i-a0ce758f21635457b6e1b5fa69ce7262-eirv36n23.png
Hey, remember how Monckton got published in a UFO magazine? Well, now he’s in a Larouche publication, Executive Intelligence Review (see cover to right), being interviewed about the IPCC plan to RULE THE WORLD.

However, they are not concerned
with whether there is a problem or not. They
merely wish to pretend that there is a problem, and try
to do so with a straight face, for long enough to persuade,
not the population, because we have no say in
this, but the governing class in the various memberstates
of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change: That they should hand over their
powers as government to the United Nations or to a new
agency, or possibly just to the existing climate panel,
merely restructured a bit. So that we would no longer be
free to decide what our currency would be, or how much
of it there should be, or what we could burn, or what we
could do. These things would be dictated to us by the
dictators at the center.

The Larouchite who interviewed him reckons that Monckton is correct but hasn’t yet realised that Prince Philip and Prince Charles are the puppet masters controlling the IPCC.

Other Moncktonian gems from the EIR interview:

And it works no better than their attempts to ban DDT,
which led to the deaths of 40 million children in the
poorer countries. A totally unnecessary ban. DDT is
not dangerous! You can eat it by the tablespoonful – do you no harm at all. But they invented a scare that
it causes cancer, which it does not. They invented a
scare that it might thin the eggshells, which it does
not – unless you happen to deprive the birds of calcium
in their diet, before you do the measurement,
which is how they got the bogus result they based it
on.

The use of DDT against malaria is not banned. The LD50 (quantity that kills half of test subjects) for DDT is 200 mg/kg for monkeys (closest analogue to humans). So for a 75 kg person that’s 15g, or one tablespoon. A 50% chance of killing you does not, to me, seem to be the same as “no harm at all”. And DDT does thin bird shells

Same with HIV, where, as with any other fatal,
incurable infection, it should have been treated as
what’s called a notifiable disease, carriers isolated immediately
to protect the rest of the population. This was
not done. The result? Twenty-five million dead, 40 million
infected and going to die, and heaven knows how
far the epidemic will continue to spread.

Yes, that’s Monckton’s infamous plan for the life imprisonment of anyone who is HIV positive.

Kofi
Annan has just issued a bizarre, bogus report stating
that 300,000 people have died already as a result of
global warming or climate change per year, and more
deaths are possible. But the policies that he’s advocating
to solve this will kill billions of people, and will
eclipse that, even if it were true.

That must be Monckton’s one millionth wild exaggeration.

Comments

  1. #1 Janet Akerman
    July 20, 2009

    Ray better get used to a new title. It’s ‘pseudo-skeptic’. I don’t think anyone here is fooled by your self description as skeptic. The number of times you tell other that you are skeptical gives a sense of how keen you are to be considered skeptical. However Ray, we’ve all got to earn our stripes we can’t just claim a title we haven’t earned.

    And Ray you’ve provided strong evidence that you are psudo-skeptical, one who doesn’t let the facts get in the way of ill-informed beliefs.

  2. #2 Ray
    July 20, 2009

    Ray better get used to a new title. It’s ‘pseudo-skeptic’. I don’t think anyone here is fooled by your self description as skeptic. The number of times you tell other that you are skeptical gives a sense of how keen you are to be considered skeptical. However Ray, we’ve all got to earn our stripes we can’t just claim a title we haven’t earned. And Ray you’ve provided strong evidence that you are psudo-skeptical, one who doesn’t let the facts get in the way of ill-informed beliefs.
    Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 8:23 AM

    Give me the evidence for my insincere skepticism. You never know, there may be some people who are fooled about my claims of skepticism. You owe it to them to expose me.

  3. #3 Janet Akerman
    July 20, 2009
  4. #4 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2009

    A million dollars is worth a million dollars because of the energy it represents.

    OK Ray, could you explain the reasons that a barrel of oil, which (over the short term) is surely relatively inelastically equivalent to a unit of energy, cost almost US$150 on 11 July last year, and was worth just under $34/barrel on 21 December? By your logic, there must have been less energy (whether embodied or real) in each barrel of oil, with the passage of just five months.

    Oh, and I am [still curious](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future.php#comment-1784837).

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2009

    Ray.

    A couple more interesting points…

    1) In 2008 one US penny contained 2 cents worth of metal.

    2) Oil prices are kept artificially low because many oil-producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, peg their currencies to the US dollar.

    What do these facts say about your statement that “[a] million dollars is worth a million dollars because of the energy it represents.”?

  6. #6 sod
    July 20, 2009

    You buy a Van Gogh for 1 million dollars which represents all the industrial activity that has taken place through all the shenanigans, and GHGs emission over the years.

    again: this “everything is CO2 over the years” is a completely false idea!

    as i showed with my example above: i buy coffee, or the person i bought from uses part of the money to buy coffee, or the person he buys from buys coffee, ….
    so ever $ on the world ends up in coffee!

    so apart from all money ending up in energy, all money ends up in coffee, and even at the same time!

    the cause of this obvious logic flaw in your theory is a simple one. you are double counting transactions!

    if i sell one of my van Gogh pictures to you, and afterwards refill the tank of my car with $100 of petrol, then the petrol is counted TWICE.

    it shows up in my balance sheet (i transform $100 into energy), but it also shows up in your balance sheet. (as part of your “historic” van Gogh bundle.

    when you sum up your transactions, then there are suddenly $200 invested in the same $100 worth of petrol. that is nonsense!

    ***

    the real energy part of goods is pretty small. i guess between 5 and 20%, actually 10% might be a pretty good guess. anyone got a link or some good numbers?

  7. #7 Observa
    July 20, 2009

    sod, Bernard,

    Save your juice, Ray seems to be trying to waste your time.

  8. #8 Lee
    July 20, 2009

    Ray is missing his chance.

    If I pay $12,000 for an installed V system, Ray says that is equivalent to $12,000 energy cost, and $12,000 Carbon emission.

    But before my contractor could install the system, he had to buy the components. Lets say he spent $6,000 on parts, and $4,000 for labor and overhead. So his cost is $10,000.

    My $12k, plus his $10k is $22k. No wonder the caarbon emission payback sucks (40 years, Ray says) if my $12k PV system has $22k worth of energy cost.

    But wait! His suppliers and the manufacturers had to pay for their supplies and energy too! He paid $6,000 – let’s estimate an aggregate value of $5k for materials, overhead, utilities, labor.

    Now my $12k Pv system has $27k of energy cost. Dayyum – Ray has a point!

    Oh, wait! It’s even worse! The contractor, suppliers, and workers are going to have spent their wages and profits too. Have to include that! My PV system is getting really, really energy expensive now, for my $12k cost! This is terrible.

    I bet if I trace those dollars back far enough, the money flow is going to expand in not too many years to include nearly the entire economy, and the dollars in each of those years will have been flowing through the economy the year before, and the year before that, and so on.

    So – I get it, Ray. The energy cost of my $12k PV system is equivalent to the total GDP of the planet, summed for eacxh year from the beginning of monetary economies through, say, 20-40 years ago (I’m being conservative on when the trace-back touches the entire economy), plus a diminishing portion of the global GDP in each year since then.

    Dayyum, that’s a lot of energy cost, Ray. No wonder the payback is 40 years instead of 2.

    Oh BTW, Ray. You’re a fricking idiot.

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2009

    Ray,

    If there is a net carbon cost (not a monetary cost) to energy now, doesn’t the gradual transition to carbon free energy sources mean that the net carbon cost of energy will also go down?

    Is that commonsensical enough for you?

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2009

    Observa.

    I tend to agree with you, but the perverse part of me is interested to see how long Ray will continue to make his claim that there is a direct and fixedly proportional relationship between money and energy.

    This has been entertaining me as a non-economist, because I doubt that many real economists would take such a simplistic stance. For example, on first pass as an economic lay person, I would posit that P = iEND/S, where P = price, E = embodied energy, N = number of people in the economy, D = demand, and S = supply. I would suggest that a variable coefficient of irrationality is required that operates on demand, hence the i.

    In this model taxes are an optional modifier, dependent on the nature of the economy: such charges/levies are not necessarily mandatory in understanding what determines price, so I omit them.

    Considering this equation for a moment, it is trivially obvious that supply can modify price without the embodied energy of a product changing. One only needs to think how the cost of mangos drops after the first few weeks of the season, even though the embodied engery E in producing them does not change and the demand D might be stable.

    Similarly, with Peak Oil the price (P) of energy (not to be confused with the cost factor E) increases as supply S diminishes. There is an additional effect as the remaining oil (or other fossil fuel) reserves become harder to tap, so P increases as a consequence of increased E as well as reduced S.

    As I said, it’s trivial stuff, but more nuanced than Ray’s blathering has been up to now.

    Of course, it’s also fairly trivial to see how human irrationality might modify the demand component D, and hence final price P. The fun thing is, as I was considering how i may be defined by rearranging the equation, I realised that it (quite serendipitously!) comes out as:

    i = SP/END

    Says it all, really.

  11. #11 Mark
    July 20, 2009

    > Save your juice, Ray seems to be trying to waste your time.

    > Posted by: Observa

    Just do enough work to counter his idiotic postings.

    Some poor deluded fool may think Ray has something.

    We all agree he has something, but only a psychologist can help…

  12. #12 Observa
    July 20, 2009

    >”I tend to agree with you, but the perverse part of me is interested to see how long Ray will continue to make his claim that there is a direct and fixedly proportional relationship between money and energy.”

    Yes, it can be addictive. But I wonder if its healthy?
    ;)

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    July 21, 2009

    Second pass.

    Thinking about it, I would have better expressed D as being equivalent to ‘mean level of desire’, rather than ‘demand’. Following on, ‘demand’ might be better expressed as being a function of ‘mean level of desire’ x N.

    With such definitions, one could replace ‘demand’ in the [previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future.php#comment-1787267) with ‘desire’ (D), and simply acknowledge that there is a separate composite entity, demand (Dd).

    However, as I am a self-confessed economic ignoramus, no validity should be assumed!

  14. #14 pearl
    July 18, 2010

    I guess most of the readers here have a predisposition to believe enviro-fanatics. Unfortunately you people have infiltrated and commandeered all the major media, so yes, anyone who would like to bring people the truth, must use alternative sources. Turns out all the anti-establishment types of the 60′s have become the slave masters of the New World Order, completely silencing any point of view with which they disagree. Yet, for my part, I trust the Enquirer for unbiased journalism far more than Tim Lambert. Enjoy your tyranny, fools. “May your chains rest lightly upon you…”