This event is over.

Entrance fee more than halved

The Public Relations Institute of NZ (PRINZ) has thrown in the towel, quitting their promised hosting of Christopher Monckton’s Auckland debate on Thursday night.

The event will still proceed, however, with the Climate Realists taking over — and lowering the entry fee to less than half! Read more… »

Everyone wants it; some don’t want to share.

Free speech in New Zealand?

Everyone claims the right to free speech, but not necessarily for ‘others’. All talk of curbing free speech is for ‘other’ people, never for oneself.

What is a debate? It’s just a few people talking to each other. Who could be afraid of a little debate? Well, when vested interests are concerned, any number of people.

Andy mentions in comments that readers at Hot Topic are talking about emailing PRINZ to stop the climate debate with Christopher Monckton. They say the debate is “unethical” because it spreads confusion.

They complain about Monckton’s use of the phrase “Hitler Youth”. He used this at Copenhagen when a group of youth activists tried to shut down his debate.

Doesn’t anyone do irony any more?

Ironic indeed, but it’s a sinister trend. We live in a free country. We champion free speech everywhere. We were leading activists for freedom from apartheid in South Africa. Now look what’s happening to us. Read more… »

This event is over. It was a great success, with as many turned away as were admitted.

Read more… »

A masterful performance. Inferior opposition knocked out of the park.

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley opened his debate at the National Press Club in Australia two days ago by reminding his audience that England not only took the Ashes off Australia, but also held on to them in the next rematch. He said: “I just thought I’d rub it in.” Then he proceeded to take his cudgel to his feeble debating opponent.

Economist Richard Deniss must be no intellectual weakling, but he gave the impression of not knowing where he was, so he said the things he normally said. Which usually works, because his normal audience has heard them before and agrees with him. But here, he floundered and had no idea what he was doing. Read more… »

Viscount Monckton to visit New Zealand for the first time. Sponsored by ClimateRealists.org.nz

The Climate Realists have confirmed that Lord Monckton has agreed to come here following his Australian tour. Donations have been received to cover his expenses.

There are some engagement details on the CR web site with more to be confirmed.

[UPDATE Sun 17 July 2011 16:05 NZT] An announcement is expected soon from the organisers and I’ve been given no reason for pessimism. Let’s hope this is the news we’ve been waiting for.

[UPDATE Sat 16 July 2011 21:05 NZT] There has been good progress and everyone’s optimistic that we will see Lord M in the country. However, it’s not quite a done deal yet, so keep your fingers crossed.

[UPDATE Sat 16 July 2011 12:40 NZT] This post was removed for a while at the request of the organisers while they confirmed funding. It’s still unclear to me whether funding is secure, although the probability seems high that it is. The Dominion Post has published a piece on it and got feedback from James Renwick, who was at first keen on a debate. There’s a lot of interest in getting Monckton over here.

Viscount Monckton, perhaps to visit New Zealand for the first time.

Plans are afoot to bring Christopher Monckton to New Zealand on 4th–7th August, though details are sketchy and sponsors unconfirmed.

Groups known to support his visit include the Climate Realists Network, Investigate Magazine, the NZ Climate Science Coalition and of course us here at the Climate Conversation. Read more… »

A symbol of the proposed, unelected “Secretariat”.

I will resist these proposals with all the means at my disposal for as long as there is breath in my body.

Here’s a selection from Lord Monckton’s hard-hitting exposé of the United Nation’s plans for a world government which were first revealed by him in Copenhagen a year ago. The plans are being further stitched together this week in Cancun, to be finalised the year after next in Rio de Janeiro.

This material is from what is euphemistically termed the Chairman’s “note” (actually, “Note by the Chair”, as though a chair might speak) and which is subtitled “Elements of the outcome”.

It is impenetrable, impossible to understand – and that, Christopher Monckton explains, is deliberate; we’re not meant to know what it means. Read more… »

Loss of freedom is contrived by manufacturing boundaries we cannot breach. Our bodies are constrained by barbed wire; our economic, intellectual and spiritual freedoms by social concepts and legislation.

No conspiracy theory – this is a concrete proposal

Christopher Monckton has just revealed that efforts are being made at Cancun, as they were made at Copenhagen a year ago, to forge a world government for the good of all its people. Such a government will, of necessity, reduce or eliminate national sovereignty and the democratic process.

For a modern exemplar of this, see the European Community. For an historic model, see Attilla the Hun.

Lord Monckton gives his analysis at WUWT. I have located the Chairman’s note he cites, which is the source of our knowledge of these monstrous overtures, at the UNFCCC web site — click on English under Electronic version available. I’m still reading through it and intend to comment further.

At the end of Monckton’s article he recommends informing our representatives of the contents of the Chairman’s proposals. That’s a good idea and it should be done right now, while they’re still at Cancun. There isn’t much time to stop this dangerous nonsense and only weight of numbers will do it.

I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Christopher Monckton, at the Science and Public Policy Institute, is despondent about the uses being made of the global warming “crisis”. He fumes about the supranational aspirations of the United Nations and speaks darkly of a “fledgling World Government”. I recommend you download the pdf and read him directly; it’s not only a demonstration of excellent writing but also illuminates the situation.

Does he exaggerate in referring to international arrangements, through treaties, which aim to control our emissions of greenhouse gases, as “this constitutional monstrosity, [this] abnegation of life, this repudiation of liberty, this cancellation of the pursuit of happiness”? Read more… »