW theory is now invalidated by scientific fraud and in a way Monckton is vindicated.

anyone cares to find out is there any people die of hunger everyday? or how many? if yes, its fair to say earth is definitely overpopulated

You're a conspiracy theorist. *just kidding*.

He isn't an authority on man-made global warming. He's like Al Gore, they're both not authorities, but they're pushing/popularising some agenda/point of view. You don't see me quoting Al Gore on his beliefs and using that as evidence of some argument do you? (Heck I've not even watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth) Look at his qualifications for goodness' sakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...on_of_Brenchley

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 12:32 AM

Again, character assassination. As I said, debate his points and not pick his qualifications to discredit him as an authority.

And I repeat, the climategate hacking scandal has vindicated him in some way.

It appears to me your modus operandi of debate is to discredit a person when you could no longer take their points apart.

From throwing the conspiracy theorist label around your opponent to character assassinating a person based on his qualifications, don't start giving me the ideas that you belong with the Hadley CRU crew.

If you say so. Let's start with the video:

World government:

I've been looking at that blog and saw the paper he must've been quoting here - (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf). Checked it out and this is quite likely the pillars' he's talking about:

- COP being Conference of the Parties, defined in page 12, i.e. this 'world government' is controlled by the parties that sign the treaty, i.e. our national governments! Note that you already have similar things, e.g. International Criminal Court

- I don't see what's wrong with a financial compensation mechanism. Again, suppose man-made climate change is true, then suppose you have sea levels rising, etc, etc. You have many island nations in the Pacific swamped and disappear. If CO2 emissions were the cause of it, why shouldn't the governments that have polluted the most pay for them for losing their homes and countries if it's completely swamped?

- They're agreeing to let this panel enforce payments, else this panel will just be able to issue statements asking to pay and the national governments can tell them to screw themselves. Of course the US is going to pay the most, they're the largest carbon dioxide emitters per capita! What does that have to do again with 'world government' controlling every single thing? Look at that statement; it only pertains to climate change, not every single government function!

Read the statements above. Do you see, with the statements I've put above, show anything resembling his (darn over exaggerated IMO) claims?

And to make it clear: The Copenhagen summit he talks about so much isn't going to end up as much at all. Take a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8360982.stm

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 01:19 AM

I think there's no problem in overpopulation.
Technology is getting better. People can live in flats or apartments.
Transportation can be improved..

This is assuming AGW is the be all end all holy truth, which it was not, thanks to the climategate scandal. If this treaty was ratified and AGW is in fact a lie and not exposed by the climategate scandal, then fabricated scientific data would've been continued to be produced and the people behind the fabricated data can reap trillions.

The AGW theory team from Hadley which is leading the research could cook the books and not proof how they obtained the data and hence, global extortion through carbon taxation using scientific fraud. This is what monkcton was talking about, sovereignity being compromised.

Those who've followed the climategate scandal would know these frauds do not intend to publicize their research/data for peer review and plan to engage in exact manner of how I despise certain people of using intellectual terrorism to shut their opponents up, ie, labelling them as kooks, conspiracy nuts.

Financial compensation is bunk when the AGW theory is bunk and nothing but scientific fraud.

But once ratified, the people behind the numbers call the shots and can decide what data to cook up to extort money from nations while not publishing in full how they come to obtain the carbon data.

This was the scam that monkcton talked about, and how it could be used to bankrupt a nation.

It's the same thing International Financiers gain control of a country, through their money supply.

Which is also why our PM is vehemently opposed to letting outside banks unfettered access to our country.

I think you need to read up more on how finance and creative accounting works.


Creative science data manipulation might be new to you but creative accounting is an oldie in the financial world.

You confuse overpopulation with overcrowding.

I mean, by the time we are reaching the limit of the population, we should already have the technology to overcome the prob.
Hows dat sound?

What you've done is claim that it is bunk; where's the proof for that? You've only shown a few controversial emails, some in which the scientists themselves are expressing privately their frustration against people who disagree with them, shock horror. Heck I'd only consider one of the emails somewhat controversial; the others look like they're just b*tching against sceptics

Also, you have not said anything about climate research from other universities; instead you've made a generalisation which your evidence absolutely does not support. So, step forward and show the proof

Your next claim is that they'll cook the numbers up and extort money from nations, proof of that please, or are you going to make more baseless assertions again?

You make claims and claims that AGW is false when you have not stepped up with any proof it is false. Why are you attacking all of climate science when what you've shown is a few emails from a set of emails over 10 years, and of all things, one research unit out of the probably tens to hundreds available? Heck, if it were truly a conspiracy surely we would get more than just 30-50 controversial sounding emails from 10 years worth of emails from an entire research unit.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 01:47 AM

So you're still defending the indefensible. It appears to me your domain of knowledge is limited to only one area and you do not take human greed factor and financial fraud into account.

I do not attack climate science. As I've said before I admit there's climate change. But what I have issues with, is AGW, blaming it all on humans alone. AGW is bunk and please do not lump it with climate change as the same thing. It is not. AGW is just part of the big picture but it was twisted to blame humanity on being the major factor of climate change. Solar cycles, polar shifts are other theories that should be pursued but since you cannot pin it on humans, you cannot tax them. It would be much easier to tax nations/humans than to try and tax the sun or the earth. There's no money to be made on studies that blames mother nature itself for global warming, unless there's a way to tax GOD himself.

I think it's time I stop wasting my time debating with you because your domain of knowledge is too limited to understand the big picture. You really should start reading up on the Federal Reserve, and how banks and money really work.

I end my discussion with you on this area unless you wanna go into how we could solve overpopulation when it reaches alarming levels, especially in the context of financial collapse arrival and economy could no longer sustain even reduced populations, ie money becomes no good anymore which would redefine overpopulation due to lack of jobs to go around, and more and more people get hungry even though there's technically enough food on the planet but no one has enough money to buy them.

Yes, how does biological weapons sound? Solve our population problem instantly, cheap and self replicating. Nobody would believe we scientists are the ones doing it because we've taught them to dismiss all conspiracies as theories.


It's awesome to be able to throw away all ethics to achieve this and yet conveniently we could blame it on nature and god's wrath.

That is exactly how I would do it if I am a scientist being given this task and I am left with no morally acceptable choice to save the planet.

- Question: Why is AGW bunk? Have you addressed what I've raised yet? Note: The Hadley Centre is a climate science research centre, which is even why I'm talking about you attacking climate science, if you want to confirm it, check their website

- Solar cycles have been pursued, and mind you, we're under a solar minimum right now and temperatures are still pretty darn high right now. So what does that say about that hypothesis?. I've not been able to find any papers except unproven claims on the pole shift hypothesis causing the current warming, so there you go.

- How money works has absolutely nothing to do with the science. The carbon tax idea is a tax on this negative externality, caused by the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

You want to talk about overpopulation? I have, except that you seem to have started the carbon tax issue, i.e. see post #15.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 02:17 AM

Money is an important source of funding for scientific research.

Nobody would fund a scientific research without a way to obtain returns. Most of the world is in a capitalist system, mostly made up of corporations and profits are a big motivation.

You really should also read up on how medical science research is being conducted in pharmaceuticals and the purpose they're done.

I think I really need to stop wasting my time with you.

Get yourself a copy of books related to finance, investments, entrepreneurship.

Being stuck in the academic world is very limiting and it exposes one's limited knowledge of the real world.

No no, dont get me wrong..
what i meant for technology advancement on this was not on reducing the population, but the technology for the overpopulated world to adapt.
For example:
underwater city..
flats, apartments..
artificial foods and nutrients and many more..

Those are just examples, doesnt mean it can be implemented..

Won't work. To make something you have to take it from somewhere. Everything is taken from the earth. But there's a limit to how much we can take.

Unless we have a 'replicator' like in the Star Trek, there's no way we can solve this without taking from the planet even more.

hmm.. i have to research more on this..

If you think so, then you will be surprised that the LHC, a 6 billion dollar project even exists in the first place.

Why are you even bringing in the financial system, when we're discussing the issue of overpopulation, and how to control it? Have you said anything yet about financial methods to control overpopulation yet?

And please stop accusing me of wasting your time when you're the very same person bringing in the Lisbon treaty, world government (through that video) into a discussion about population.

You have not proved plenty of the things you have claimed above, instead I've been accused of wasting your time. So again, as a person wanting to know the evidence that backs your assertion, where's the proof?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 02:34 AM