Monday, 11 March 2013

‘Climate of Freedom’ Tour

In just under three weeks from now, Christopher Monckton will begin traveling the country to knock over the many manufactured myths of the warmist “consensus.”  His method: identifying errors by the climate mainstream that, he says, always and invariably fall in the direction of “undue alarmism and flagrant exaggeration.”

Monckton is much bashed by his enemies, probably because instead of offering blancmange he takes the battle to his enemies—like he did earlier this year, for example, when he suggested the newly-inaugurated President Obama

has been taken in, hook, line and sinker, by catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarm [and would] continue to inflict crippling taxes and regulations in the name of saving the planet from 'global warming.'

One isn’t supposed to say these things.

Nor is one supposed to point out in plain English, as he did in two Open Letters to John Key (Letter One, Letter Two), what our Prime Minister’s ridiculous ’50 by 50’ policy on “emissions reduction” means  ….

This means that within 41 years - the working lifetime of a high-school graduate today - the policies which you propose to introduce will have shut down, deliberately, consciously, and to no environmental benefit whatsoever, more than one-half of the entire New Zealand economy. You propose to throw your nation back in the direction of the Stone Age - electricity one day a week if that, automobiles replaced by horses and carts, elevators replaced by stairs, all aircraft grounded, the conquest of space abandoned, factories silent, several hundred thousand jobs destroyed and transferred to China, the machine-press and combine-harvester replaced by the hammer and sickle.

… and, again, on the plain meaning of the the Emissions Tax Scam by which the Prime Minister hopes to bring this about:

your proposal to command the reshaping of the economy from the centre has no merit, not merely because there is no scientific or economic need for it, but because, even if there were, it cannot and will not work.
    By any definition, emissions trading is not really trade – it’s rationing. The government puts a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide industry is allowed to emit (a “cap”). and then unused quotas can be sold. It is certainly not a market operation because the key feature is not the buying and selling but the government limit.
    This is not a cap-and-trade system: it is more accurately called a “cap-in-hand” system; the important feature of the system is that productive people have to go cap-in-hand to people who have never done a day’s work in their lives to ask for permission to be productive. The truly bizarre part is that these finger-wagging clipboard-wielding people who have never raised a cow, laid a brick, or drilled for gas – who have done nothing except get in the way of those who have – still expect society to provide them with food and a warm house. Presumably by magic… 
    We can no longer afford the luxury of over-extended, over-ambitious, centralized government. The call for “action” in the face of climate change is overwhelmingly for government action to place limits on private action.
    Since this will of necessity concentrate vast additional powers in the hands of government it is not merely doomed to ignominious failure; it is not merely guaranteed to increase your nation's "carbon footprint" under the guise of taking steps to reduce it; it is an explicit and abject abandonment of the individual freedom for which the National party is supposed to stand.

No wonder his enemies don’t like him.

Catch up with from 1st April to 23rd April, anywhere from Whangarei to Invercargill.


  1. I think I don't like him either. I like what is saying about a lot of things and then he spoils it all by speaking out against gay marriage, against free immigration and against abortion.

    All the bible thumpers and conspiracy theorists in tow.

    Mr Monckton is giving political parties way too much credit in the piece you linked to.

    Well off societies simply gravitate towards socialism. It just i the nature of the beast. No cunning plan behind the scenes.

  2. "...speaking out against gay marriage, against free immigration and against abortion."

    Well, he got one out of three *bang-on* - "no free immigration".
    Just look at what it has done to the UK and Europe - especially the Muslim immigrants.

  3. Hmm, so i dd a google search. Lord M seen here using tactics that remind me of climate alarmism to describe abortion.

  4. He's here to talk about global warming. His opinions on marriage, immigration, abortion, or the performance of Dunfermline Athletic in the Scottish League are irrelevant.

    @Thor42: I wasn't aware UK and Europe had free immigration. Perhaps you could explain the loophole you've obviously found to people deported or debarred from the place.

  5. PC, his opinions on other matters are relevant because it shows whether he likes to argue ideologically or rationally.

    Speaking of ideological arguments, your response to thor42 is a prime example. The fact is, the UK and other countries in Europe are getting absolutely fucked by the influx of muslim immigrants.

  6. Alex - what are saying exactly? That any ideology (I.e a comprehensive and consistent set of ideas) is necessarily irrational?

  7. Mark - No political ideology is entirely rational. If this were the case, all highly intelligent educated people would subscribe to the same one. Obviously this is not the case.

  8. @Peter

    Monckton uses emotive terms such as " baby-butchering" bringing in all kinds of irrelevant topics in order to make his point.

    It makes him a lot less rational than he has appeared to me until now.

    I might just go this his talk in the hope there is an opportunity to ask questions. I like to hear him explain himself.

  9. Dinther, I suggest a quick look at some of the criticisms of Monckton's past presentations on climate change as preparation if you would like to be clear as to the questions he should be answering.

    There are five videos on Hadfield's youtube account in the series, and Monckton's response (and Hadfield's reply to it) can be found here:

    I shall have to consider whether to attend the free session at Auckland University myself so as to establish whether he has updated his arguments.

    On the whole though, I don't take Monckton seriously.


Comments are moderated to encourage honest conversation, and remove persistent trolls.