The following transcript may not match word for word:
Paul Bovolos interview with Lord Monckton via Skype September 2015
Hey everyone, today’s the 18th of September 2015. It was exactly four days ago that the Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott lost his leadership of the Liberal Party, and Malcolm Turnbull took over the job of being the leader of the party, and the 29th Prime Minister of Australia. When I’d heard about this I was not surprised or shocked. Why? because I remembered seeing a video on YouTube where my friend Christopher Monckton had shared the exact scenario that took place four days ago, and I will post that link in the comment section below for you to go and see for yourselves. He had said that Malcolm Turnbull would challenge Tony Abbott and when it would happen and why it will happen. So, I contacted him and wanted a comment from him and organize the Skype call, and had just finished, instead of me telling you what he said, please watch the video, he had some very interesting things to say and asked us to keep an eye on the Paris climate summit in December of this year 2015. Enjoy this is Paul Bolovos, Melbourne, Australia.
Let’s begin with the loss of Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott was a very unusual, Prime Minister. He’s a very good man and charming man but also a man who works in his own community belongs to the volunteer fire service helps out with various charity organizations does things that most politicians feel too grand to do that he doesn’t feel too grand to do that kind of man is very rare in politics. So to lose him is a tragedy for Australia, in more ways than just the climate.
And I was, as you realize from the video of last year my last visit to Australia. I knew this was going to happen. I knew who would do it to and I knew roughly when. I knew this because the stakes that are being played for in the climate debate at the moment are the highest, that they can be. The stakes are nothing less than the freedom, independence, democracy, sovereignty, and prosperity of the Western nations.
These are all now under direct, immediate threat. Now this threat has been long planned by various totalitarian factions who have come together to bring democracy effectively to an end. New World Order yes? Yeah, they have noticed that the European Union, managed to grab sovereign power from some of the most vigorously democratic nations on earth, indeed from the very nations where democracy was invented. And this is now in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels in Strasberg, who are chosen by non-accountable to non-sackable by non-questionable by non, we don’t even know their names.
Those EU commissars, the official German banks have been advised the UN on how it can do globally what the UN did in the European region, which is to grab absolute power, by stealth, by using excuses, the excuse that the European Union originally used was that we have had too many wars in Europe and now there needed to be an organization in which the nations could come together and stop war.
Well, NATO was that organization it already existed. But of course, what these bureaucrats wanted was eventually to have a superstate, which wasn’t elected. That’s why they use the threat of supposed threat of war in Europe as a pretext for establishing the European Commission, and eventually the various huge enterprises which are costing taxpayers a fortune. These commissars are from behind closed doors are about 30 of them I couldn’t even name one of them at the moment they’re shadowy figures. They have Supreme Absolute Power in Europe. They can’t be sacked. They can’t be questioned. They are there they meet behind closed doors, they have the sole right to propose the supreme laws of Europe and they can even do that. So that even the European Parliament is at least elected has no say in whether those laws become law, or not. The UN has long been jealous of the EU. Very jealous. They wanted the power, the wealth, and above all, status, that goes with being an unelected global government, and the UN is a pretty feeble outfit at the moment, it is very expensive, but it seems quite feeble. It now wants absolute power. It wants it in the same way as the commissars has wanted it and got it but the commissars and their advisors have been telling the UN how to do so when the climate scare came along. It was very rapidly by the UN actually in around 1988 if I remember rightly.
They set up the IPCC or they didn’t set up the IPCC but they co-opted it is already been set up by the world leader organisation and the UN Environment Programme jointly, the UN General Assembly, then said, Oh, that’s a good idea. This is our way towards global government. So, it then, as it were adopted the IPCC as a sort of UN enterprise. And ever since then, the UN has been pushing through agenda 21 in one direction at the local authority that we’ve seen a lot of that in Australia, but also through the climate agenda globally. The notion that power and wealth in amazing and unprecedented quantities should be transferred from elected hands here to unelected hands somewhere else, just as was done in Europe, that’s the backstory behind all this. That’s what’s really going on.
And you may say, Oh, well, government conspiracy so let me deal with that one. In the 2009 draft Copenhagen agreement. And thank goodness we took a copy of it before they started tampering. But that agreement said at 10x one paragraph, 36 and 38 that they were going to establish a global government, the word government was actually used. This government was going to have three powers, it’s going to have powers of taxation, powers of lawmaking and regulation and powers of enforcement, to make the nations of the world, comply. The UN has never had that before.
And so this is what the UN has wanted, and it was indiscreet enough to say so, in this treaty draft hoping that nobody would read it. Willy Sue at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics did read it. He told me. I told the petroleum club of Calgary in October of 2009 I then made a speech which is on YouTube I think getting over 2 million hits on one website alone was half a million on another he went very far, in which I pointed out that the UN’s intention was to establish a global government, that I had read the treaty draft, which said this, and therefore we should do all in our power to make sure that Copenhagen failed, which fortunately thanks to China, it did.
So now they bided their time. What they have done is they carried on regardless. And they have set up 1000 New bureaucracies a supranational regional and national and local bureaucracy throughout the world. As the sinews to the new global government, these are being paid for largely by us taxpayers, without our even knowing these 1000 organizations all report to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That Secretariat was to have become the government under the Copenhagen draft.
The Paris draft, which is their next attempt to do the same. No longer talks of a government it talks of a governing body, but thanks to having read the Copenhagen draft and having seen the EU advisors whispering in the ears of UN people at these various climate conferences. We know what they mean by governing bodies – they mean a global government, that’s what they’re talking about, they’re using the climate as an excuse and that’s why the marx stream news media, the totalitarian media and they always are totalitarian and always have been if you think back to the days of appeasement before Hitler, before the Second World War. Virtually every newspaper including the Times of London was all for appeasing Hitler, because the newspapers love totalitarian dictators, they always have, they always will – they hate democracy.
And that’s the way the news media have always been and always will be. And so the media are not our friends in this, they want that global government because then they can set up offices at the UN in the global government and feel themselves to be part of that global government. In the same way as they feel themselves to be part of national governments when they have access to ministers and interviewed them on television, and it makes them feel more important than they really are.
So, what we have here is a coalition of vested interests, all of them in or close to the governing class. Class pulling teeth as the French call it who have come together behind this climate rubbish, not because it’s true. Anyone with half a brain can now see this particular story it was somewhat oversold, to put it mildly. But what they’ve done is they realized that this is a wonderful excuse to install a global government. They nearly got away with it in Copenhagen, and I think they will at the moment get away with it, in Paris, and that is where the Tony Abbott thing fits in.
See I knew all this backstory. So, when I gave a talk in Brisbane, I think it was October December last year I can’t remember exactly when.
It was at the Irish Club? Yeah?
That’s right it was it was that wonderful man, Michael Darby. Kindly organized it for me he is a lovely man. Well, a very good crowd of 300-400 people turned up. They were fascinated because they realized that Australia was one of only two governments that was at all likely to hold out against the idea of allowing this global government treaty to get through. And so I said to them you must Guard Tony Abbott’s back.
The Canadians, they’ve got an election I thought it would be in the spring of this year, in fact it’s going to be in a month or twos time, it will be before the Copenhagen conference, Stephen Harper the present Prime Minister is under exactly the same constant left wing media bashing that Tony Abbott has had to put up with over the last two or three years, continuous hate speech by marx stream media, because they know if, he is still there, once the negotiations in Paris carry on. It only takes one good man to speak the truth at these conferences, and the whole process could very easily be derailed.
And so they want 100% agreement. How do I know this because in the spring of last year, one of my spies who monitors the internet, reported it and said you may like to look at a rather obscure meeting of a rather obscure committee of the environmentalist committee of the House of Commons, they were interviewing some ridiculous preposterous figure called Sir David King, who is a chemist who knows absolutely nothing about physics, mathematics or climate change, but he is, for good or ill, the British government anointed, climate change, Ambassador. He is going round alternative strong arming and sweet talking, other nations into lining up behind this global government, and he was reporting to a great friend of his that then Chairman of the environmental committee, Tim Year, who makes about half a million dollars a year from various wind farm boards that he sets up entirely.
And so he was saying to King you know what’s the prospects for Paris next year? King was saying there were only two stand outs, even then, that was Canada and Australia. And he said, but don’t worry about Canada because they’ve got an election next spring, and we’ll make sure who wins that. They were going to organize – they’re going to fix the election basically, that’s the message that came through from the way it didn’t predict quite as explicitly as that but the way said it he was pretty clear. They were not going to allow Stephen Harper to win this forthcoming election.
So you’re saying that Stephen Harper will not actually win the next election.
I think it’s going to be difficult for him because he’s going to face exactly the same pressure that Tony Abbotts been under. It wont be quite as desperate as it was here because Tony Abbott was here and as was actually going to be Prime Minister at the time of the conference. They were really desperate to get rid of him. And that’s why the press was so vicious, they were under instruction, you know, get this man out, we cannot have him in as prime minister, during the Paris negotiations.
Well, it’s only been four days since he’s been deposed and Malcolm Turnbull coming in and he’s coming out publicly saying that he’s going to stick to the party principles and he, the targets that they had already agreed with it that Tony was supporting will stay. And as my other….
If you believe that, you will believe anything. That I’m saying he was very quick to come out and say, and because he’s got to try to get people to allow him to hold on, without being deposed again which is what may yet happen if he’s not careful, because of course there are those of us who are very concerned for the future of democracy worldwide. And it really would be worthwhile having a counter coup between now and December and putting Tony Abbott back on the throne, putting it bluntly.
That’s what should really happen now. It will not come as a surprise to you that that is being worked on, some promising indications are already coming forward so I will say no more than that. Is that what is behind this, is this huge desire by the global class politics the big businesses that the government the big unions that the big bureaucracies, to wield absolute unelected global power. It’s the old kind of comic book threat of global domination, they don’t want to do it with jackboots but they want to do it with paper files, they want to do it with, pen pushing bureaucratic regulations.
This is the new world order, it’s not the world order with the marching jackboots to the world order where you don’t even see the marching jackboots yes but people are quietly Spirited Away and locked up or got rid of. Or the technique which they use now, which is almost as effective as locking you up, is you just relentlessly, and I mean relentlessly, attack every aspect of the character and reputation and habits of those few of us who speak out against this.
But they didn’t mind that, what they mind is that people see us being savaged, they keep their heads down or they didn’t join us in speaking out. That’s why that works it was it was Goebbels originally who worked this out. And that was how the Nazis came to power, if you read volume one of Richards, three volume. History of the Third Reich. That entire first point was devoted to, how could this happen? And the one thing that comes through again and again. Was that the hard left which were the fascists, the Nazis, they simply vilified and attacked the reputations and smeared anyone who dared to oppose.
Everybody was cowered into silence except the brave few who were eventually arrested, killed by the Nazis finally when they took absolute power. Same technique was used, of course by Stalin and his goons was used by Marty to and his goons, now it’s being used by the Eco loons against those of us who speak out on climate, exactly the same thing. That’s why there are so few of us because we’ve had our reputations trashed.
People realize if you want to be a player in big business, big government big bureaucracy big unions big media big church, whatever, then you better go along with the climate storyline, however much you would have to hold your nose, because if you speak out against it, then they will do to you what they’ve done to me, that’s the way it works.
But Tony Abbott was a real problem, because he was actually the Prime Minister against all the odds against the best efforts of the worst efforts of the ABC of the Sydney Morning Herald and all these ghastly left-wing media, he got elected. It was the wrong result from that point of view, and they have of course moved heaven and earth ever since he was elected to make sure that the will of the people was thwarted.
And this terrible little man Turnbull, who is a crook from top to bottom was allowed to hit back at him for having deposed him, in turn, a few years ago. And so, Turnbull is now top of the heap and if you think for a single moment he’s going to adhere to the previous government’s policies on climate, you’ve got another thing coming. This is a man who is personally making very large sums of money out of the climate scam. He is not going to have his income stream interrupted. Thank you very much by having a policy like that of Tony Abbott of spending less on this nonsense of the taxpayers money.
One of the reasons why this scam has proven so near universally popular among the class politic, among the governing class is because they can make such enormous amounts of money by establishing subsidies. Indeed in Britain, and many other countries, the whole wind farms scam, is in fact, back door state funding for political parties, the state gives funding in the billions per wind farm there’s one wind farm we did manage to stop it. I put in an objection.
It was heard and were counted and they’re not going to do it, but that wind farm had it gone ahead, would in its 20 year lifetime have attracted a subsidy of eight and a half billion, and I mean, billion with a B, billion dollar windfall. Now, what are they gonna do with all this money, it doesn’t cost that much to set up a wind farm, set it to them, were going to pay it back in trudges to the political parties who had conspired together to make sure that they’ve got the permission to build the wind farm.
That’s what this is all about. It is covert funding at taxpayers expense for political parties, because in most countries, state funding for political parties is rightly frowned upon doesn’t happen, and the political parties want more money, so that they can fight each other and have more effective electoral campaigns, and their way to do this is let’s all agree, we’ll get this entire nonsense going, we will pay huge state subsidies, they will be made pretty clear, nod, nudge, nudge wink, wink, to the people who are getting these billions of dollars per wind farming subsidies, that they should give the thick end of it back to us in political donations, done of course individually in small amounts under the 5000 pound reporting middle whatever, but that’s the game that’s going up.
So, so this whole thing is a game for them to, you know, bring a battle of the idealogical dreams, and we will, we the people just sit back and just say thank you very much.
That’s what you do – you pay. And you do as your told, that’s the new future.
Can I just ask you a question, you know in that video that we discussed it before, that you made up in Brisbane. You refer to article 27 which is the get out clause.
I’m going to come to that, I want to finish off, establishing how serious this threat is, before I tell you what to do about it. Now the first thing about this threat, is that it is real, it is immediate. This is going to have my present assessment; is they’re going to get away with this. Yes, there have been some noises from China and India they are going to form a group to try to resist the more intrusive aspects of the control, which the UN is trying to grab for itself, as China in particular has a long history that even predates communism, it goes right back to the imperial age of definitely not welcoming outside influence in its internal affairs.
And so they and Obama tried to neutralize China when he went to see them. Last December, about at the same time I was in Brisbane. He said to China look, we’ll let you off any obligations at all. Under this treaty, provided you agree not to oppose it. And so, the Chinese of course would be happy not to oppose it as long as it doesn’t bind us. And so, Obama unilaterally said right, I’ll let you off having any obligations under the treaty. So that’s how the Chinese were bought off. The Indians may well have to be bought off the same way. And if they had any sense that’s what they would play because they could make a lot of money out of this if they play their cards right.
So there’s still some chance that these very big developing countries who need coal fired electricity because it’s cheap, reliable, low tech mainstream baseload power that can give poor people electricity, they don’t have now, why they need coal fired power, and they don’t want some ghastly international bureaucrat telling them they can’t have it. Its far better people should starve. Because environmentally, the important thing to do is to bring poverty to an end. Now why do I say this?
Because people tend to have the view quite wrongly, that a poor country has less of an environmental footprint than a rich one. In fact, it’s the other way around. And if people don’t have electricity, they will remain a poor country and nothing you can do if they can’t have electricity, you can’t lift them out of poverty, that’s how they get to remain so the UN by this ghastly means of not letting third world countries build coal fired power stations is directly, promoting the poverty, it says, its job is to bring to an end.
But it’s promoting it quite deliberately and cynically as every totalitarian does because the poor vote left the poor will all always vote for a totalitarian regime. It’s mad that they should, they know no better bless them. Always the left wants to keep people poor, whereas the centre right wants to make them rich because then they won’t vote left. This has been long the battleground, the left will be the ones who wear their heart on their sleeve and speak as though they favoured the poor, but actually that’s sole mission is to keep the poor, poor, and the fastest way to make absolutely sure that the people of the Third World are kept poor is to deny to them the cheap fossil fuel, electricity, that was the building and foundation of our industrial revolution, that’s what they’re trying to do.
They, this is a vicious anti humanity, anti poor movement of contemptible totalitarianism. These are extremists. These are people who would have been delighted to join the Nazi party or Stalin’s communist goons, they would have been right in the front line signing up. These people do not want democracy. They have seen the ability of the climate scare to deliver absolute power into their hands and they are taking it with both hands.
So let’s be clear about this, I really think this is all, it sounds terribly extreme world government conspiracy theory I say again, Copenhagen treaty draft annex one paragraph, 36 and 38. There, it actually says what they’re going to do, then you look at any of our reports from the various UN climate conferences of the various steps they’ve taken, the 1000s of bureaucracies literally 1000s that they have established already, as the sinews of this new global government, it is already happening. It’s not just a conspiracy. It is a fact.
The one really serious threat to that was Tony Abbott, they had to get rid him and that’s why I was able to say, with such confidence as far back as last year that Tony Abbott would be under threat and the people in Australia should do their best to guard his back, because he was going to be knifed, not just by the Turnbull faction that was merely going to be the first person at the front end holding the light. But behind Turnbull is very big money, indeed from overseas from the UN from big businesses from billionaires who have all bought into this climate thing because they want to be part of the global governing set.
That’s why they’re virtually to a man the billionaires, bought into this climate rubbish now these are people who have made money because they are more astute than most. That means they know this climate story is rubbish. So why did they sign up to it? Two reasons. One, they want to be part of the global government. They didn’t want to be vilified as surely as I could be vilified, they don’t want their reputations attacked as mine has been attacked, and they know that’s what will happen to them, if they actually spoke out and said what they really think about all this rubbish.
So, what the left have done, I say the left I mean the totalitarians, the fascists communists, call them what you will I’ve invented a new word, because they’ve managed to combine the worst elements of fascism and communism, it needs to be an ugly word. So they are the fascminists communists. At the same time, these people are very very close to getting a global government and that is why I wanted to establish that first, before we go on to your next question which is how on earth do we stop it?
Now here’s the difficulty we have. There are some governments, the British one is, is a good example where a few of us have realized what complete twaddle this climate scare is, they realized that they made all sorts of embarrassing speeches commitments, legislation, they spent trillions of taxpayer’s money and it’s all wasted. They know that this is a huge embarrassment. And one of the reasons why it’s going to be difficult to get any of them to come out and speak out and say we are against this entire process because of political consequences of this process, and because it won’t make any difference to the climate.
Either way, the reason why they won’t speak out; partly embarrassment that they will have to admit, just how completely wrong they were on something that they at the time said they were more certain of that they’d ever been of anything. And this is hugely embarrassing for the governing class that they’ve been caught at so comprehensively and so quickly, with every single major prediction that they made, or repeated, having been proven to be wrong. Take the global temperature for instance as a very good indicator of all this, despite the fact that 1/3 of all the manmade influences on the climate since 1750 have occurred since January, 1997, in the 18 years and eight months since January 1997, there has been according to the satellite, no global warming at all. Wow, now that’s really weird, because the official science says that immediately after you first make that inference, that forcing by saying emitting a greenhouse gas that the warming should begin, and most of the warming, according to a paper that came out two years ago, should happen in the first 10 or 20 years, after the forcing that we’ve now had 20 years virtually with masses of forcing masses of manmade influence that ought to make the temperature rise, and the temperature hasn’t even begun to go up.
But we’ve got a very cold winter this year in Melbourne, it’s probably been the coldest I’ve ever experienced. And always praying for global warming but it didn’t come Christopher.
….and you do send from Scotland because we’re just going into winter now. But the point is that they every prediction has been wrong. They told us that between 1990 when they first began making the predictions to the UN, to be one Celsius degree of warming by 2025, which do the math, it will mean about naught point seven Celsius by now because they said they would expect it to happen in roughly a straight line.
Now of course it can vary either side on the straight line, but we would now have to have a rate of warming seven times as fast as anything we’ve seen in the last 300 years. Over the next 10 years. In order, to meet that target of one Celsius of warming since 1990 – because it’s only been a quarter of a century since 1990. This has been a very very big failure of prediction. And that’s just one of them. They said they were going to be more storms and hurricanes; they’ve been fewer they’ve said there’s going to be sea ice melting they said it was all going to be gone by 2013 it was still there in 2014 So it’ll all be gone by 2014 Then 2015 Then 2016 Now they’re saying 2020 They’ve learned not to say it’s going to happen next year. And the Arctic ice is still there, the Antarctic Sea ice has been growing, global sea ice has shown no particular change, the Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be all gone in 20 years according to the UN, they’re all still there and they’re doing fine. According to Professor of the Indian Geological Survey, who looks after them. All of these predictions have simply not come to pass.
They said that we’re going to be more droughts, the area of the global growth has fallen quite steadily throughout the last 30 years. They said there’ll be more floods, but the pattern of floods even the UN’s climate panels have admitted that it’s virtually not changed. Ocean acidification, there’s no measurement that tells us whether that’s happening, but the likelihood of it happening is nil because the ocean is so buffering through a very large number of calcifying organisms shell making organisms that live in the ocean, and they could do with more co2 to help them build their shells, it’s really as simple as that.
So, all of the major scare tactics that they came up with were wrong, and already can be demonstrated wrong so any rational person looking at what they said and looking at what has happened since they said it, we’ll say there is clearly a rather large disconnect between the prediction, and the reality. Normally, in science, if you make a prediction, and you screw up, you don’t go on say well we have ever more confidence in the efficiency of our model – you say well, we better go back to the drawing board and rethink this.
And instead they say well we’re ever more confident so as the gap between prediction and reality widen. They are saying they’re ever more confident that that gap will narrow, well, no, it won’t really it will for the next year because we’re going into an El Nino and natural warming event, which goes in what’s called a synoptic cycle every 3-4-5-7 years that sort of thing. And then it goes back the other way again. Usually, there will be some temporary warming in fact between now and December unfortunately that will begin to show through in the global temperature record than they were there, then they will say, well they were such pause as there was in global warming has now come to an end and the warming is resumed but resuming justice to the story that all tell. But it’s all essentially a lie and they’ve essentially been caught out. And the only reason they go on getting away with it, is that they are formed upon by the totalitarian media, who will not give you any of them, they will not give you any of the facts that I’ve just given you, but they won’t ever let you know.
We are still finding out. So, this now leads on to what do we do, how do we stop this? First thing is, is there a need for it? Secondly, if it were to happen, you get this really serious, very powerful, very wealthy and very rapidly growing central global governmental power. Based on this UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Global governmental power will grow even faster than the EU grew in power and strength to the point where nobody dares to speak out against it.
Because governments have got this wrong, and made these predictions which are all proven to be nonsense. They are embarrassed. They can’t bring themselves to come out and say what governments never in practice they wish we got it wrong, they’re not going to do it. So what can we do, we can’t tell them they should simply close down the program, we can tell them that we can’t take that they never actually do it, they should of course, any rational person looking at the facts would say there’s no more need for any of these climate negotiations, the whole thing can just stop and spend the money more usefully giving fossil fuel power to Africa for instance or India or the rest of China.
But no, they will carry on with this process as they call it, the totalitarian left towards being masters of process, and we have got to become its masters too. And this is where we can stop it, the speech that I’m about to make to Her Majesty’s Government, at a relatively senior level, is that I quite understand that they can’t come out and admit and eat crow and admit they were wrong. I understand that and I used to be a bit in government myself I know how difficult that is. I understand. But what I can’t go on doing when Britain is beyond bankrupt our national debt as a percentage of GDP is bigger than that of Greece. We can’t afford to go on paying out 20 or 30,000 million pounds directly and about another 20 or 30,000 million indirectly every year to prop up this climate nonsense.
So there needs to be a way out. And the first thing is to put a get out clause into the Treaty of Paris. I’ve been doing a certain amount of maneuvering on this in the previous draft June of this year, I did manage to get the get out clause inserted, at least as an option. It was clause 222 Should you ever be able to find a copy of that draft, they’re not easy to find because the UN, as far as I can discover doesn’t actually have this latest draft on its website. I had to get it from somebody who hadn’t realized the UN wasn’t circulating it. This secession clause this is a clause which simply gives any state party to this treaty, the right to give three years notice, and then they’re free of all obligations completely under this entire treaty process.
Now there is such a clause at article 27 of the Kyoto Protocol, and Canada took advantage of it Russia took advantage of it Japan took advantage of it. And gradually more countries will take advantage of it as they realize that there’s no need for this climate rubbish and it’s really very expensive to try to honour your Kyoto commitments. And so one by one, they will be able to resign. Now the UN doesn’t want that to happen with the Paris treaty, this is the big enchilada, this is a really big one they’ve been working till they thought they got rid of Kevin hang and then we do that out of the water. They think they’re going to get in Paris. This time I’m afraid they’re probably right.
The justification for it scientifically and economically and politically it’s less than it’s ever been. But these people are vicious they’re all powerful, they are going to drive this through. What we can do I think realistically, is to say to our governments particularly to the British government, look for heaven’s sake, you made the mistake of signing the EU treaties. Without a get out clause so even if we all voted to come out of the EU, you’d have to negotiate and ask permission to leave on their terms. Whereas if there was a secession clause as there should have been if we had a competent government, somebody like me advising it I’d always put in a secession clause to give you the freedom to jump back if it turns out the reasons why the thing was created, don’t obtain after all.
So that is what should now be done, we’ve got to make sure that that secession stays in. Now there’s been another draft since the bond draft of June this year. And I haven’t seen that other draft because they know with the likes of me getting hold of this draft and we find that secession clause have been taken out which they almost certainly has. Then we’ll be screaming about it.
So the important thing for everyone to try to say to their governments is, you must make sure that just in case this climate storyline is all rubbish. You have the freedom to get your country. Our country out of its obligations to pay money and tribute and comply with all sorts of damn fool regulations issued by these unelected bureaucrats at the UN, we’ve already made that mistake in Britain with the EU, and here is the government about to make the exact same mistake again with the UN.
So, the secession clause as it’s called, which certainly the freedom clause, it’s the right to give notice of a few years usually 1-3 years period, then you’re free of the treaty, no longer applies to you at all. It’s the easiest way out of a treaty is to make sure you negotiate secession clause before you’re signing, and what we should do, very simply, all we can secession clause put it in, and this is how you do it. So that used to negotiate treaties for her majesty’s government so I know how this is done, all you do is you sit there with your arms folded and say we will not sign any treaty, which doesn’t have a secession clause, period. They would always put one in there because they’d rather have your signature on the damn thing. They’re always put one in. It only takes one government.
That’s why they were so frightened of Tony Abbott they knew that he couldn’t derail the entire ghastly processes terrible Leftist work. They knew that was all going to carry on, they all have jobs for life doing these annual negotiations and going to exotic locations with black grass skirts and tequila, they love it. When I spoke at the Doha climate conference, I strictly speaking didn’t have the right to speak but it was the end of the conference and the Chairman said anybody else want to say anything and so I got 40 seconds before I was arrested and I said look, actually, there isn’t any need for this anymore. There has been no, global warming for then 16 years now it’s coming up to 19.
So perhaps we ought to have a rethink to get the scientists to have another look before we go too much further. How very mild. Howls of fury throughout the chamber from these people who were making money out of making this a permanent feature that I’ve played with, a national permanent negotiating representatives. Where is this idiot from as they thought at the time, I forget where I was from I was sitting in one of the delegates chairs, Burma I think it was saying that perhaps the whole process wasn’t necessary which of course it isn’t. But you aren’t allowed to say that. And so they were all furious and they shrieked and howled, literally, like being at a pop concert where the fans have just been told that Justin dribbler won’t be performing after all. They were furious.
Are you going to go to Paris?
I might or might not, I think, probably not. My lovely wife thinks that she would quite like a trip to Paris.
But the truth of it is that we have to get a secession clause included in the treaty. This is absolutely vital. That is something which is also realistic, it’s realistic in every direction, because even a government that has totally committed itself to this garbage publicly – privately, they’re not all as stupid as they like to make themselves look. Privately, a lot of them know this was over sold, know that they clambered on the bandwagon just as the wheels are falling off. They won’t say so, but they will be willing just quietly to make sure that a secession clause is there. So that gradually one by one, just as already is happening with Kyoto countries can slink away and say we’ve had enough of this it’s clearly not necessary. And then the whole thing just trickles away into nothing.
That’s where you stop it, becoming a permanent global super state in the way that the EU became a permanent European Super state. If we had had a trapdoor clause, a get out clause in the EU treaties, Britain, Denmark, and quite a number of other countries would no longer be in the EU, we would have gone long before that. We’ll see what a mistake it is to set up these undemocratic, anti democratic arrangements. Because the other thing that I would do to reform this process is to say that if there is going to be any significant power transfer from British elected hands Australian elected hands into the hands of this bureaucracy, then the bureaucrats who exercise that power must face regular universal secret ballot election.
No more transfer of powers to international bodies, unless the people who run those bodies are elected by us to run them. Now this of course is something that UN hates, not only because none of these bureaucrats wants to have to face re-election. They like the permanent security of knowing that once you’ve got a job at the UN, it’s a job for life. You know you can even sleep with little boys for years as that ….. did or was it little girls I can’t remember which they will cover for you. You can do anything you like. Once you’ve got a job at the UN and you can’t be unseated, but you could be if you had to be elected. You had to be regularly re-elected. So that would change the whole dynamic, but I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the UN ever to agree to such thing because the UN dictators club, but it was structured in a very unfortunate way right from the start and this was spotted by the Russians at the time when the UN was first set up that there was one vote per nation. And so, you submitted for tiddlywinks to Baloo and you’d have exactly the same vote as China. You only have to state it like that, and you see how preposterous the UN is as an overlay it can’t work.
And so this means that, because of that structure. The UN is never going to function as it should. And so the only way to bring it to heel is to make sure that its senior bureaucrats, including the Secretary General, who I met in Rome are elected, and that would change the whole dynamic, but I mean I have very little objection to sharing sovereignty with European powers or even global powers, provided that we, the people elect and basically most of these UN member states are not democracies, they wouldn’t be able to explain to their people, that they are suddenly going to give them a vote on who goes to the UN, but you still can’t have a vote on who governs you here in Rwanda.
And so that, that’s why, suggesting to the UN, but it’s bureaucrats should be elected, they all go wobbly at the moment you mentioned such possibilities they just think you’re mad. Because the entire structure of the UN doesn’t work that way. So I don’t think that’s realistic. I do think the get out clause is realistic. And another thing I think is realistic though it’ll be much harder to make it happen and that is performance indicators. Now here’s the thing, the left of us were successfully saying we must prevent two Celsius of warming at all costs compared with a …… have already had one Celsius and 70, so we can have one more Celsius warming and that becomes worth up.
Now, this target is completely arbitrary, but it has a very powerful political effect once it’s a complete communist lunatic, called Schellnhuber, who thought this up, and he made a wildly eccentric speech at the Copenhagen climate conference saying that, trillions of people are going to die. Unless the West was shut down to degree to completely plucked out of the air, there’s no scientific justification for it at all. But we can do the same trick on them, we can say right.
You made various predictions in 1990 that’s when you first predicted this and you said that you were substantially confident that your models at that time had captured all the essential features of the climate, and you tell us there was going to be one degree of warming by 2025. Well, if it doesn’t happen. No more treaty. Bingo. We have performance indicators. And then we say, and then a longer term if it does happen by 2025 and there’s no more warming after that. Then we have a further break point. And so, if at any time, the forecasts they made in 1990 proved to be so far, exaggerated compared with what’s really happened that nobody can any longer place any reliance on, the treaty process comes to an end automatically.
Even if a lot of the members want to carry on. That’s a very useful one because that puts a time bomb under the whole thing. He means that by 2025 at the latest this whole thing comes to a stop because there won’t be one Celsius of warming by 2025, however much they’d like to fiddle the figures, they won’t able to make that happen compared to 1990. So that’s one way that I will also write in a performance indicator on their predictions and if their predictions proved to be as continued to be as exaggerated as they have proved to be to date. Then there is plainly no justification for this process to continue, and it should be brought to an end and that should be written into the Paris treaty too.
So those are the two recommendations I’m going to be making to the British government. I’m making one which I expect them to say yes to which is the cessation clause, and one which I expect them to say no to I always give them two. So they’ve got so they can say well we told that man to go away and he couldn’t have his performance indicator, and then they quietly put through the cessation clause anyway that’s how it works you give them two things so they can say they’ve said no, if anybody asks so that. That’s what I think is now got to happen in Australia I don’t think you’d have any joy whatsoever with Turnbull on that. This man is making too much money out of it. He belongs to various banking groups that are making a great deal of money out of it, the banks have been solidly behind this climate rubbish as they were behind every world war because it’s profitable.
It’s not a secret that Malcom Turnbull is an ex Goldman Sachs man.
Exactly. So, these guys are popping up everywhere, all over Europe as well.
Yes, it’s just like for the sons of Amschel Rothschild right in the early days of this kind of banking, made sure that you’ve got your young lads into positions of power and they then looked after the bank from those positions of power. It’s long understood that habit among bankers, they’re very good at it. And that’s why to amend they have got one with the climate scam to them because they can’t afford to have their reputations trashed by the left saying oh, look this bank doesn’t believe in global warming. Let’s disinvest from that bank and take our account somewhere else.
They don’t want that. Do we on the centre right we don’t play that kind of childish politics the left do it all the time. So, the banks they look at us and see nice people, they’re making very good points, but they’re not a threat to us, then they see the left, shrieking and saying we’ll disinvest we’ll make you to close down your bank, etc, we’ll have demonstrations we will have, whatever it is. So, the bankers will say well for a quiet life we’ll do what the left says, because they will make it difficult for us if we don’t this of course is exactly to read Richard his book, this is exactly how Nazism came to be.
It was because the left were the ones that did the shouting of National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, the Nazis. Anyone who dared oppose them had their reputations trashed that was what Goebbles spent nearly all his time doing it was copied, then by the communists on the Eon Mihai Pacheco was the head of the disinfo Matsya Directorate of the KGB. He was the head of the security taught at ghastly secret police in Ceausescu’s Romania. And he was a very senior KGB. And he ran this information directorate, they had 1 million agents of influence, to a Western communist, not even known to be in any way linked with Bhaskar. And he was running these 1 million, agents of interest. Many of them still in place, notwithstanding the Berlin Wall came down, a quarter of a century ago, and they were taught to self-perpetuate so that network of fanatical totalitarists, still exists in the West and is still active.
And Pacheco has written a very interesting book about how I know that there were a million of them that’s his figure, and he is not the sort of chap who is prone to making stuff up on his debriefing when he was one of the most senior Soviet agents we ever got to come across. He was very level-headed and very down to earth and remains so to this day. And so, if he says that there were a million agents who was I don’t think he’s bragging properties there or there but.
So that’s why the media and so many other the churches, the unions that the governing bureaucracies went left wing so very fast. This was a highly organized campaign. And right at the heart of this campaign, and right at the beginning of this campaign was the vilification of those whom they regarded as the biggest enemies of totalitarians. And the biggest of the lot. After the Second World War was the Pope Pius the 12th. And so, the brahman, as you might think the disinformation directorate, tried to denigrate the Pope, tried to say that Pius the 12th was a Nazi loving Jew hater. Now, the truth is the complete opposite of that. In 1937, the Pope, as the Secretary, as he then was to the previous pastor, had drafted for him in German. The encyclical mid Brendan does org, which was the first public statement by any state, condemning Nazism, and was also the first encyclical letter of the church of Rome, written in language other than Latin since they’ve originally written them in Greek in the Middle Ages.
So, this was a very single thing that was drafted by the man who would later become Pope Pius the 12th and use the Vatican and the network of nunneries and convents and monasteries and parish churches all across Italy as an elaborate underground pipeline to get Italy’s Jews out from under the clutches of the Nazis, use the cellars of St Peter’s as places where Jews could hide there was an enormous network going on, run by and with the full approval. So much so that after the Second World War, the chief rabbi, and his deputy, both became Catholics as soon as it was safe for them to do so once the Nazis were gone. And that was the guy that he only hyper chapter decided to use as his first target, can we blacken the name of this saint? everybody knew him as a saint.
And so, at first they didn’t succeed. This is the man who, the Chief Rabbi runs become a catholic to be able to do that if the Pope was this way. I think just went on growing their network of agents you know people like in The Guardian newspaper, The New York Times, all these lefty. Gentlemen, they all have these people, pumping out this absolute garbage day after day after day, until eventually people began, believing it and arguing for when you can ask people, do you think that Pius the 12th was a Nazi loving Jew hater, quite a lot of them will nod their head, of course, that was entirely thanks to chapters disinformation direct because they reckoned.
But if they could even blacken the name of a Saintly Pope, then they could blacken anybody’s name and get away with it that technique, as you will see I mean just Google Monckton. And you’ll see the hate speech – reams of it. I mean 1000s upon 1000s of pages of Wikipedia biography, whole websites devoted to attacking Monckton by name, the Clerk of the House of Lords has joined in because he’s a communist, but they got him to put up a letter on the website saying you’re not to say that you’re a viscount, of course I’m a bloody viscount it’s in my passport. But this is the game they play it’s all about endless undermining the reputation of those people they’re regarded as a threat to them.
I regard it in a way as a compliment to me that they spend so much of that time, accusing me of being a liar and not being a lord all these other things they go on and on about. They do this because they want to copy per chapter copy Geobbles, who did this before, the same people, the totalitarian people don’t care for the truth. They care only what the party line is and its these people who are, if they can get away with it going to put a world government in place. This time they’re calling it a governing body, but it’s being given even wider power under the Paris treaty draft, then it would have got under the Copenhagen treaty.
So, it’s being given the power, status, finance, of a government, but they’re no longer calling it that, because they don’t want the likes of me to point out that they’re calling it a government, they’ve learned not to do that. But that’s what it’s going to be. And once such an organization is even set up. It’s very, very, very difficult to kill. That’s where the cessation clause comes in that’s why this is the one vital thing that needs to be done. I’ve tried to explain this to some of the Australian climate sceptics because they keep sending me things as opposed to sending to Tony Abbott, but usually about 50 pages of rambling diffuse stuff about climate so I’ve looked at, try and teach you about the climate.
Just tell him, send him a half page letter saying you’ve got to put a secession clause in the treaty, they’ll put that on his desk because you’ve got time to read it. And I couldn’t get them to do it. Anyway, it’s too late now, but I did manage to get the cessation clause in by another route. So it was there in the June, Bond draft but I think they may have used as an excuse to take it out, the fact that the plan draft was a no 34 pages, shorter than the previous draft in January, and it’s still a was then still 80 pages, they’re now going to try and get it down to half a dozen pages which is more the sort of length of the treaty ought to be. But that means there’ll be an awful lot of cottage sales and other stuff that have been hidden away or put in Annex, which will need to be very carefully reviewed, and the UN is very deliberately not putting very much of this documentation on its website at the moment, because we found out about the draft last time it was on obscure UN website so that they could later say well it was there all the time. Why didn’t you protest at the time? And of course then we did protest so that one backfired. So this time I think they weren’t even bothered to put on their website, they’re just to get it all together so I’m a nod, that will be that unless we get that cessation clause in place so I’ve rammed that home it’s been rather a long presentation, But if you want the shorter version you can see the speech in Brisbane, it’s on YouTube already.
I will definitely, definitely do that one. Thank you so much for, for your comments and definitely gonna have another interview soon, and we’ll start to put them up on YouTube for everyone to see. And that’s it for now thanks Christopher.
That’s’ alright Paul.