Lord Mockton Debunks Global ‘Warming’
MARCH 22, 2012
By KATY GRIMES
A visit to California from Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, promised to be full of his telltale wit, knowledge and controversy, as well as plenty of science. Lord Monckton did not disappoint.
As California is on the verge of its first cap-and-trade carbon auction, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, invited Lord Monckton to address the Legislature, and arranged for him to make several presentations throughout California over the next few days.
Grove sent out invitations to each of the 120 state legislators, but only a handful of Republicans accepted to participate in the hearing. And only one Democrat attended the hearing — Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood.
Monckton’s message is important as well as scientific: Most climate change science is bogus, and California can and should stop the quest for ending climate change on our own before the state’s economy is completely destroyed. Monckton has consulted many governments around the world about climate change.
Mockton, together with Tom Tanton, a renewable energy expert and special consultant to the energy and technology industries, testified to a packed room in a special legislative hearing Wednesday on climate change and carbon trade. Tanton and Monckton gave an even more detailed presentation at an event later that evening.
New California Tax Scheme
I’ve had to sit through several years of legislative hearings lacking in science, facts and detail about the sources of climate change. After that, Monckton’s presentation about how the global warming hysteria began, how the data and science was altered and why they hysteria continues was fascinating and refreshing.
As California prepares for its first cap-and trade-auction in August, taxpayers and utility customers should all be concerned and not worry about being called “deniers.”
As I wrote in California Remedy For Eco-Guilt about AB 32’s implementation and upcoming cap-and-trade auctions, “Instead of providing affirmative plans to accomplish this feat, and answers to legislators’ questions, it became abundantly clear that no one in the state has a handle on the implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solution Act of 2006, or the potential repercussions from the vast law.”
Most notably, Tanton and Monckton warned taxpayers that, because Gov. Jerry Brown decided to monetize CO2 carbon emissions, and plans to tax utility customers, business owners and taxpayers for the emissions, the state stands to take in an extra $1 billion in revenues.
The new revenue stream is not new money coming into the state, but an additional $1 billion from the same old sources — businesses, manufacturers, utility customers, homeowners, property owners, automobile owners and taxpayers.
Overall, if California continues down the road of selling and trading carbon emission credits, it will cost the state $450 billion by 2020. Monckton found that even with $450 billion spent, the impact to curb total global emissions will be closde to nil — just 0.4 percent will have been abated.
Just the Science, Please
Monkton went through an elaborate presentation and showed the data, charts and graphs originally used by the United Nation International Panel on Climate Change, when it concluded that man-made global warming must be stopped. But Monckton found that the original science and data had been altered in order to further the agenda, and force the West to comply with the international rules. Monckton also showed the altered data, and the changes were staggering and obvious.
Tanton said that California is already the third best state in the United States in the carbon intensity of our economy. The United States is four times better than China, and better than the average of all other countries.
Even with this information, Tanton warned that cap-and-trade is going to come at a very high cost to Californians. Families will be forced to pay thousands of dollars more out of their budgets each year, and the state will lose more than 100,000 more jobs in 2012 — on top of the 650,000 manufacturing jobs lost since AB 32 was made law.
By 2020, California stands to lose more than 1 million more jobs, just because of the state’s climate change laws.
“This state grew because of manufacturing,” said Sen. Wright. “If we want a policy of no manufacturing, the we should tell the rest of the manufacturers, instead of bleeding them dry — tell them ‘you should get out.’”
A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least “somewhat likely” that climate scientists had falsified their research data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused global warming. Forty per cent of respondents said falsification of research data was “very likely.” Only 22 percent responded that they were sure that climate scientists had not falsified data.
California already suffers from over-regulation. Monckton and Tanton addressed California’s 40-year ban on most offshore drilling, despite the 15 billion barrels of oil available. Their concern, besides the decisions made on faulty and fraudulent science, is that California already suffers from record unemployment, high taxes and a $6 billion deficit, and is facing a potential unfunded pension meltdown.
According to Monckton and Tanton, adding more taxes onto the backs of business owners and utility customers will only cause the wealthy and more employers to flee California.
“Rich Californians are fleeing the state, taking their jobs with them,” said Monckton. “Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled,” said Monckton, referring to expansions by those companies, al though some of their headquarters remain here. “The wagons are heading east.”
13 commentsWrite a comment
Katy Grimes: California’s legislators passed a joint resolution for the federal government to allow the Census Bureau to collect information about
John Seiler: Property rights aren’t just for big companies, which can hire lawyers to defend themselves. Property rights are for