Greenshirts crash Monckton’s speech

Paul Joseph Watson at PrisonPlanet.com reports: Groups of agitant green youth corps invaded the stage during Lord Monckton’s speech at an Americans for Prosperity event in Copenhagen yesterday, attempting to sabotage the private meeting while chanting cult-like environmental mantras in a shocking example of how the environmentalist elite have activated cadres of young brownshirts to crush the free speech of anyone who dares dissent against the global warming orthodoxy.

Read Paul Joseph Watson’s story.

And if you haven’t seen Lord Monckton’s earlier speech on the global warming swindle, its well worth the time –

Comments

  1. the ringer from the west says:

    where do the greens get all there finance from? may be the oil and coal industries.So they can stop nuclear power?

  2. Michael,

    The climate change debate is being manipulated for economic reasons, ever heard of economic growth via inflation? The easiest way to make an economy grow is make everything more expensive or simply add another layer of economic activity, the ETS in Australia would do both.

    The easiest way to curb CO2 pollution is to plant more trees, very simple, Australia could theoretically go CO2 neutral by moving towards greenhouse agriculture and re-planting the farmland not used and pumping captured CO2 into those greenhouses to increase procuctivity.

    Problem being, it won’t generate a $100 billion dollar extra layer to the economy.

    Crimson

  3. There is always a group of rebels looking for a cause, and probably a paid trip to denmark was a small price to pay. My problem is the idea of taxing the economy so we can in some way or another divert this into the third world (which is where i know alot of it will end up.. deteriorating the competitive advantge our nation and nations like it have built up over centuries. I find it terrifying how freedom of speech is disregarded in this issue.. the media are at best mindless sheep and at worst willing conspirators. I think the first way to lower carbon emisions from australia (and avoid water crisis and affecting food security) is to slow immigration.. but rudd doesnt see to understand how hypocritical he his when he double simmigration intake in one year and then demands reducitons with the other hand.

  4. send the 'greenshirts' to south Africa to live. visit http://www.rense.com and read all about the genocide that is happening there and MICROSOFT forbidding the pictures of massacred whites to be shown on their webstie.

  5. Especially when krudd won't give the pensioners an extra $100 per week because it would cost one billion dollars, yet will happily give away tens of billions to Africans who hate us anyway.
    If pensioers had that extra one hundred they would spend it on food etc, which would create more jobs, but of course this is progress and the white far left don't like that.

  6. I know how yu feel, my grnadad fought the Japs for the people of NZ and Aus…why did he bother sacrificing his youth when it has all been just given away? Never forget though who the real traitors are…the white far left!

  7. Ex Digger says:

    I am an Army pensioner living on my army pension and the $100 would have been handy at this time of year…..but alas, I am not an African, Asian or Middle Eastern, just a returned from active service Australian pensioner who fought for his country and am being s*** on by this absymal government who pours billions into foreign aid and gives his own countrymen zilch.
    Was it all worth it?

  8. Nicholas Folkes says:

    Disgusting to see the greenshirts behave like children but what do we really expect? Good on Lord Monckton comparing these infantile ferals to Hitler's Youth. The greenies are Nazis and should be stopped. As Monckton said, "they konow nothing about climate science"…….absolutely nothing!

  9. I'd like to know where the countless BILLIONS of money poured into Africa has gone, it Australia had had that much we'd all be living in mansions now and no homeless.
    It sickens me that krudd said he couldn't afford to give the old pensioners an extra $100 per week to spend (which would come back to business here in Aus, eg food etc,) because it would cost one billion per year….but he's got billions of OUR money to give to black Africans.
    Now if that isn't racism, I don't know what is!

  10. Love your last sentence Tim.

    The arrogance of the elite will destroy us all.

    Wait till Iran have "the bomb".

  11. Climate change is real – but we need to address the root cause – mass over population. Especially in the third world!!

    • Spot on! The developed world needs to take a firm stand, and make plain to the third world, that we are not going to sacrifice our standard of living to support their irresponsible population policies. Selfish or not, for my part I am not prepared to give up meat or my hydrocarbon fueled four wheel drive, just because someone in Pakistan or Ethiopia wants to have thirteen children.

    • Catty, this is the very argument that is the destruction of humans in the first place. When governments try to control population growth, control births, control the economy and control the environment, what in essence happens is a world where control is the essence of our existence. While "control" is necessary in certain areas of our lives, such as border control, when there is such a heavy emphasis on control, what you will inevitably get is an elite nucleus of "controllers". It's better to have faith that natural selection will take it's course. Someone gets a deadly virus, they be allowed die instead of living a morbid existence as a vegetable, someone gets old, they are let die instead of pumping them full of substances to keep them alive and so on, you get the picture. Our world needs to step back sometimes and let things unravel as they will without feeling the need to constantly intervene and have the mentality that we have all the answers.

    • Nicholas Folkes says:

      Climate change has been with us for over 4.5 billion years and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. It is not anthropogenic! The world has been cooling over the past 15 years and that's a fact. Third world population growth is out of control, the dynamics of economic growth can not sustain popultation growth in the third world, that is why they are emigrating to the West and reducing us to the third world in the process. I do support family planning in the third world. We need to sterilise esp. African and muslim women as their husbands are too irresponsible and treat their women as sex machines. Sponsoring poor kids in Africa is not a solution nor is food aid. I know it sounds cruel but we do need a famine. Famine in the third world is just around the corner so get ready for those boring and pathetic aid appeals. I'll donate a few condoms!

      • nic i have seen a few people quoting this cooling in the last 15 years… what science is this based on? I would like to check this out.

  12. Yes, the climate is changing, has changed in the past and will change again in the future. This is the law of Nature. We should be looking after Nature's garden by stopping the man made destruction such as land fill with disposable nappies, desalination plants putting the ocean areas where they are at risk, improve the public transport systems so more people use it instead of one person per car. Use the modern technology we have and have conference link ups, stop paying thiese full of wind politicians travelling at whim to talk, talk, talk and more talk. Where does all that hot air go??? Can anyone tell me when and where the sciencists with the non GW facts and the sciencists with the GW facts had a debate over this issue?

  13. I personally beleive that climate change is happening, but I also beleive it is a natural occurance, but one that the far left will use to tax us to death and allow them to import more 'climate change refugees' who will of course, vote for Labor.
    There was the ice age and then the earth warmed up….no big industries then, unless of course the dinosours had some pretty impressive technology back then.
    Perhaps they too, allowed climate change refugees on board and it is that of which that wiped them out, as our newest arrivals seem intent on doing to us.
    Heard some African yelling on his mobile phone today that 'Australia was ripe for the taking, they cannot stop us…' I couldn't listen anymore, just made me feel sick. Thank God my grandad is gone and can't witness his grandchildren's upcoming Holocaust.

  14. It is time the nationalist movement to get a grip, wake up and smell the coffee. Climate change is real, it is happening and it is a threat to our country. We are doing the nationalist cause no favors by trying to pretend it doesn't exist. The British National Party accepts the reality of climate change as per their website:

    "…the BNP accepts that climate change, of whatever origin, is a threat to Britain. Current evidence suggests that some of it may be man-made; even if this is not the case, then the principle of ‘better safe than sorry’ applies and we should try to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases and other pollutants."

    http://bnp.org.uk/policies/environment/

    You can shout "sellout" all you like, I call it sense. If the APP wishes to be taken seriously, then it needs to face the reality of climate change and put up feasible alternative policies for reducing its impact on Australia.

    • I agree with you PaulH. The issue is that our Government articulates the issue of global warming as: "If you support ETS – you are good conscientious citizen, but if you are against ETC- you are climate change denier". The truth is that most of the people accept the truth of climate change. The division starts at the question whether climate change is caused by humans or a natural phenomenon. The further division is at the level of solving the problem. Labour wants ETS Tax pursuing their goals. Not supporting ETS does not make one a climate change denier. That what needs clarification in the policy.

    • What I don't like amongst conservative/right wing groups is that a lot of climate change deniers among them seem to jump on the bandwagon simply to spite the left, there doesn't always seem to be a process of research and looking at the facts. Not that I'm convinced the climate change advocates have shown us enough facts either, but overall I'm still leaning more that way.

      • Barry, there are numerous ways to look after the environment without implementing another tax on the population. You think of your wage at the end of the week. If you are like most, there's not usually much left. How would you feel if you now had to fork out another $1200 per year to cover a new tax and on top of that pay another 30% for electricity? You might say, well I'll be subsidized, but for how long and when you go to buy your groceries and pay your bills are you going to be subsidized for that extra cost too? No you won't. Remember that almost every time you purchase something, there is an extra cost within everything you purchase. The consumer is at the end of the line mate and if you breath, then you will be hit.

    • The BNP doesn't accept anthropomorphic, i.e. man-made global warming. See the BNP site for the last few weeks. Griffin has made at least two speeches at the EU describing the whole thing as a money-making scam for Al Gore. They have two online documents on the subject, the most recent being a PDF downloadable document. For my taste, they are both a bit scattergun and don't disentangle the material properly.

      There are quite a few issues: are techniques in fact good enough to establish what the earth's climate used to be, bearing in mind the vast stretches of time? If so, can man-made effects be teased out; and in any case can humanity do anything about changes?

      The CO2 issue is completely taken apart by the BNP and I'll simply assume the whole thing is phoney. That means the issue is what the hell is the intent behind Copenhagen? There are sundry hypotheses – from taking a percentage of the entire world's GDP as a fraud, a bit like priotection money; to moving production to the third world, especially India and China; (note that China seems to have immunity from these carbon schemes!); to giving an excuse ('climate change refugees') for flooding more immigrants into our countries; to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to make plants harder to grow; to causing starvation by deindustrialisation … this sort of thing is where the debate has to go.

      There's a 180-page UN document which is key, but the BNP understandably goes with Monckton's redaction or disinterment of it, with details on the 'world government' of insane restrictions it wants.

    • Nicholas Folkes says:

      Grow up PaulH…….climate change is not anthropgenic. When was the last time you saw a world leader control earthquakes, cyclones or heat waves? No one is arguing that climate change is not happening but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the man made lies of anthropogenic climate change. No Nationalist movement will support the West handing over sovereignty to the tinpot dictators of the UN, would you?

      Only the bed wetters get excited about the threat of climate change. It is a lie and imposing a tax on you or me will not make any difference at all. By the way notice that Europe and North America are experiencing the coldest winters for a long time? The APP do not believe the lies spewed out by the media, next you'll be telling us we need to accept multicultiuralism

    • I'll admit, the science of climate change is something I've looked at very closely. There is one inescapable conclusion I keep coming too. The probably of the scientists being correct on the issue is far greater than the probability of the sceptics being correct. Monckton seems to make good points, but all it boils down to, is him saying is "Everythings OK. Everything was OK and everything will be OK, as long as we get rid of this fraud". It's a classic case of someone, whom the status quo treats well, wanting to keep that status quo. This is a pretty easy message to send. People like to hear how everything is hunky dory, and this perhaps is why the skeptic side is gaining popularity. That, and the fact that people have suddenly realised it might affect their hip pocket.

      But the big gaping hole in the argument, is the stunning lack of evidence that this is an orchestrated hoax. We can find holes, questionable characters sure, but nothing big. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. 150 megabytes of data stolen, and not one reference to a higher power orchestrating the scam. All we hear, is nitpicking about admittedly bad behaiviour from East Anglia, pointless statements that the climate has changed before (so, what does that prove?), and well, arguments which are circulated around, but easily debunked. I've also noticed, a lot of skeptic sites (such as Bolts blog) are 'sheilded' from science. It's shaky ground to be pulling a bandwagon on. The other possibility is that the world scientific community not only has made a mistake, but hasn't picked up on something armchair 'free-marketeers' supposedly picked up. Again, very unlikely. I certainly wouldn't be the farm on it.

      The scepticism really is not much more than sound bites, and arguments which on the surface appear to make sense, but don't stand up to any criticism. It might impress people, but its just a populist stance. The worlds major scientific institutes don't support the denialist view.

      There is real potential to be seen as a dynamic, progressive and forward thinking political party in tackling this issue. To be see as a real part of action, one that takes major problems seriously. Far better this, IMO, than to just argue we should continue as is. The AGW theory existed long before Al Gore, long before the hoopla. It was known in the 1950's, and earlier.

      • I pretty much agree, Michael. To me there is still more evidence of climate change being a real threat than there is of it being a hoax. There are certainly good points put forward by the likes of Monckton, but I see the main value of that argument as discrediting the approach governments want to take rather than really putting forward a compelling argument about climate change being a hoax.

        You talk to older folks about what the weather was like back when they were young – there's no denying things have changed dramatically. My grandma used to say they would get snow up to the roof when she was young, now they get sporadic snow of nowhere near the same volume. That we just happen to be going through a perfectly normal climate cycle just as we happen to pollute more and overpopulate the planet more than ever before, I find too much of a coincidence. It may not be end of days type stuff, or as bad as some make out, but something is going on with the environment and I'm still not convinced it's all harmless.

        • I find Moncktons claim that scientists would be biased TOWARDS AGW because the government pays them strange. I would have thought, especially during the Howard/Bush regime, that if you were going to serve your government masters, you would DENY climate change, and support big oil, big business. Usually the government wants to increase consumption, maintain the status quo and they certainly wouldn't want to upset big business (who stand to lose should carbon output be curtailed). I can't imagine Bush paying scientists to cede sovereignty to the UN and hurt his oil buddies. I can't imagine a scientist thinking the government WANTS to do this… But apparently that's what happened. Go figure. The scientists claim that the government wants them to PLAY DOWN the risks of AGW. Again, go figure.

          I trust the CSIRO and NASA more than the Cato Institute and ExxonMobil.

  15. I have just watched the Youtube clip. I have been telling people about this for the past 5 years and most thought that I was a nutter!!! I was in Indonesia at the time of The Twin Towers Bombing and it was very scary. Most of the crazies running in the streets in Lombok were from the villages in the outer regions and where paid to take part, it is easy to get Muslims ranting and aggressive when it comes to Islam. Some Muslims I know in Australia seem rational sane people until something comes up about Islam or Allah and then I see what I don't like about them. Who gets the Baby Bonus (it should be Seniors Bonus) is it given to all women who have babies in this country? All monies paid from the taxpayer should only go to CITIZENS of Australia not Residents or others.

  16. The Carbon trader vultures are already intimidating third worlders into selling their trees to them – and here's our politicans telling us bald faced lies that it isn't about money!! Lying 'see you next tuesdays' !!!

  17. I hope it’s becoming apparent to most people that the Green Left are in fact the ‘fascists’ they claim to oppose.

  18. Christopher says:

    We should be demanding revision and investigation on Rudd unscientific Climate Change policy. What was the real agenda behind this? If any political agreement against interest of Australian people will be signed by Rudd in Copenhagen he should be charge with treason.

  19. millstoneridge says:

    Honestly, when are the brainwashed cultees going to stop suckiling at thw alter of Climate Change?? Are we going to bring back charges of heresy and burning at the stake? Foolish Foolish people.

  20. Bertie_bert says:

Leave a Reply