Below the video, a transcript of this whole speech by V.H. for those who prefer to read a speech rather than watch it.
Updated with Slides – Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul??Quote:??”On of the curious features of this debate which you will have noticed yourselves, is that the forces of darkness, I call them the bedwetters for convenience, have managed to make the absurd seem obvious, and the obvious seem absurd.”??”We don’t want pollution, we want a clean planet, and therefore we do not want —for we are all environmentalists, we all love the planet that the good Lord has given us, and he has given us the stewardship of it, Genesis 1:22, very clear what our obligations are as stewards of the planet, we are to look after all that is on it, and in it and under it and swimming in the seas, and we are not there for to exercise that stewardship given to us by our creator in an irresponsible fashion — therefore it is important that we do not waste money, efford, time, or resources on non-problems, such as Global Warming.??Science is not a believe system, science is a rigorous process of an inquiry and I am […] going to show you just how strong the case is against he pseudo-science jibberish perpetrated by the UN Climate Panel, and Al Gore at hope genes omni, and I am going to show you the latest science which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore, this is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over the climate. The science is in, the “truth” is out, and the scare is over.??Forty years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film what the effect of that ban was: before the ban the inventor of DDT got the Nobel prize because he had saved more lives than anyone less in the history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in the third world had all but be eradicated. there were still 50,000 deaths per year. But when DDT was banned, by exactly the same faction that is now trying to tell us we must close down 5/6th of the United States Economy, that figure is actually in the Waxman-Markey bill, that same faction banned DDT world-wide.??The consequences on the slide there, the number of deaths went up from 50,000 a year to a million a year and stayed there for forty years. Forty million people, nearly all of them children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever. And it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died, that on September the 15th 2006, dr. Arata Katchi of the World Health Organization said: Normally in this field science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito. After pressure from me among others.??But the left, the environmental left, the intolerant, communistic, narrow minded faction, that does not care how many children it kills, is campaigning once again for DDT to be banned. Because they do not want children to be born in the third world. They want as much of humanity as possible it sometimes seems to me, to be wiped off the face of the planet.??And there is a better way to control population, than to withdraw the one effective agent against one of the world’s biggest killers, and that is to raise the standard of living of the poorest. That has long been a moral imperative, since the time of out blessed Lord himself, it has been a moral imperative that we help or Lord’s the sick and our Lord’s the poor. And we work for them, and we raise them up, and we make them healthy and we make them wealthy, because if we make them wealthy, then their populations will stabilize.??This is something that every demographer knows perfectly well: make the population wealthy, and it stabalises. Keep it poor, and it will continue to increase. Make it poor if it was wealthy and it will start to increase again. And if the environmental left were really serious about saving the planet, from a huge CO2 footprint which I will show you, doesn’t matter at all, then the first thing they would do is persue policies that would not —as the extinction of 5/6 of your economy would do— make you poor, but they will try at making everybody rich. [15:18]??Quote:??”They call themselves Green because the are too yellow to admit they are really Reds”???To knock off 2 Fahrenheit of “Global Warning”?To prevent 1 °C takes 400 years.?WaxKey will cost: $ 250 trillion.??Quote: [1:29:11]??We’re going to end on a serious note. Because there is just one economic point I will make very briefly. And that is that in order to forestall just one Celsius degree or two Fahrenheit degrees of “global warming”, even if the UN is right about the exaggerated effect of CO2, of .. we now know it not to be … even it its right, you have to forego two trillion tonnes of CO2 emission. Now that’s the equivalent of 67 years of the World’s entire output of 30 billion in tonnes a year.??You will have to close down the Global economy entirely, go back to the stone age without even the right to light a fire in your caves. That’s what you’d have to do just to knock off two Fahrenheit of “global warming”, so called. That is all you need to know about the eceonomics of “global warming” in one slide.??There is no point in doing anything whatsoever about it, except to adapt as and if necessary between now, and know we don’t even need to do, that’s the end of the debate on the economic. Because there it is, that’s the effect on the Waxman-Markey bill. Even if it were implemented in full, which is not going to be, in temperature and on sea level, and here is the amount of money that is being spent in the last twenty years by your government, your taxpayers, your money, on totally unnecessary climate research to do with “global warming”.??Obama anounced in his stimulus package another $ 80 billion just for the next three years on the same subject. Totally unnecessary, totally waste. But there are real problems, that we haven’t addressed, which should be addressed. There is a few of them there . You know what they are.
??Worst crises than climate:??Global Islamic Terrorism?Chines neo-militarism?Russion neo-militarism?Mass economic migration?Security of energy & water supply?Environmentsl degradation?natural resource depletion?Bat Third-world government?Drugs and people trafficing?HIV, malaria, TB, MRSA, C.Diff?Burereaucratic centralism vs. democracy?Nationalization of capital
And what are we doing instead. At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed, your president will sign it, most of the third-world countries will sign it (because they think they are going to get money out of it), most of the Left-wing regimes around the world and the European Union will rubberstamp it. Virtually nobody will not sign it.? ?I have read that treaty. And what it says is this: That a World government is going to be created. The word government actuallly appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.??The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third-world countries in satisfaction of what is callled coily, a climate debt. Because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but thats the line.??And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the two hundred pages of that treaty? [nobody does] Quite right, it does not appear once.??So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace, so that my friends who founded it left within a year, because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the World, you have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view, he is going to sign, he will sign anything, and he is a Nobel Peace laureate, of course he is … ??And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedent over your Constitution. And you can’t resile from that treaty, unless you get the agreement of al the other states and parties. Because you will be the biggest paying country, they are not going to let you out.??So, Thank you America, you were the beacon of freedom for the world … It is a privilige merely to stand in this soil of freedom, while it is still free. But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away for ever, and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect, would have any power whatsoever to take it back again.??That is how serious it is. I have read the treaty, I have seen this stuff about goverment and climate debt, and enforcement. They are going to do this to you, whether you like it or not. ??But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire. It is here, that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the 59th minute at the 59th second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty. That purposeless threaty, for there is no problem with the climate, and even if there were, economically speaking, there is nothing we can do about it. ??So I end, by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your President in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the second World War.??He quoted from your great poet [Henry Wadsworth] Longfellow??Sail on, O Ship of State,?Sail on, O Union, strong, and great.?Humanity is all its fears,?With all the hopes of future years,?Is hanging breathless on thy fate.??Thank you.??===