When is a 'Conspiracy Theory' a CONSPIRACY?

You will recall that the Lord Monckton Foundation Charter and Vision asks the following questions:

"...Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance really a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should not the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should not every supranational and global institution of governance be elected? The Foundation exists to illuminate questions such as these, and to inspire devotion to the cause of Western civilization, true reason, sound science, universal liberty and worldwide democracy in the hearts of all men of goodwill. Let freedom ring!"

Implicit in these questions is the impact of the evidence that the more remote any elite anointed 'regulating class' is from the people, the less interest they have in the people and their issues. Can anyone seriously suggest that a UN  global government and bureaucracy based in Brussels or Beijing or New York; an elite group loyal only to global 'groupthink' and concerned primarily and predominantly with maintaining power, as big government inevitably is, will care for the good citizens of towns in the mid-west of the US; villages of the Palar River Region of Tamil Nadu in India; the challenges of water rights in Victoria, Australia and so on?

The elite anointed 'regulating class' look forward to this UN inspired Brave New World (here)

Don't forget that the UN at Copenhagen attempted a global coup on the pretext of saving the planet - see Lord Monckton's Minnesota Peroration (here). Where this has been discussed at all in the media, it has been presented as a 'conspiracy theory' by Lord Monckton and others, with the implication that it is somehow a whacky baseless notion dreamed up by some paranoid climate sceptics.

This particular post has been prompted by some interesting presentations by the Green Senator for Tasmania and leader of the Greens Party in the Australian Federal Parliament, Dr Bob Brown (Note: Bob Brown has resigned as leader since this blog was posted). The background to this is that the Greens have been seen to be acting in favour of the interests of international organisations such as the UN IPCC and against the economic and sovereign interests of Australia and Australians.

Senator Brown made an interesting speech at the Greens National conference (here). Unfortunately, many in the Greens seem to say one thing and mean another. For example Clive Hamilton, the Greens Party candidate for the high profile seat of Higgins, despite maintaining that he never suggested suspending democracy to 'save the planet', definitely seems to do so in an article he wrote himself to promote his book (here).

Senator Brown has gone on to say that we need a world government (here) and expresses an interest in democracy despite repeated efforts to stifle debate on Climate science and economics and any criticism of the Greens by those whom he describes as 'the hate media'. His efforts in media management have led to the proposal from a government enquiry he demanded and got, to establish a government funded media regulator (here).

We are not convinced that big government is either worthy and/or susceptible to democratic control, and unfortunately the Greens want BIG Government and on a GRAND GLOBAL SCALE.

If you point out that there are groups and organisations and indeed bureaucracies (e.g. UN IPCC) around the world seriously attempting to bring on a Global Government (and actually achieving this by stealth in some fora), then you will be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Last year over 5,000 Australian's responded to a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation's call for submissions in September, 2011. Within the very short timeframe of one week, these people and organisations managed to draft, write and submit to the committee on this complex topic.

Unfortunately, the Labor-and-Greens-Alliance-dominated committee decided that there were too many submissions against the legislation and so they decided to 're-categorize' these 'negative' submissions as 'correspondence'.

Similarly, Dr Jensen, about the only member in the parliament qualified to comment on the science, found he was not allowed to table reputably published, peer reviewed science on the specific topic of climate change, in the Parliament during the debate on (see here) the Clean Energy Future Legislation.

In addition, Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb was allowed to give testimony before this Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation, on the 26th September, 2011 (unlike over 5,000 other Australians who had their submissions 'reclassified') without offering any empirical science in support of his case as demonstrated by Dr John Happs' demolition of Professor Chubb's efforts (here). If Dr Happs had been able to present alongside Professor Chubb, it would have been interesting to hear the Committee's response.

One has to ask oneself, "What could the Labor Green government be affraid of? Free speech in the Parliament; the science; or the truth perhaps?"

So we have the Australian Parliament and the government funded ABC (here) both deciding that the people's right to hear opposing views or even to question the 'consensus view' is somehow 'inappropriate' and therefore, decide it is not going to happen.

In Australia, right now, we have the Federal Government considering the Finkelstein Report and we have efforts to enforce a form of 'political correctness' through various tribunals and court actions and we can get a glimpse of how this same zeitgeist is happening around the western world through Mark Steyn's observations here.

Following Lord Monckton's observation, we observe what the tax payer funded public broadcaster, 'THE ABC' does with the taxes extracted from the Australian people to broadcast in news reports and comment; propaganda/acceptable information/post modern science/the views of the anointed regulating classes (?) on the pretext of balance, science and journalistic ethics for investigative skepticism. 

Lord Monckton has observed the following:

"At the end of the day, the central question is this. Which side in this scientific debate is most likely to be right and true?

Much turns upon the answer to this central question. If there is in fact no “climate crisis”, then the world is about to spend not billions but trillions on a Sisyphean attempt to find non-solutions to a non-problem. Every cent spent on the non-problem of “global warming” is a cent not spent on the world’s real environmental problems, not the least of which is the abject and needless poverty in which far too many are condemned to struggle.

Also, the repeated and often furtive attempts by powerfully-placed true-believers to stifle, suppress, and silence debate – attempts which were repeatedly made in the present case – raise serious questions about the degree to which the freedom of speech on which the West once prided itself still survives.

Without freedom of speech, and without the academic freedom of thought that is its handmaid, there is a clear and present danger that the West will drift silently and miserably from the Age of Reason and Enlightenment into a new Dark Age."

Lord Monckton September 28, 2009

Anthony Watts has posted on Testimony of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the California State Assembly on 21st March 2012.

See post (here)

Clive Palmer's only mistake was to specify a particular source of conspiracy against the interests of Australia and Australians.

It is naive in the extreme to believe that there are no individuals, groups, philosophies and even countries plotting to do Australia damage. Operating perhaps, on their own disturbed meme, ideology, belief system or religion, it is certain that some are keen to act against our economic and security interests to the detriment of the Commonwealth of Australia and Australians in favour of their own or foreign interests.

In other words, if there are enemies within or external threats, conspiring to harm our interests, freedoms and way of life, then our government should act to reduce that threat. If there are forces at work funded by external parties or agencies 'conspiring' to damage a major export industry upon which our government depends for economic stability, then Clive Palmer (or anyone else) who, based on some evidence he has come across, suspects such a conspiracy, and brings it to our attention, should be applauded as a patriot, rather than pilloried as a buffoon by Ministers of the Crown.

Who has a clearer loyalty to our constitution and country and greater insight into the evil intent of some global players? Clive Palmer, who understands how a foreign government or global corporation or hedge fund manager may attack our national interest (as has been done in the past by the USSR, China, George Soros and others); or a naive government acting on nothing but a complete lack of business experience, governed only by the 'best of intentions' to destroy our 'carbon' economy, export our manufacturing jobs and divert future minerals investment to new more hospitable mining boom locations (like Africa).   

The media reports of Clive Palmer's thoughts on this matter have been sketchy at best and malevolent at worst, and so I can't say what has prompted Mr Palmer to form this particular 'conspiracy' view. However, as this is the government that was perfectly prepared to hand numerous sovereign Australian powers to an unelected foreign UN 'government' at Copenhagen (and indeed has quietly and surreptitiously ceded much at Cancun since); if this government is suggesting Mr Palmer is a foolish 'conspiracy theorist' acting on a baseless view, that there is evil in the world, then a government claiming disinterest in entertaining any 'conspiracy theories' whilst quietly conspiring against the interests of the Australian people though the unconstitutional use of foreign affairs powers, is clearly unfit to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and its people.

....and another man with a different view (a heretic). You might not agree with everything he says, but he has every right to say it, and people need to refute his evidence (as he highlights everyone's flaws and 'confirmation bias) rather than shoot the messenger. In his speech (link below) he concludes,

".........I’ve spent a lot of time on climate, but it could have been dietary fat, or nature and nurture. My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics."

Matt Ridley's presentation (here)

A few months ago, Mrs Gina Rinehart decided to write an article for Australian Resources and Investment. She laid out the climate science as she understood it. Apparently the journal decided to edit out the climate science, without indication of its absence to readers and without explanation to Mrs Rinehart.

I will let Jo Nova in her excellent coverage of this story take it from (here)

The Debate is yet to be. Lord Monckton almost found one in 2009.

Despite much resistance, Lord Monckton has persisted in his efforts to initiate an open and free debate on the causes and extent of Climate Change (the relative impact of natural or human causes; the nature and extent of so called unprecedented, dangerous and runnaway global warming; the scientific value of models uncalibrated with observations and evidence from the natural world).

An earlier attempt to discuss things freely in debate is still instructive and illustrates the difficulties some have with a view well founded evidence which conflicts with their scientifically unsupported 'world view'.

See (here) for the debate generated by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and Paul Maynard with Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, a contributor to the UN’s climate reports.

The nature of debate, especially drawing on the power of the authority of political office is still used to damage genuine scientists and ordinary people simply asking for evidence. This has never reached anything like 'openly and freely to debate'.

The following letter from Lord Monckton to Prime Minister Rudd simply highlights many of the techniques and slurs that continue to this day.

See Lord Monckton's letter to Prime Minster Rudd (here)

Monckton of Brenchley says: