Christopher Walter Monckton, is an anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming activist. He doesn't believe that humans have increased the global temperature by burning carbon or perhaps otherwise increasing greenhouse gases or that if they have, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. He has called for reforestation, so perhaps that last bit that "it isn't necessarily a bad thing," may be more the cause of others who are also anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming activists or believers. My understanding of his position at this point is that Christopher Monckton believes climate change is regularly due primarily to Sun activity such as Sunspots, which certainly does have an impact. I don't believe knowledgeable AGW believers disagree with that.
You will note that his line of questioning is designed to make statements. He said the climate has been changing for 4 billion years, so why care now? Of course, he wants to continue his line of questioning not so much to say why care now but rather to question whether or not human beings are at all the cause, etc.
As for why care now, human beings on this Earth on the typical level of consciousness have not been technologically much capable of preventing acts of God, Mother Nature, or however you wish to term it. This of course is a relative thing, as under mild conditions, simply having an artificial roof over one's head is technology that does "control" the elements to some degree. However, humans have not yet been able to stop huge volcanoes or earthquakes or storms, etc. My personal knowledge is that that kind of capability that most refer to as knowledge will continue to increase, but wisdom is a different matter. In my book real wisdom and real knowledge are God though. It's a different worldview. It's a different cosmic view. It's a different view of existence and being.
I am deliberately excluding the Holy Spirit here from acts of nature in the sense thought of in the philosophy of the atheist and anti-spiritualist self-styled scientist, although I hold that human technological also exists only because God under grids existence as most anti-spiritualists mundanely understand reality.
Okay, so why care now? Well, the point should be obvious. Care now because human technology can control the elements to an ever larger degree for both good and ill. Unfortunately, the aggregate spirit of humans has been dominated by the selfish and shortsighted spirit such that much harm has been done that could otherwise have been completely avoided by employing the unselfish and longsighted spirit instead.
Humanity finds itself under the spell of those who create problems and race with more of the same (shortsighted technology) to head off the error of their ways while never changing the underlying spirit that brings on the problems in the first place.
So, say we as a species reduce human-caused carbon and other greenhouse-gas emissions the way we reduced other air pollutants, that were without doubt choking the planet, and that some huge act of nature overwhelms the planet anyway. Would it all have been for naught? In a mundane, unenlightened sense, yes it would. However, if we as a species reduce human-caused carbon and other greenhouse-gas emissions for purely unselfish reasons, as in Jesus's version of the Golden Rule, altruistic reasons, I posit to you that humanity will have gained the unselfish, longsighted, collective, cooperative spirit that will allow for greater correct response toward that huge act of nature, which remember in my view is not uncoupled from the spirit in the first place.
So, why care now? Why not go with Thatcherism and Reaganomics, etc.? Thatcherism and Reaganomics allowed the Wall Street bankers, rightly termed banksters, to rape the common people through all manner of schemes and frauds. Whatever "successes" to which the laissez-faire and monetarists point for Thatcherism and the like, the same and better could easily have been achieved by cooperative means. The laissez-faire mentality in its purest most moral sense still falls woefully short of reining in that malignant spirit for the clear and plain reason that selfishness as the supposed underlying nature of humanity is fatally flawed. The ultimate end of selfishness is death in the mundane and spiritual, Christian senses.
Make no mistake about it. Laissez-faire is social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, where the supposed "fittest" are those who out compete for selfish reasons. It is a "natural" eugenics. There's an element of it in Christianity; however, the fittest are actually those who serve the poor and others regardless. Therefore, the implication of Christianity is that it will turn the world right-side up and level it. That is what the laissez-faire types dread, for then they must be righteous rather than self-licensed to whatever humanist, hedonist, fleeting illusionary pleasures they think they otherwise obtain.
The idea is that the rich are inherently smarter and better than are the poor so the rich are naturally more successful. However, this completely ignores morality or worse. It redefines it away. The "secret" is that there is no right or wrong. There is just wealth, power, and control. The smart ones dupe the dumb ones into being "good" so that the greedy may more easily lord it over them. Well, it's true that many of the rich actually think that way, but it doesn't mean that they are right in it. They do have mammon wealth, power, and control, etc. However, they are blind to the larger picture. They are blind to the greater reality. They will lose it all. Others will fare best for having opened their eyes to the truth that selfishness is evil and does fail.
It is interesting to note that many in the libertarian camp decry eugenics but they only mean when it is a policy and practice of humans doing the selecting for "better" traits, just the way dog and cattle breeders do it. Those libertarians have no problem with the dog-eat-dog inherent in capitalism. They can't get beyond witting hypocrisy.
You may see a struggle between anarchists for the maximum individual liberty as they see it in a state of competition versus anarchists for the maximum individual liberty in a state of cooperation. Christianity is closer to the latter. Where Christianity differs concerns violence, which Christians are never to employ; and depravity, of which Christians are never to partake.
Hence, Christian capitalism (capitalism being selfish) is an oxymoron, while Christian non-coercive socialist/communist anarchy is closer to the reality in Heaven. God allows the maximum freedom, which is the end is the greatest freedom from evil possible where evil is selfishness. All ships rise the same together with God's tide. By comparison, with Satan's tide, all ships sink but some deeper and some faster and with great confusion, pain, and suffering, including for those who once exalted themselves, as do the social Darwinists of laissez-faire capitalism.
More to the direct issue of AGW and political-economics, are there crony capitalists who attempt to pervert the environmental movement, the Creation Care, Golden Rule movement to naturally selfish ends on their part? Of course there are. This is why the purest environmentalists hate the Cap and Trade schemes. I have always been for simply stopping pollution without gimmicky, selfish middlemen skimming profits from the cause and then claiming they need delay after delay after delay to sustain and increase their evil games that kills people who would otherwise live.
The whole world has the knowledge right now for free, clean, sustainable energy. Greedy, entrenched people stand in the way as dogs in the manger. They can't bring themselves to eat the hay of unselfishness, but they won't let others go in to do it who can and would gladly. Those dogs are the oil, coal, and gas companies and their owners, managers, and employees mostly. There are many other groups who do this too though.
You will see a direct statistically significant correlation between the sources of the anti-AGW movement and oil, coal, and gas producing areas of the world: Texas, Oklahoma, Russia, Alberta, Saudi Arabia, etc. You will see that funding has come from oil, coal, and gas producing corporations, most notably Exxon. You will see the same pattern of think-tank shells that were set up and used by the Tobacco companies when smoking was being linked to lung cancer and heart disease and the Tobacco libertarians were hiding the data they had that clearly showed it.
Also, make no mistake about it here. Unabashedly and roundly, I am condemning the capitalist system in its entirety. It is always a net loss when everything is finally accounted for. This is something that cannot be proven to the satisfaction of the greedy who don't want to know the truth as it spoils their fleeting and false-gain.
Let me also make clear that in my religion, philosophy, ideology, politics, economics, etc., I am not for coercion at all, unlike the so-called purist anarcho-capitalists who always hold in reserve that fatally flawed "right" to use violence. Yes, they have the freewill choice to make that mistake. They also end up suffering the negative consequences of that choice, where evil begets evil until human beings overcome the evil temptations. Of course, that real word of God is no threat on God's part but rather a warning away from the fallen spirit of selfishness apart from the wholesomeness of God that is not violent, wrathful, torturous, or the like. This is not a modern version of God. This is revealing the true nature of God from the beginning. The wicked fall into each other's hands. God's will is that we overcome wickedness. Righteousness is its own reward. We get what we create, what we bring forth, in the end. Our means are our ends and vice versa.
The Story of Cap & Trade:
The Climategate theorist/conspiracists love to hate that video. They hate it because its underlying premise remains that AGW is a problem. They hate it because laissez-faire capitalism is the ultimate humanist/Satanic, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," charade. It is the ultimate anti-Christ ideology. It is mammon-based all the way. There are those who attempt to have their cake and to eat it to by being in both camps, but Jesus addresses them directly in his Sermon on the Mount (that Barack Obama too disrespected in the extreme).
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24)
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. (John 10:13)
Some will sell others down the river. Some will sell their brothers into bondage under evil.
Now, there are so-called Christian capitalists. I have to tell you there is no such thing and never has been. They are self-deluding and under the spell of anti-Christs - atheists at the head of all of the major capitalist "think tanks." The founder of anarcho-capitalism, Murray Rothbard, was an atheist. The main "capitalist" guru of Thatcherism, Friedrich August von Hayek, was an anti-Christ (someone against people turning to real Christianity).
The founders of the Austrian School of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, etc., were anti-Christs. They stood against Jesus Christ. They have managed to gain so-called Christian capitalists to tout the evil system that is mammon and to dupe minions who also claim to profess Jesus all the while ignoring Jesus's clear and overwhelming condemnation of the accumulation of mammon wealth for self and close genetic kin.
Why are these people against people turning to real Christianity? Real Christianity is Acts communism per the Christian Commons. It is the death of laissez-faire capitalism.
As included in those, "Critically important verses":
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 4:32)
That's the heart and soul of the New Heaven and New Earth and real Christianity. There are revisionists who want to claim that that was only for that time and place and not a universal, eternal truth. They are misguided and misleading. Being one with God is the aim of Christianity. There is no non-sharing of all in Jesus's religion. I love it. Those who hate it also therefore hate God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)
More details about Monckton's spiel, he's still saying that the last nine years have been cooler. That was from a peak (1998) in an oscillation cycle.
There was a volcano, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, that help block the sun (the timing of which corresponds to much of the slight cooling and decrease in the intensity of the weather). It is estimated that between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the atmosphere. In 1992 and 1993, the average Northern Hemisphere temperature was down by 0.5 to 0.6Â°C and the planet by 0.4 to 0.5Â°C. Now, that was a while ago, obviously; however, consider how much hotter things would otherwise have been.
Also, there was the recent La NiÃ±a too that has cooled things. In addition, the recession/depression slowed transportation use quite a bit — enough to show up in the data as contributing to reduced warming. There has also been the continued use of chemtrails.
All these things happen even during the cumulative impact and the momentum of CO2 build-up. Perhaps the government will use chemtrails so much that it will gum up the works and dim the planet too much.
Aesthetically, it's already quite ugly. It has ruined the uplifting effect of the once deep, dark blue of the sky of my youth. It has dimmed the brightness of the Milky Way at night. It's a sad thing that humanity has insufficient appreciation for these things - places too little value on them. The greedy are insensitive.
Furthermore, it has recently been repeatedly reported from the scientific literature and data that this last decade may end up being the warmest since thermometer readings began and that this last year of 2009 may end up being the 5th warmest in that time frame or longer as well.
Monckton also made some blatant false statements. His claim that human beings could not have been impacting on climate except for the last 30 years is asinine. Coal burning and deforestation have been going on for much longer than that, and everything is interconnected such that one can't strike a match without having some impact. The impact has certainly been ramping up, but it by no means began only 30 years ago.
He made statements about hurricanes that no one properly can make definitively. Information about the size and strength of hurricanes was far from the science that it is now with satellites and computers, etc.
In his video shown above, Monckton cornered a woman who was far from expert on these issues.
He also acts as if people only have to check the data directly to come to his conclusions while many people do check the data directly and don't come to his conclusions.
He was also highly offensive in overstating the woman's lack of awareness about his counter propaganda. He accused her of knowing absolutely nothing about the climate or change. That was a psychological ploy that shed a very poor light on him.
His job is to sow doubt using dubious sweeping statements as fact when he criticizes his political opposition for doing quite the same thing.
He is not nearly in the majority. He is also not a scientist. He is a journalist and propagandist for laissez-faire leaning ideology.
He is completely wrong on the "hockey stick" controversy.
http://climateaudit.org/ believes there hasn't been AGW or that if there has been, it's likely a good thing (despite flooding or other potential catastrophes for humans and other creatures). Related sites.
That so-called "hockey stick" controversy has been more than handled by those paleoclimatologists (expert scientists in the field) the non-scientist Monckton and others claim are practicing "junk" science. Also, non-climatologist statisticians have also weighed in against the paleoclimatologists. I will add here that biologists and paleoclimatologists should work closer together to bring the tree-ring aspect into greater light.
The fact that bristlecone pines have grown more during higher rates of CO2 over the last 150 years discounts them from the data for reasons that such growth it tied to both warming, CO2 elevation, or both. This aspect is not well explained in lay literature. Nevertheless, the tree-ring aspect has been eliminated for the period since 1960, and the data still shows the hockey stick. Further, the Medieval Warm Period is by no means understood definitively as having been global but likely regional.
"Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia," by Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley, Sonya K. Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni. The National Academy of Sciences of the USA. September 2 & 9, 2008. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252 Full text.
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
I have to say that I believe the naysayers (against Michael E. Mann's work) and those who put forth the hyped-up, sensationalized, politicized "Climategate" theory/conspiracy are a mixed bag many of whom are being misused by the plutocrats who are struggling amongst themselves (with much of the public in tow) for king of the hill of globalization. Either way, it's globalization. Even Christianity is globalization. It's only a matter of which spirit will come to dominate.
I tell you the righteous, living, one God wins. I prophesy it. I tell you he is not the humanist god of self of the New Agers, such as Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey and all the others who have followed in the footsteps of the Gnostic/Freemason Blavatsky and the rest of the Theosophists, who secretly and/or unwittingly worship Satan, who is the humanist god of self apart from that one, righteous, living God of Jesus Christ, who is Jesus's father and my father and who will not be replaced by Oprah Winfrey's Nimrod/Satan.
C. J. Blair on Oprah's New Age Religion:
I put that in so you will know that anti-Christ fronts are on all levels. Oprah has also told everyone, including the little pre-school children at home watching daytime TV when her program is on, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; however, here is the truth on that: "Homosexuals: What they ignore."
Back to tree rings, I have repeatedly mentioned that I saw a study that concluded that trees will stop taking up excess CO2 after a period of fast growth. Also, the fact that the Earth can handle higher temperature does not negate the fact that human beings in the ten and a half billion range won't find migration all that convenient. Hopeful, future-technological solutions is like hoping Monsanto will feed the world healthy food. There are also many unknowns that could present huge risk factors such as increased disease vectors and insect infestations, etc.
Also, Monckton asserted that the Chinese sailed around the Arctic Ocean in the 1420's and found no ice. However, there is apparently zero historical support for this claim. That doesn't speak very highly of his powers of discernment.
He supported the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I watched that film and found it severely lacking. The "Great Global Warming Swindle" is the title of a documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4. That documentary used doctored graphs to make a case against global warming. It is deceitful. It is designed to further the ruinous ambitions of the oil industry. It was roundly rejected by the vast majority of expert scientists in the field.
Can the majority of scientists be wrong? Certainly they can be. However, one needs more than Monckton's arguments to overthrow them.
Monckton also wrote a paper on the subject of AGW that was published in the American Physical Society, which paper was not peer reviewed. Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society Forum said that Monckton's paper contained some identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions.
Regardless, parts-per-million/billion of CO2 matters.
If other factors (such as the Sun) play a part, even a huge part, and they have and will, that still doesn't mean that human beings shouldn't do what they can to reduce their own contributions to dramatic changes the result of which are so unpredictable at this point other than to say that they will create increased instability for billions of people, etc.
I also watched the video, "Global Warming or Global Governance." You can read my take on it here: CLIMATEGATE IS A DOUBLE-EDGED CAUSE, SO BEWARE
The following is from http://www.skepticalscience.com/:
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
Austrian School of economics: These are anti-monetarists (opposed to a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, setting interest rates in an attempt to control inflation). They are also anti-fiat currency but rather want a gold standard and the private ownership of physical gold or the like. I note which of them I am certain are of Jewish extraction to show that there were non-Jews involved in this type of thinking. I add it only in anticipation of those who would label me anti-Semitic for breathing a word in negative terms about any Jew. I find those who place Jews above criticism to be racists and ethnic bigots:
Eugen von BÃ¶hm-Bawerk
Ludwig von Mises (Jewish)
Murray Rothbard (Jewish)
Friedrich August von Hayek (authored "The Road to Serfdom"; had a profound influence on Margaret Hilda Thatcher; Thatcherism included the use of monetarism)
The Chicago School is somewhat associated with their ideas but is monetarist:
The most famous or infamous member was Milton Friedman (Jewish). The first time I heard him at length in his PBS series, "Free to Choose," I thought he was one of the dumbest people in high places I had ever heard. His indifferent attitude about the negative environmental consequences of laissez-faire was astoundingly stupid and shortsighted to me. I never thought the American people would be so foolish as to follow after his recommendations, but they did and with a vengeance. It's one of the main reasons we are in an economic depression even as I write this (despite the government's sleight of hand pronouncements to the contrary).
It was the finance-capitalist deregulation, which I knew was insane at the time, that allowed the bubble of toxic securities (gambling bets) that burst and for which the people who did not gamble other than by foolishly voting in the deregulators and then following them, are now being required to bailout with taxes including on the increased National Debt.
Every one of the criticisms by Friedman could have been vastly better addressed than by the methods he advocated. It was as if there were only two options. That's how it always is. Jesus's political-economics are dismissed out of hand by the likes of Barack Obama and other neocons as if Jesus's vision is insane, impracticable, impossible, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus's vision is salvation. It's the one and only way. Oprah hates it, because she couldn't be a billionairess and engage in whatever depravity she's done and may still be doing.
These people, the Austrian and Chicago School types, completely fail from the beginning. Their first principles are wrong.
These people all fail to understand that the giving and sharing economy is the real reality. A medium of exchange (mammon) is an artificial invention that came out from the hoarding, selfish spirit and is anti-real family values oriented. There doesn't need to be a price in mammon for anything.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)