Monckton on the real carbon agenda

Monckton poster

Agenda 21

After 21 years, Agenda 21 is still not a household word, but it should be. For we should know our enemy.

It is a tribute to the UN’s polished propaganda machine that relatively few have heard of Agenda 21, yet we all know its other name: “sustainability.” Which is to see only the camouflage and not the beast within; the gentle mouth of murmured counsel, not the crafty scheming that destroys dissent.

For, widely disseminated since it was spawned by social-engineering do-gooders in 1992, Agenda 21 has both the power and the intention to destroy the basic freedoms that we in the well-ordered western democracies naively presume are as fundamental to us as eating or breathing. We fondly imagine that where there are human beings there is freedom. But while freedom is indeed fundamental, loss of freedom occurs routinely wherever human life is devalued.

Only those who still possess freedom are at any risk of losing it. So listen up.

Agenda 21 values human life below every other kind of life — people are less worthy than plants and animals, rodents, reptiles and insects. I didn’t believe this when I first heard about it, so I started reading about this monstrous programme for myself, and it’s true — this “agenda” threatens our freedom, and with mind-bending double-speak worthy of the propagandists in George Orwell’s “1984,” you will read that the “sustainability” programme is designed in our name, for our best interests, because it’s good for us and good for everything. Therefore we must let the UN’s unelected global government make our decisions for us.

These political activists are slowly but surely removing our freedoms and we’ll soon lose the right even to argue about it. By then it will be too late.

What is Agenda 21?

Wikipedia tells us:

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The “21” in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

Opposition in the United States

During the last decade [2002-2012], opposition to Agenda 21 increased within the United States. The Republican National Committee adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama was the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21.

Activists say that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights. Columnists have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States. A poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

Opposition to the UN’s Agenda 21 on similar grounds — erosion of sovereignty, loss of property rights — has been expressed in New Zealand. The Christchurch rebuild provides numerous examples of “sustainable development” principles inspired by Agenda 21. Nick Smith acknowledged recently that Agenda 21 principles are embedded throughout our planning legislation.

Helen Clark – European Parliament, Brussels
May 9, 2012

“The European Union is a major supporter of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The European Commission funds some seven per cent of UNDP activities. We co-operate in over one hundred countries – helping countries to deepen their democratic governance, to avoid or recover from conflict and natural disasters, and to adapt to climate change.”

“The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of 2000 galvanized global partnerships around time-bound, specific and easily communicated targets, with some success. For example:”

– the world has already met the MDG target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty since 1990;

– over the last decade, substantial progress has been made on lowering child mortality and increasing access to education. The total number of children out of school fell by one third – from 106 million to 67 million – between 1999 and 2009 and gender disparities in both primary and secondary education were significantly reduced;

– the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water has been cut in half, before the 2015 MDG target date.

“There remains much to do, however, on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, and reaching the basic development indicators. Access to energy needs concerted attention: 1.3 billion people lack access to any modern energy services, and 2.3 billion still rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating.

“As well, planetary boundaries are under great pressure – the effects of climate change are increasingly felt; the world’s fisheries are under great stress; and a fifth of the world’s coral reefs have been damaged beyond repair. Desertification threatens livelihoods in dry lands – home to a third of the world’s people. Nearly forty per cent of the global landmass is already degraded as a result of soil erosion, reduced fertility and overgrazing.

“It is always the poorest and most vulnerable who are disproportionately affected. Unless issues of sustainability and equity are addressed simultaneously, the human development gains of recent decades cannot be sustained.”

Helen Clark – ‘What Does Rio+20 Mean for Sustainable Development?’
20 August 2012

“The voluntary commitments made by businesses, development banks, cities and regions, UN agencies, and NGOs and civil society activists were among Rio’s most significant outcomes. More than 700 formal commitments were registered, and more than $500 billion dollars were pledged.”

“They are not waiting for governments to act – nor should they. The need to act is urgent.”

For The Rt Hon Mrs Clark, Rio+20 made five significant points:

1. The pressing need for universal access to modern and reliable energy services, while “moving away” from the current high dependence on fossil fuels.

2. The UN Secretary-General issued a challenge to achieve “zero hunger” in his lifetime.

3. We need new ways to measure development progress and end the “tyranny” of measurement by GDP. UNDP produces the Human Development Index, which includes health and education components alongside income. Yet countries are still more likely to be judged by the speed at which their economies grow – rather than by the education or health status of their populations, or by their ability to reduce chronic hunger and provide work.

4. There are innovative “social protection systems” with environmental benefits. Brazil’s Bolsa Verde, South Africa’s “Working for Water”, and India’s National Employment Guarantee scheme are examples. Brazil established an environmental conservation support initiative employing impoverished families living by forests in support of their protection.

5. Member states should eliminate or at least seriously reduce “harmful and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and undermine sustainable development.” The IEA estimates that in 2010 the world spent roughly $409 billion in subsidies on fossil fuels. In some countries, fossil fuel subsidies now exceed total spending on education, health and social welfare – so finance ministers are increasingly supportive of their removal. Ending or reducing the subsidies would promote energy conservation, investments in renewables, and free up significant funding for policies which meet the needs of the poor and advance sustainable development, such as social protection, mass transit systems or renewable energy.

So, we must apparently remove the subsidies, make petrol too expensive for the poor so they can’t travel freely, then use the money saved to “meet the needs of the poor.” Who will certainly by then need help, to afford petrol, buses and trains, and the newly-discovered “social protection,” which is nothing but an expanded application of social welfare with a new badge. see

But the new social protection is only for the people who cannot think for themselves — so we ought to be improving our schools and teaching them how to think. For when commercial, property and taxation structures allow the reasonably able-bodied to earn a crust, they cannot fail to do so, and end their crippling dependence on the state.

6. Rio can make good on its promise if increasing numbers of governments meet their Rio+20 obligations through integrated and low-carbon development planning.

WHICH MEANS: Agenda 21 will succeed if governments pursue low-carbon development.

She calls them obligations, but earlier she said: “It is true that the agreed outcome document included no new binding targets” and according to Wikipedia Agenda 21 is “non-binding” and voluntary. They cannot be called obligations — it must have been a slip of the tongue.

Monckton is in the forefront of opposition to Agenda 21. Thinking people everywhere support him. We should, too.

Can we do it? Yes we can!

Views: 204

116 Thoughts on “Monckton on the real carbon agenda

  1. Andy on 10/03/2013 at 9:59 pm said:

    I know someone who works in a fairly senior role at Christchurch City Council, who was using the term Sustainable quite a lot.

    I quizzed her on this, and we had quite a lot in common agreement, that buildings could be better designed for heat efficiency etc.

    I don’t really see any Agenda 21 stuff in there. Maybe a lot of Eco babble, occasionally worthwhile.

    Our main problem in chch is the total lack of accountability of insurance companies.

    On topic though David Farrar of KiwiBlog wrote about LM tour here.

    He seemed to miss the point.

    • Always good to hear from someone closer to the action, thanks Andy. But the point about Agenda 21 is that it originated the very notion of sustainability as a direction for public policy. We don’t hear much about Agenda 21, yet we hear constantly about sustainability, biodiversity and of course climate change. Agenda 21 has played a central role in getting those concepts to become household words, and it’s what lies within the Agenda that is dangerous.

  2. Will on 10/03/2013 at 11:40 pm said:

    Aldous Huxley wrote ‘Brave New World’ mate, I think you mean ‘1984.’

  3. Mike Jowsey on 11/03/2013 at 8:08 am said:

    This is a very clear, relatively unemotional, presentation explaining the far-reaching effects of A-21. (9:31)

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2013 at 10:34 am said:

    Helen Clark is not looking sustainable herself – even at the UN:-

    ‘Report slams Clark’s UN programme’

    I’m all for sustainable development e.g. economic energy efficiency, recycling, changing water runoff practices into lakes and rivers etc but not when the overall concept gets hijacked by Leftist communitarian types hell-bent on centralization and control for which the UN and it’s Agenda 21 is a magnet. And using other peoples money (read taxpayer support of the UN) in the process of course.

    The UN has failed their core mandate in the relatively minor conflict in Syria, North Korea has the potential to wreak far greater havoc but how is the UN going on that one? If they can’t be effective in minor conflicts or exert any influence in major confrontations there’s not much point in it’s continued existence, let alone their “social protection” agenda.

    And let’s not forget Ottmar Edenhofer’s insight into UN thinking:-

    (EDENHOFER): “First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”;wap2

  5. Andy on 11/03/2013 at 12:59 pm said:

    Cam Slator (whaleoil) has given the LM tour a bit of a plug too

  6. Andy on 11/03/2013 at 1:02 pm said:

    The other aspect of the UN is that it seems to be an endless gravy train for ex-labour NZ politicians. Charles Chauvel is off there, Chris Carter went there, and now there are rumours that Lianne Dalziel will go there.

    • Clarence on 11/03/2013 at 2:45 pm said:

      Wonder why the UN only takes members of Socialist International?

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2013 at 6:21 pm said:

    Dave Frame March 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    “But there are many environmentalists (and scientists) who *do* infer/imply that the only way to solve climate change is via Marxist (or strongly ecosocialist) policies. All that per capita emissions allocation stuff is socialist (and popular among various climate scientists) – it takes a resource and socialises it. Globally, we aren’t going to do that, for various reasons, some practical, some ethical (some electoral). But by espousing those sorts of illusory “solutions”, environmentalists swim into an ecosocialist barrel where everyone else can shoot them like fish.”

    So what is a MMCC-sceptic environmentalist to do? There’s no jumping into THAT barrel.

  8. good post – I fully support anything Lord Monckton discusses or talks about.

    His voice is important in the fight against the collectivists and their agendas.

    cheers mates

  9. Pingback: More Monckton madness: Agenda 21 means concentration camps for all

  10. Doug Proctor on 13/03/2013 at 7:44 am said:

    Sustainable, Agenda 21: these are planetary targets, not individual targets even by the activist groups.

    The eco-green are saying that there is not enough “Earth” to sustain a middle-class+ consumption lifestyle for 7+ billion people. Hansen (?) said something explicit about this not that long ago. The eco-green are NOT saying that those who currently are in the upper economic and consumption classes are to devole to that of the lower consumption classes. That would require Gore, Suzuki, Hansen, Strong and much of the WWF and Sierra Club members to sell houses, SUVs, stop travelling and all that. They are saying that AS A PLANET we can’t allow any more of this upper, Gore-Suzuki group to develop.

    Agenda 21 is about maintaining the status quo for the decision-makers. The middle class can be pushed down to make some room for the lower class, but the upper classes are not to be affected. There is no talk of killing the COP19-style conferences for Those-Who-Count. There will be no meeting of the Al Gore Save the Planet group at a Motel 6 in Arizona.

    Ultimately, Agenda 21 is population control in the Third World and the poor, with robotics taking the place of manual labour. It is an insane vision that cannot be carried out, but what it can do, piece by piece, is reduce the lifestyle of the non-decision-making middle and lower, working classes.

    Agenda 21 is an elistist philosophy of government by the More Qualified, a throwback to an aristocracy, though now based on ideology instead of birth.

  11. Nick on 13/03/2013 at 10:53 am said:

    Hi Richard T,
    Will you be selling the tin foil hats on your website or will Doug and Lisa need to make their own?

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 11:01 am said:

      I personally think a gun would be more useful than a tinfoil hat

    • Nick on 13/03/2013 at 11:55 am said:

      For what exactly?

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 12:03 pm said:

      Shooting rabbits.

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 12:00 pm said:

      The interesting thing I find about the followers of the warmist creed is their faith in government to “look after” them.

      They seem to have a universal trust in any kind of authority. It appears to me that in most western democracies, democracy is broken.

      The UK, especially, seems to have a parliament of self-serving parasites whose only function is to line their own pockets at the general public’s expense. We see this in the wind farm scam and other “renewable” energy projects, where the guys making the decisions are the ones with the companies that make the money though rent-seeking and subsidy farming.

      The interesting aspect of the UK political blogosphere, too, is the number of blogs that have a universal contempt of all poitical parties (including UKIP). There seems to be a foreboding of a violent uprising, which I feel will happen sooner rather than later,

      So you can call it Agenda 21, or whatever. It is really a political class that has become used to no accountability to the public whatsoever. They have become smug, arrogant, and implement dangerously stupid policies that will eventually kill people.

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 12:09 pm said:

      A recent example of this ingrained cretinism at Hot Topic was when I slagged off Tim Yeo, who is one of the worst offenders of the parasitic classes. I was chastised, for critising a corrupt Tory, by a bunch of left-wingers!

      Thus we see “left-wing” activists opening supporting corrupt, self serving Tory politicians, whose actions transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. It is one of the more remarkable forms of collective stupidity of the terminally gullible that we see in today’s society

    • Magoo on 13/03/2013 at 1:01 pm said:

      A few facts that drive lefties nuts:

      Robin Hood behaved in a fashion similar to a modern right winger. Hood was restoring to the poor what had been stolen from them by a greedy govt via tax (see feudalism). Similar to the modern right wing wanting to lower top tax rates so that people keep more of what they earned. Lefties are in cahoots with bad prince John if you think about it.

      Nazi’s were socialists, therefore left wingers by todays standards. White supremacists who base their philosophy on that of the Nazis are not even right wing, let alone extreme right wing. Where’s the connection between national socialism and the free market global economy?

      The US Democrats had close ties with the KKK, and it was the Republicans who fought for and enforced civil rights in the US.

      Watch the venomous denial flow when you mention these historical facts to the left. Even when they know they’re associated with such things they still cling to their flawed philosophy. By having high tax rates essentially the US Democrats are still slave drivers, pretending to be Robin Hood when in actual fact they’re bad Prince John.

      To me the AGW debate is really about a bunch of thieving socialists trying to extort more cash from others so they don’t have to pay their ‘fair share’. AGW is just an excuse to do so.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 1:48 pm said:

      >”US Democrats …… pretending to be Robin Hood”

      Obama’s not looking like the benefactor he was when he was throwing stimulus funding at every dodgy “green” start-up now that he can’t raise the credit ceiling again.

      The EU and UN are fond of their authoritarian benefactor status too but I always smile at news clips of disaster relief in Haiti or famine in Africa say, that show sacks of grain being delivered with a big ‘USA’ stamp on them.

      The EU referendum will be a huge opportunity for UK citizens to vent and by the time it comes around they’ll have plenty to vent about. That wont go down too well in Brussels. I think it was Bulgaria recently where the govt was brought down by the effects on the citizenry of their renewable energy policies.

      It’s amazing how a tide of people power can rise up and sweep aside what was thought to be unassailable power bases (think Soviet Bloc) but unless it all comes together well, things get messy (think French Revolution). I do think however that the time is ripening for a dictatorship to arise in Europe somehow that will make present-day authoritarianism look ordinary. The German predilection for that style of leadership will guarantee it I think.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 12:53 pm said:

      >”They seem to have a universal trust in any kind of authority”

      Case in point of those who don’t share that trust, USA citizens stocking up on guns and ammo in case gun control puts the stoppers on that. Why? The War of Independence and the reasons behind it are ingrained in the US psyche and this:-

      ‘1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation’


      “The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

      Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.”

      # # #

      When your government is saying you shouldn’t be armed on the one hand and is arming itself to the teeth against you on the other with 5 bullets reserved especially for you, that just isn’t a message that engenders universal trust.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 1:10 pm said:

      >”t appears to me that in most western democracies, democracy is broken”

      A state of affairs that Lefty ecosocialists aren’t too perturbed about given their calls for suspension of democracy.

  12. Nick on 13/03/2013 at 2:55 pm said:

    You all sound a little alarmist and wacky…

    Let me know when you get a grip.

    • Magoo on 13/03/2013 at 3:13 pm said:

      Thought this might interest you Nick:

      NASA GISS shows no statistically significant warming in over 16 years as confirmed by Skeptical Science:

      From 1997 to 2013 the +/- figure for natural variation is 0.099C/decade which is greater than the 0.081C trend. In other words the warming falls within the error margins for natural variation and are insignificant as a result. The results for the NOAA, Hadcrut 3, Hadcrut 4, BEST, RSS, and UAH all show no significant warming from between 17-23 years.

      As this is the 17th year of no warming according to GISS that is where Pachauri got his ‘no warming in 17 years’ from, and it’s the bare minimum of all the temperature records.

      Considering that climate scientists say that the warming before 1980 was natural, that leaves just 17 years of warming attributable to AGW (1980-1997) followed by 17-23 years of no warming. Hardly any reason to get alarmist and wacky, but that’s what the pro AGW crowd are doing. No tropospheric hot spot, no positive feedback from water vapour, no amplification of the minuscule warming attributable to CO2, no AGW. In fact it’s not even warming and it hasn’t been for longer than it was warming. The NCDC says that 15 yrs of no warming proves the models false – how long has it been now …. 17 or 23 yrs, take your pick. Pretty wacky and alarmist to base your beliefs on such flimsy evidence, but some people are easily led I suppose.

      Even Al Gore has sold up his stake in the AGW business.

    • Magoo on 13/03/2013 at 3:19 pm said:

      Sorry, that should be natural variation of +/- 0.132C which makes it even worse. 1996 to 2013 show a similar lack of statistical warming also: 0.111C +/- 0.123C.

      Not looking good for those wacky alarmists.

    • Nick on 13/03/2013 at 3:29 pm said:

      Hi Magoo,
      Perhaps you should consider ocean heat content in your analysis.

    • Magoo on 13/03/2013 at 3:44 pm said:

      Yes that’s already taken into consideration with the land/ocean data from GISS, NOAA, Hadcrut3, & Hadcrut4:

    • Magoo on 13/03/2013 at 3:58 pm said:

      The original figures were right of 0.081C trend with a +/- of 0.099C/decade, I forgot to set the autocorrelation figures this time around.

    • Nick on 14/03/2013 at 2:23 pm said:

      Hi Magoo,
      The data you present is surface temp only not ocean heat content. I suggest you look look at

      Levitus et al. (2012) World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010

      Don’t forget to consider the full 0-2000m data set rather than just the 0-700m that Richard C cites below.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 2:37 pm said:

      >”Don’t forget to consider the full 0-2000m data set rather than just the 0-700m that Richard C cites below”

      My analysis (linked in the comment) considers the full 0-2000m dataset. You would have known that if you had checked first before shooting your mouth off Nick.

      BTW, the 0-2000m dataset is now up to 4Q2012.

    • Nick on 14/03/2013 at 3:12 pm said:

      Hi all Richard C is quite right. The link he presents shows that over 60 zetta-joules (6×10^22) of energy have accumulated in the worlds oceans in the 0-2000m range between 2005 and 2012. This is well above the margin of error and represents significant warming.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 3:40 pm said:

      >”…over 60 zetta-joules (6×10^22) of energy have accumulated in the worlds oceans in the 0-2000m range between 2005 and 2012″


      2005.875 , 12.637×10^22 Joules
      2012.875 , 16.630×10^22 Joules

      Difference, 4×10^22 J

      Quoting my analysis:-

      “Over the last 7 years from mid October 2005 to mid October 2012, 70% (2.8×10^22 Joules) of the global 0 – 2000 meters ocean heat increase (4×10^22 J) was in the upper 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean and 12% (0.5×10^22 J) was in the 700 – 2000 m layer of the Indian Ocean which accounts for 82% of the total increase i.e. global ocean warming has been largely restricted to the Indian Ocean over the last 7 years. The bulk of the remaining increase was in the 700 – 2000 m layer of the Atlantic Ocean (0.6×10^22 J, 15.6%).”

      So HOW exactly, can an “extremely certain” anthropogenic attribution be made Nick?

    • Magoo on 14/03/2013 at 3:50 pm said:

      There was this new article today that looks interesting as well. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet though.

    • Bob D on 14/03/2013 at 3:56 pm said:

      Richard C:

      So HOW exactly, can an “extremely certain” anthropogenic attribution be made Nick?

      It’s a very good question, Nick. I second it.

      (Can one second a question?)

    • Nick on 14/03/2013 at 3:57 pm said:

      Hi RichardC, I looked at the data from the NOAA site which is slightly different from your analysis.

      In any case I’m not trying to prove “extremely certain” anthropogenic attribution but rather demonstrate to Magoo that global temperatures are continuing to increase even if it is not evident in the surface temperature record. I think you and I are largely in agreement on that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 4:07 pm said:

      >”I think you and I are largely in agreement on that.”


      >”…that global temperatures are continuing to increase even if it is not evident in the surface temperature record.”


      SST decreasing since about 2002,

      For at least the last 7 years, OHC is decreasing in the Pacific and the upper Atlantic, OHC is ONLY increasing largely in the Indian Ocean i.e. there is no case for anthropogenic attribution to ocean warming

      But all entirely consistent with solar change.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 4:17 pm said:

      >”I looked at the data from the NOAA site which is slightly different from your analysis”

      You were looking at June (2012.500). The latest update is Oct-Dec (2012.875).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 4:23 pm said:

      >”There was this new article today…”

      Well worth getting a handle on everything Bob Tisdale addresses in that article Magoo. And some very useful plots too.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 4:42 pm said:

      2012.500 would be June/July.

    • nick on 16/03/2013 at 9:29 pm said:

      Hi Richard C, when I look at the data sets I think you are referencing

      I see increasing ocean heat content in all three major oceanic basins since the start of the record in 2005. Can you please clarify how you reach your conclusion that this is not the case?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/03/2013 at 8:33 am said:

      >”I see increasing ocean heat content in all three major oceanic basins since the start of the record in 2005.”

      Here’s 0-700m graphed back to 2003:-

      Indian Ocean increasing, Pacific and Atlantic decreasing.

      Here’s the data down to 2000m back to 2005 (the latest update):-

      Basin time series (Oct-Dec data ×10^22 Joules)
      – World: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres
      2005.875 , 12.637 , 7.849959
      2012.875 , 16.630 , 10.641594

      – Atlantic: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres
      2005.875 , 6.256 , 4.896
      2012.875 , 6.882 , 4.491

      – Pacific: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres
      2005.875 , 4.188 , 3.291
      2012.875 , 4.227 , 2.858

      – Indian: 0 – 2000 metres , 0 – 700 metres
      2005.875 , 2.194 , 1.094
      2012.875 , 5.520 , 3.923

      The peak in 0-2000m was 1Q2012 due largely to the Indian Ocean (everything else decreasing or static bar Atlantic 700-2000m ). 0-2000 has fallen since then and it’s unlikely to go much higher now that the solar driver is going over a cliff (more likely to keep falling).

      Over the last 7 years from mid October 2005 to mid October 2012, 70% (2.8×10^22 Joules) of the global 0 – 2000 meters ocean heat increase (4×10^22 J) was in the upper 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean and 12% (0.5×10^22 J) was in the 700 – 2000 m layer of the Indian Ocean which accounts for 82% of the total increase i.e. global ocean warming has been largely restricted to the Indian Ocean over the last 7 years. The bulk of the remaining increase was in the 700 – 2000 m layer of the Atlantic Ocean (0.6×10^22 J, 15.6%).

      The Indian Ocean rise is explained by ocean-to-ocean redistribution via thermohaline circulation taking warm water to the Indian from the Pacific and Atlantic.

      Now. How do you reach your conclusion Nick?

    • Nick on 18/03/2013 at 3:55 pm said:

      Hi Richard C,
      Just to be clear, my conclusion is that the worlds ocean heat content is increasing and that the three major oceanic basins all show increasing heat content when all the data (0-2000m) is considered.

      From your data above:
      World ocean heat content from 0 -2000m has increased by 3.993 x 10^22 Joules

      Atlantic ocean heat content from 0 -2000m has increased by 0.626 x 10^22 Joules

      Pacific ocean heat content from 0 -2000m has increased by 0.039 x 10^22 Joules

      Indian ocean heat content from 0 -2000m has increased by 3.326 x 10^22 Joules

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/03/2013 at 6:27 pm said:

      0-2000m peaked in 1Q2012 (“all months” data). Decrease since then

      # 2012-3,17.434353 <=

      0-700m is where it was in 2003:-


      That is consistent with solar change. There's no reason for 0-2000 to go much higher if at all now. More likely to keep on decreasing. AR5 acknowledges the solar change BTW but not wrt OHC.

      By far the greatest increase is/was in the Indian Ocean (as you have identified) indicating that some other phenomenon is underway other than anthropogenic forcing (if that at all). But the IPCC makes an anthropogenic attribution explicitly to the upper ocean (0-700m):-

      IPCC 2013 – “[…] it is extremely certain (that is greater than 95% probability) that the increase in global ocean heat content observed in the upper 700 m in the latter half of the 20th century can be attributed to anthropogenic forcing”

      Only for the 20th century note. That attribution is extremely remote and untenable for the 21st century given the decrease in the Pacific and Atlantic 0-700m. And there cannot be an anthropogenic attribution to any ocean basin for 0-2000m even if that has increased if 0-700m is decreasing as in the Pacific and Atlantic basins.

      The IPCC are now facing a solar acid test of their OHC anthropogenic attribution over the next 18 months to 2 yrs just as their report will be released and there will be no weaseling out of that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/03/2013 at 6:52 pm said:

      >”0-700m is where it was in 2003″

      But only due to Indian Ocean 0-700m increase, Pacific and Atlantic 0-700 decreasing since 2003.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/03/2013 at 7:25 pm said:

      Big problems with the mechanism for an anthro OHC attribution:-

      ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’

    • Nick on 19/03/2013 at 10:48 am said:

      Hi Richard C,
      The highest global ocean heat content for 0-2000m ever measured was at the beginning of 2012 and from this you determine that ocean heat content is falling?

      9 months is hardly sufficient to determine a trend. You also ignore the fact that the most recent data point is higher than the previous one so if we are cherry picking start points as you have done the most recent trend is up.

      A more sensible approach that doesn’t get caught up in short term noise is to look at the full range of data which shows that statistically significant warming has been measured in the oceans over the 0-2000m depth since 2005.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/03/2013 at 11:39 am said:

      >”The highest global ocean heat content for 0-2000m ever measured was at the beginning of 2012 and from this you determine that ocean heat content is falling?”

      Certainly has since 3Q2011 and 1Q2012 but you will notice that I qualified my statements. Since the solar driver is now in recession there’s no longer any reason for 0-2000 to go “MUCH” higher than the 2012 peak. Basically there’s now an OHC standstill just like what began for the atmosphere about a decade ago and the OHC standstill has now progressed since 3Q2011. I expect there will be some “noise” over the next 18 months or so where we might see the 2012 level again but from then on there’s no solar driver to sustain peak level let alone raise it.

      >”9 months is hardly sufficient to determine a trend.”

      Here’s the trend Nick:-

      That trend started just prior to 1990, the OHC consequences are inescapable now and have been showing up in SST and 0-700 OHC since the early 2000s.

      >” which shows that statistically significant warming has been measured in the oceans over the 0-2000m depth since 2005″

      Completely meaningless unless you analyze each basin, each layer and find consistent warming but there isn’t i.e. global ocean warming is NOT “global”. And besides as I pointed out, the IPCC doesn’t make an anthropogenic attribution for the 21st century or for 0-2000m. It is impossible to make an anthropogenic attribution for 700-2000 if 0-700 is cooling.

      If they do that in the final AR5 draft, it wont pass scrutiny simply because the largest ocean (the Pacific) has been losing heat from the upper 0-700m layer and the heat gained in the Pacific 700-2000m layer only represents 1% of the 0-2000 total ocean gain. 82% of the gain has been in the Indian Ocean – that is NOT “global” ocean warming.

      The IPCC are between a rock and a hard place for both atmosphere and ocean now.

    • Nick on 20/03/2013 at 10:27 am said:

      Hi Richard C,
      If you want to hang your hat on the claim that world OHC stopped increasing 9 months ago then I guess that is up to you. My point is that Magoo’s original assertion that there has been no warming for 16 years is clearly false once you consider the increasing OHC over that time.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 10:50 am said:

      >”My point is that Magoo’s original assertion that there has been no warming for 16 years is clearly false once you consider the increasing OHC over that time”

      And totally irrelevant in terms of IPCC anthropogenic attribution. For that Magoo is more correct than you are because the ocean layer for which the IPCC makes the attribution has cooled in the largest ocean (the Pacific) and cooled in one of the other two (the Atlantic).

      And your 0-2000 case of heat gain doesn’t stack up for anthropogenic attribution because the 700-2000 gain in the largest ocean (the Pacific) is only 1% of total gain and impossible to attribute to anthropogenic cause anyway. Similar for the Atlantic i.e. ocean warming is now largely only an Indian Ocean phenomenon.

      In other words, you might consider you’ve scored some sort of win over Magoo but that’s a spurious and completely individual win to you only and completely irrelevant to the question of GLOBAL warming and IPCC anthropogenic attribution of it. I don’t think Magoo will be too fussed about that.

    • Nick on 20/03/2013 at 11:42 am said:

      Hi Richard C,
      I’m not trying to score “some sort of win”. Magoo seemed to think that the GISS, NOAA, Hadcrut3, & Hadcrut4 data sets he presented included ocean heat content which is incorrect and lead to him making a erroneous claim. In fact warming has continued over the last 16 years as shown by the NODC data we have been discussing. There is little point discussing attribution unless we can get the basic facts right first.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 12:01 pm said:

      >”In fact warming has continued over the last 16 years as shown by the NODC data we have been discussing”

      Maybe it has but so what? It’s completely insignificant, non-catastrophic, divergent from (IPCC) predictions and non-anthropogenic (even when 0-2000m ocean is considered).

      Of more import is the cooling trend developing in GAT and SST, and that 0-700m OHC is now at standstill:-

    • Nick,
      The full paper that you cite is here

      (I don’t know if you have posted this before, in which case apologies)

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 12:32 pm said:

      Hmmm, I’m a little confused. If the top 700m of ocean hasn’t warmed how can the ocean below it warm by heat transfer from above?

      If the warming is supposed to be a result of AGW that is occurring in the atmosphere, wouldn’t the heat have to travel through the top 0-700m of the ocean to warm the water below it? If it hasn’t done this how can the warming at the 700-2000m depths be attributed to man’s CO2 output or AGW theory as a whole, especially when the fact that heat is supposed to rise is considered. If anything the warming in the 700-2000m depths should be warming the ocean above it, especially in combination with an atmosphere that is also supposed to be warming the 0-700m depths as well.

      How is it possible that man is responsible for the warming of the deep ocean when the warming seems unrelated to the atmospheric temperature and upper ocean above it? How is this heat transfer possible, does it jump over the top 0-700m to warm the ocean below it?

    • Magoo, mere mortals like ourselves may ask these questions, which perplex our tiny minds.
      However, the key points of the Levticus paper state unambiguously:

      The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs

      So there you have it.

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 1:02 pm said:

      Thanks Andy, perhaps it’s by osmosis via Tardis.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 1:54 pm said:

      Levitus et al 2012 Discussion:-

      [19] One feature of our results is that the previous multidecadal increase in OHC700 that we have reported …….. leveled off during the past several years.

      “levelled off”? Isn’t this a variation on some other terminology we’ve hearing lately?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 2:15 pm said:

      Curiously, “The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs” (or anything like it) does not appear in the actual paper but only on the AGU – GRL page here:-

      The nearest the paper gets is in Discussion [17] page 4:-

      “The fact that relative extremes of OHC are a
      function of latitude and in some cases are at different latitudes
      in each major ocean basin indicates different ocean, or
      ocean-atmosphere, responses to the common forcing of the
      observed increase in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere

      AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution does not actually specify where exactly their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” (the IPCC’s anthro mechanism) actually occur. That is still a model-based work in progress that – as evidenced by Levitus above – has not yet been transferred to real-ocean study.

      Chapter 10 here:-

      That Skydragon sure is an elusive creature.

    • Nick on 20/03/2013 at 3:13 pm said:

      Hi Magoo,
      I’m no expert but looking at the data it appears to me that the deep ocean lags the upper ocean and is still responding to the strong warming that has occurred in the upper ocean since the 1990s. If you graph the various data sets this is clearer.

      The lower ocean is effectively drawing down the heat from the upper ocean and in some places causing the upper ocean to cool (keep in mind that the upper ocean is warmer than the lower).

      AGW forcing is still occurring however which is why the net energy for all ocean basins continues to rise despite the cooling effects of ENSO, Richards solar minimum and aerosols.

      Hope this helps.

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 3:35 pm said:

      Just a thought, but is there a time lag between the surface temp. and the ocean temp.? If I heat the kettle for a cup of tea the water takes a time to boil even though the energy input is the constant. If you compare the 0-700m graph from Richard C above to the GISS land temperature record there is a similarity – use the El Nino of 1997 on the temp record compared to that of the ocean temp. of 2003 as a point of reference:

      0-700m graph:

      GISS Long Term Graph:
      GISS Short Term Graph:

      It’s not perfect but there’s a reasonable correlation (better than the CO2/warming correlation). If this is the case then this gives us a 6 year time lag between the atmospheric forcing and the oceanic warming. The land temp record has plateaued for the last 10 yrs on the GISS record which coincides with the plateau of 0-700m ocean temp for the last 4 years with another 6 to come in the future due to the time lag.

      If this is the case then it would make sense that the 700-2000m warming is the initial 0-700m warming radiating downwards via a time lag that it takes to do so. In other words, the deep sea warming is the remnant of the warming from 6 yrs ago as it dissipates. As a result the ocean is not warming (it has done so already and the warming is now is dissipating).

    • Nick on 20/03/2013 at 3:45 pm said:

      Hi Magoo,
      Yes I think you are largely correct. The only thing I would add is that the OHC for 0-2000m is still increasing for each of the ocean basins, so it is more accurate to say that the ocean on the whole is still warming although there are areas of slight upper ocean cooling.

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 4:11 pm said:

      Yes, but the 700-2000m depth is only warming because of warming that has already been registered at the 0-700m depth – it’s not new warming but the same warming. As a result the ocean doesn’t continue to warm, it’s just radiating it’s stored heat downwards.

      The plateau since 2009-10 at 0-700m (see graph below) will become apparent lower down in the coming years. The temperature record shows no statistically significant warming for 16-23 yrs so far, so I expect that will be seen in the OHC in the coming years and with a drop off in solar forcing an eventual falling of surface temperature followed by oceanic temperature.

      I think to say the ocean is still warming is incorrect, it’s the same heat – there’s no new heat warming the ocean otherwise it would be evident with a temperature rise at the 0-700m depth.

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 4:20 pm said:

      Sorry, wrong graph. It should’ve been this one:

    • Nick on 20/03/2013 at 4:23 pm said:

      Hi Magoo,
      It might help if you consider an energy balance. For what you are proposing to be correct the energy lost in the upper ocean must be equal to the energy gained in the lower ocean.

      This is not the case however. The upper ocean is losing less energy than what you would expect so the balance must be made up from somewhere else (AGW forcing by conventional wisdom), which is why the 0-2000 data shows warming.

    • Magoo on 20/03/2013 at 4:31 pm said:

      Have you considered the possibility that the ocean might radiate it’s heat upwards as well as downwards? In other words, some of the 0-700m heat is in the atmosphere again.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 4:33 pm said:

      >”Richards solar minimum”

      Huh? What ARE you on about Nick? The bicentennial solar Grand MAXIMUM was in the late 1980s. TSI continued on since then at much the same high level so oceans obviously continued to warm:-

      However, as from the onset of SC 24 the bicentennial component is now going over a cliff but solar Grand MINIMUM will not be until about 2042:-

      The upper ocean cooling in the Pacific and Atlantic is a result of the falling bicentennial component of TSI, the upper ocean warming in the Indian ocean is a result of ocean heat transport i.e. the Pacific and Atlantic are losing heat to the Indian but not being replenished by solar:-

      Yes, heat continues to propagate and be carried by currents, even down to 700-2000 but without continued high solar input the total (net) ocean heat MUST peak eventually. That looks to have happened 2011/12. And now that TSI is falling rapidly in 2013 there’s not the energy to sustain OHC levels evidenced by upper ocean cooling in the Pacific and Atlantic. The system is:-

      input => heat sink => output

      From about 1920 and up to SC 24 “input” was the highest in about 300 years, “heat sink” accumulated energy because “output” was less than “input” and planetary enthalpy reached maximum – simple.

      From SC 24 onwards, “input” will progress to the lowest level for either about 100, 200 or 300 years, “heat sink” will lose the previously accumulated energy because “output” will be greater than “input” and planetary enthalpy will reach minimum – simple (again). This process is already underway in the upper ocean

      Basically the whole process is going into reverse including feedbacks and effects, one of which is warm ocean out-gassing of CO2. That too will reduce eventually when the ocean cools enough but we’re talking in decadal terms – plenty of time for that before 2042.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 4:58 pm said:

      >”The upper ocean is losing less energy than what you would expect so the balance must be made up from somewhere else (AGW forcing by conventional wisdom)”

      Conventional wisdom but only at the IPCC.

      The solar forcing did not go away Nick. TSI 1920 – 2011/12 was at the highest level for 300 years but early 2012 looks to have been the end of that:-

      The balance was being made up and more up to 2011/12 but it wont be anymore now that TSI is on the way down from 2013 onwards (unless there’s a “twin peak”).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 5:16 pm said:

      >”Have you considered the possibility that the ocean might radiate it’s heat upwards as well as downwards? In other words, some of the 0-700m heat is in the atmosphere again.”

      And gone directly to space.

      Heat transfer through solids and liquids is by conduction (propagation) and through liquid also by convection Magoo. Energy transfer through gas is by conduction and convection in heat form, latent heat from evaporation (in terms of atmosphere) and radiation form.

      See FIGURE 3.1:-

      Zonally-averaged heat flux across the air-sea surface (annual meridional profile for three oceans). QIN is the net incoming solar radiation, QOUT is the net outgoing longwave radiation, QH and QL are sensible and latent heat fluxes, and QNET is the sum of QIN – QOUT – QH – QL (Hsiung 1986).

      Ocean Circulation, Productivity, and Exchange with the Atmosphere

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 6:00 pm said:

      >”..but it wont be anymore now that TSI is on the way down from 2013 onwards (unless there’s a “twin peak”).”

      Possibly another peak to come in the 2013 SC 24 maximum before going down to SC 24 minimum in the 11 year cycle (but I doubt it). But the bicentennial component of TSI is on the way down to Grand Minimum levels in the quasi 200 year cycle irrespective of what the 11 year cycle does.

      [This update in case Nick gets confused again between 11 yr and 200 yr solar cycles and their respective maximums and minimums]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 7:01 pm said:

      Ocean Heat Transport in Petawatts

      McDonald and Wunsch (now out of date),

      Ganachaud and Wunsch (improved estimates but also out of date),

      Monday, August 20, 2012
      ‘New paper finds Southern Oceans are losing heat’

      ‘First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean’

      Shulz, Josey and Verein (2012)

      The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world’s oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation [………………………….]

      These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm−2 in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2, with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm−2 in January and −79 Wm−2 in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets.

      # # #

      Didn’t see this in the AR5 Chapter 10 SOD. Rules out their “expected” anthro “air-sea flux” in that part of the ocean.

      The WUWT link shows how much heat “should” have accumulated in the global ocean 2003 – 2011 according to Hansen’s CO2-forced GISS ModelE:-


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/03/2013 at 8:54 pm said:

      >”AGW forcing by conventional wisdom”

      a) After 25 years of existence, the IPCC still hasn’t firmed up an anthro ocean warming mechanism

      b) The anthro mechanism the IPCC “expects” has not yet been isolated from the energy transfers observed to be occurring in any ocean sector at the AO interface (see Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution),

      c) The mechanism is unconventional (to say the least) and highly problematic. Those details have not yet come under scrutiny in the public domain because the mechanism has not been documented thermodynamically and presented to the public by the IPCC (see ‘The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’ up-thread).

      d) Radiative forcing by DLR cannot be included in the “expected” air-sea flux because DLR is incapable of bulk ocean heating and besides, DLR trends are inconsistent and the anthropogenic component of DLR is miniscule.

      e) There is no need to invoke anthropogenic forcing because grand minimum to grand maximum solar forcing explains ocean heat accumulation adequately.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 3:54 pm said:

      >”Perhaps you should consider ocean heat content in your analysis”


      Among other things, “global” warming in the ocean is confined in significant part to the Indian Ocean over at least the last 7 years.

      Big problem for the IPCC’s “extremely certain” anthropogenic attribution along with their “expected” mechanism (i.e. they still don’t actually know how after 25 years of assessment).

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 3:56 pm said:

      You all sound a little alarmist and wacky…

      Realists I would say.
      My mothers family were brought up in Nazi Germany so we have plenty of precedents to draw upon.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 4:00 pm said:

      >”You all sound a little alarmist and wacky”

      Including Dave Frame?

      “But there are many environmentalists (and scientists) who *do* infer/imply that the only way to solve climate change is via Marxist (or strongly ecosocialist) policies. All that per capita emissions allocation stuff is socialist (and popular among various climate scientists) – it takes a resource and socialises it. Globally, we aren’t going to do that, for various reasons, some practical, some ethical (some electoral). But by espousing those sorts of illusory “solutions”, environmentalists swim into an ecosocialist barrel where everyone else can shoot them like fish.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 4:16 pm said:

      >”You all sound a little alarmist and wacky”

      Try this internet search Nick – nuremburg+trials+climate+deniers

      Let me know when you get a clue.

    • I am not “alarmist and wacky” because I think men in black helicopters are about to come and drag me off to the gulag.

      I am “alarmist and wacky” because I see governments spending crazy amounts of money on ridiculous projects that are doomed to failure, like converting Drax to run on wood chips, or turning the wild areas of Scotland that I love into industrial wind parks, or pissing away $100 million on a payroll system for teachers

      I feel despondent about two years of no progress with insurance companies in ChCh

      I feel depressed about watching Britain and Europe commit cultural and economic suicide, with the lights very likely to go out in the UK within two years or so.

      I feel depressed about young people spending three years of their lives in the cultural gas chambers we call “universities” , then spending their lives in perpetual debt,

      I feel depressed about self-serving NGOs, politicians and unionists feeding at the public trough, with their trained monkeys shaking their pom poms on tedious left-wing blogs spewing sanctimonious self-righteous drivel about their moral superiority because they “accept the science” of climate change, and are happy to condemn people in the third world to misery and death.

      That is why I think a gun might be useful, “going forward”.

      To shoot rabbits, of course.

    • It is funny reading the eco-fascists at Hot Topic trying to justify their position against Dave Frame.
      No doubt he will be banned as a “climate denying troll” in due course

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 10:03 pm said:

      “Eco” is a thin veneer too. I recall either Macro or Thomas I think writing something like they “couldn’t wait” for the denier trials to begin and I’ve seen it elsewhere too. That was before the term “standstill” became commonplace. Now the veneer is being stripped off their argument is all the more convoluted.

      Fascism has a number of forms and the European versions appealed to a great many American elites a while back because it would afford a means of semi-dictatorship for themselves if they could impose at home. The US nation eventually fought (reluctantly) against the fascist regimes that their upper-echelon citizens were (enthusiastically) funding and doing business with. The concept melds well with the “we are right in everything” pseudo-eco crowd but they really should have a think about the basis of it e.g. the symbol:-


      The symbol of the Fasci comprises of many sticks or rods (symbolic of industries, people, nations or societies etc) being tied together. The theme being that one stick alone can be easily snapped, but many tied together tightly are unbreakable and that true strength (economically, socially, politically etc.) can be gleaned from a united nation (such as Nazi Germany) or several nations (such as the U.N. and/or the E.U.).

      The symbol is incomplete however, without an axe head at the top, symbolising the elite group in control of the united power, traditionally coming in the form of a fascist dictator(ship). This is where the term Axis power emerged from during WW2. In other words the true strength (of the elite) is to have the many groups tied together in bondage with a single centralised power ruling over them (be it globally or nationally).

      # # #

      Pseudo-eco fascists are fools if they don’t understand the symbolism of the axe. And probably few US citizens are aware of the fascist symbols in their national (federal) institutions and monuments. Those that are aware are likely to be supporters of States sovereignty and the right to bare arms.

      Here’s the fasci symbols either side of the Speakers chair in the House of representatives:-

      And on the Lincoln Memorial:-

      I doubt Lincoln would have approved in life.

    • Andy on 13/03/2013 at 10:16 pm said:

      Johan Goldbergs book Liberal Fascism is a good but technical historical read.

      Elizabeth Nickson has a book entitled Eco Fasciats.
      I haven’t read this one yet, but it describes her personal battles in the USA

      Good to see the term getting more coverage

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 11:29 pm said:

      Amazing what turns up when you start digging.

      Nickson/Eco-Fascists review (quoting):-

      What she found is shocking. Tackling all the hard topics such as Sustainability, Climate Change, Ecosystem Management, Agenda 21 and others, Nickson unravels them with credible facts and intelligent insight. She traveled across rural America and sat in the homes of the people driven from their land to learn how locking up our resources is working. What she found is that North America is well on its way to complete ruin. Conservationists are destroying the very lands they told the public they were going to protect.
      For those who believe the green agenda is all about saving the Earth, be prepared to question everything, and I mean everything. For those who have fought the agenda, be prepared to be revived. The mask is torn off and left in shreds by a women whose artistry is matched only by her courage.

      Re Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (quoting):-

      In the introduction to Liberal Fascism, Goldberg makes the point that a fascist type of governing got its start right here in the US. He proposes that the Wilson was fascist in deed if not in word. Goldberg describes the Wilsonian administration as having “the first modern propaganda ministry” and in Wilson’s America “political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream; newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government” and the list goes on.

      I propose that Goldberg did not go far enough back in history to find his fascist example. I suspect he might have purposefully done so because the Lincoln myth is so strong and Lincoln worship is so prevalent. Wilson is a much easier target.

      Regardless, Lincoln used many of the same tactics as Wilson on his fellow countrymen and so deserves the label just as well. You won’t find these facts in your history books because they don’t fit with the accepted myth of Lincoln the Emancipator. Lincoln also had opponents arrested and held indefinitely, he had a congressman deported because he spoke against Lincoln’s income tax, he sent the military into New York City to shut down newspapers and arrest their editors. To curry political favor Lincoln ordered the largest mass execution in US history – 38 Sioux indians were hanged on his order.

      The start of the highly centralized federal government that we are struggling against today had its birth in the Lincoln administration. No single event in hour history stripped away the constraints on the federal government like the war between the states did. Lincoln was at the helm of this consolidation of power in Washington. For all of these reasons, Lincoln was the first fascist.

      # # #

      I suspect that using the term eco-fascist around people in NZ unfamiliar with the issues in the US above say, would tend to rub many up the wrong way perhaps?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2013 at 10:50 pm said:

      Hard to know about Lincoln, perhaps he was the first US fascist. There’s much conjecture about this and US history tends to deify its great men which makes it even harder. I note that the symbol on the memorial is sans axe. And no axe that I can see on this Lincoln monument either:-

    • Simon on 14/03/2013 at 9:23 am said:

      This basically confirms the UK police view that it was a single overseas hacker operating through a Russian server. The covering note has clearly been machine translated from some other language. Let’s see if anything more damning can be found than the semantics of the word “trick”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 9:55 am said:

      >”This basically confirms the UK police view that it was a single overseas hacker operating through a Russian server.”

      Or an IT contractor. Unlike all the Guadianista-hyped conspiracy theories:-

      “That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.”

      And more than just a “hacker” Simon:-

      “The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.”

      Mr FOIA was after all the guy that put the brakes on the UN’s global eco-socialist largesse.

    • Bob D on 14/03/2013 at 9:59 am said:


      Let’s see if anything more damning can be found than the semantics of the word “trick”.

      As I think I’ve pointed out to you in the past, Simon, if you didn’t see anything damning in the CG1 & 2 emails and files, it’s because you didn’t understand what you were reading.

      Others did, and it turned the tide against these rogues. Many true scientists sat up and started to take notice of what was going on.

      Copenhagen failed, and the number of sceptics swelled, to the point that nobody now believes anything the IPCC and its cronies say anymore.

      Of course, in the HT echo chambers, there was nothing in there, it was all taken out of context, several investigations cleared everyone, it’s not material, etc. ad nauseam.

      But then again, the world has moved on, and nobody cares what the people at the likes of HT echo chambers think.

    • Andy on 14/03/2013 at 10:01 am said:

      This basically confirms the UK police view that it was a single overseas hacker operating through a Russian server. The covering note has clearly been machine translated from some other language

      I don’t see any evidence to support any of these assertions, other than the “single” part.

      If it is machine translation, it is one of the best I have seen.

    • Bob D on 14/03/2013 at 10:26 am said:

      It’s clearly not a machine translation.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 9:24 am said:

    Multilateral Environmental Agreements

    New Zealand’s key obligations under the agreements

    The 1992 Earth Summit
    Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
    The Declaration identifies 27 guiding principles on sustainable development, including:

    * intergenerational equity – that there should be equity between the rights and needs of the current generation and of generations to come
    * precautionary approach – that lack of full scientific certainty of the causes and effects of environmental damage should not be a reason for delaying action to prevent such damage
    * polluter pays – that polluters should bear the cost of pollution, and that the costs of environmental damage should be reflected in cost/benefit analyses of actions affecting the environment
    * responsibilities – that the world community has a common responsibility for protecting the global environment. However, countries that pollute more should do more for environmental protection than countries that pollute less.

    Agenda 21

    Agenda 21 is a plan for use by governments, local authorities and individuals to implement the principle of sustainable development contained in the Rio Declaration. This 40-chapter document has significant status as a consensus document adopted by about 180 countries.

    New Zealand’s legislation is largely in accord with the themes of Agenda 21 (for example the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002). Action needs to be directed towards implementing this legislation in the best possible way.

    # # #

    Hence the need to cast human carbon dioxide emissions as “pollution”

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 9:37 am said:

    The UN’s dossier on NZ:-


    Policies, Programmes, and Legislation
    Does your country have either a policy, programme, and/or legislation consistent with Agenda 21 in:
    1. Combatting poverty: NOT APPLICABLE
    2. Changing consumption and production patterns: IN PROCESS

  15. Looks like Mad Monckton blew his bid to become pope. Perhaps he should now refrain from using the Vatican letterhead in his correspondence!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/03/2013 at 10:08 am said:

      >”Looks like Mad Monckton blew his bid to become pope”

      So did you Ken. Unless you’re Jorge writing under a pseudonym.

    • Bob D on 14/03/2013 at 10:35 am said:

      Once again Ken is confused. Monckton’s letterhead is similar to the House of Lords, not the Vatican. The Vatican uses crossed keys and the papal crown, Monckton/House of Lords uses a portcullis and a king’s crown.

    • Andy on 14/03/2013 at 11:33 am said:

      The pink colours in Monckton’s emblem may be something to do with him being an alumnus of Churchill College Cambridge. Churchill scarf colours are brown and pink.

      Churchill boats are often painted a lurid pink colour

    • Bob D on 14/03/2013 at 11:35 am said:


    • Andy on 14/03/2013 at 12:47 pm said:

      Exactly. I went to Churchill too, although a tad after Monckton was there.

    • Mike Jowsey on 14/03/2013 at 10:36 am said:

      Another typical troll post, Ken. No substance, just ad-hom OT BS. Nothing to say, just stirring for the fun of it. I feel a moderator ban might be appropriate. This site is about conversation, not yelling unsubstantiated insults from the sidelines.

  16. Well, you’ve all gone off-topic in responding to Ken’s naughty goading, but unnecessarily, in my view — since his own remarks display his deficiencies well enough.

  17. Brandoch Daha on 16/03/2013 at 3:27 pm said:

    What about the drought, darlings (Ooops, mustn’t mention the drought!)

  18. I did post this elsewhere, but this graph is being furiously retweeted and reblogged (including HT, where I got it from)

    Not only does it unashamedly splice instrumental data to paleo data, it also adds in IPCC “projections” of a 3 degree temp rise by 2100

    Sort of “Mike’s Nature Trick on Steroids”

    Paging Lance Armstrong…

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 25/03/2013 at 7:25 pm said:

    Thanks to Thomas at HT I had a look at the Climate Realists (NZ) website:-

    Not sure whether I’ve seen it before or not – it’s low key either way.

  20. Andy on 03/04/2013 at 8:25 am said:

    A rather lame hit piece from The Herald on the start of Moncktons tour

    Some snippets

    Dr James Renwick, associate professor of physical geography at Victoria University, dismissed Lord Monckton’s views as “rubbish

    Niwa principal scientist Brett Mullan said Lord Monckton’s views were “very damaging” for public perception.

    Professor Dave Frame, director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University, described him as a “vaudeville act” to be ignored.

    However Dr Mullan said there was “a huge amount of very solid science” to show an increase in greenhouse gases.

    (Gosh who’d have thought)

    Remarkable who these scientists can make these claims without actually going to any of his talks and hearing what he has to say.they must have special super powers

    • I just noticed that Monckton is also apparently a member of the anti-Europe (sic) UKIP
      Can’t these muppets tell the difference between the EU and Europe?

      Any one with a twitter account can engage the author of the piece here

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/04/2013 at 2:34 pm said:

      I wonder if Renwick, Mullen and Frame all deny this part?

      “He says global warming paused around 20 years ago, and previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions have all been “wrong”.”

  21. and then there is the McGuinness Institute in Wellington (who are a node of the UN Millenium Project) who adhere to AGENDA 21 and produce reports called Project 2058 recommendations to the NZ Govt see here..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation