Last week, climate skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton spoke to an audience of over 700 in St. Paul. The event also featured the national premiere of a new documentary from the Cascade Policy Institute titled “Climate Chains.” The event was an enormous success. Thank you for all who came!

Note: For those interested, Monckton’s slide show can be found here. The video above is best viewed while following along with the presentation.

Information on the treaty that Lord Christopher Monckton is referencing can be found here. The actual proposed treaty language can be found here.

Here is an excerpt from his speech:

Here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question that he asked, “what is the truth?” is the question which underlies every question and in the end it is the only question that really matters. When you ask that question what you are really asking is “what is the truth about the matter?” And we are now going to see why it matters morally, socially, and politically, as well as economically and scientifically. That the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should inform public policy on this question. Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film [Cascade Policy Institute film “Climate Chains” was shown prior –ed] what the effect of that ban was. Before the ban, the inventor of DDT got the Nobel Peace Prize because he had saved more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in the Third World had all but been eradicated. There were still 50,000 deaths per year. But when DDT was banned by exactly the same faction, that is now trying to tell us we must close down five sixths of the United States economy that figure is actually in the Waxman- Markey bill. That same faction banned DDT worldwide. The consequences are on the slide there. The number of deaths went up from 50,000 to a million a year and stayed there. For 40 years. 40 million people, nearly all of them children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever. And it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said “Normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito. After pressure from me, among others.

The left, the environmental left, the intolerant, communistic narrow minded faction that does not care how many children it kills it is campaigning once again for DDT to be banned. Because they do not want children to be born in the Third World. They want as much of humanity as possible, it sometimes seems to me, to be wiped off the face of the planet. And there is a better way to control population than to withdraw the one effective agent against one of the worlds biggest killers and that is to raise the standard of living of the poorest. That has long been a moral imperative since the time of Our Blessed Lord himself it has been a moral imperative that we help Our Lord’s the sick and Our Lord’s the poor. And we work for them and we raise them up and we make them healthy and we make them wealthy, because if we make them wealthy, then their populations will stabilize. This is something that every demographer knows perfectly well . Make the population wealthy and it stabilizes. Keep it poor and it will continue to increase. Make it poor if it was wealthy, and it will start to increase again. And if the environmental left were really serious about saving the planet from a huge CO2 footprint (which I will show doesn’t matter at all) then the first thing they would do is pursue policies that would not, as the extinction of five sixths of your economy would do, make you poor. They would be trying to make everybody rich.

——————