Totalitarian Tendencies of Climate Change Activists Destroying Canada’s Economy

Most climate change activists have nothing but goodness in their hearts and are genuinely trying to save the planet. They, largely, are being duped by a few people, dare I say, Deep State people, who greatly influence scientists and media and have created the near-hysterical attitude that is not justified in real science. These people have ulterior motives in what they do and should not be trusted. There is very little truth and very questionable science in climate change hyperbole.

Another Eminent Scientist Laughs Off Man-Made Climate Change

Surprising Divide Over Human Role in Climate Change - Study

Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax

The Real Science and Politics Behind Climate Change

USA's Own Climate Change Rep Ominously Threatens US

How MSM and the Climate Change Lobby Distort the Debate

One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor

With activists harassing banks financing Kinder Morgan pipeline and vows by recently elected BC NDP government to block the approved Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Canada’s economy is being destroyed by a ‘no fossil fuels’ mentality, says Friends of Science.

The “No Pipeline” mentality of anti-oil activists and Canada’s drastic GHG reduction targets will shutter virtually all economical drivers of the Canadian economy

CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA 

As reported in the National Observer of July 21, 2017, a coalition of aboriginal and environmental activists claiming climate catastrophe, are harassing the banks financing the approved Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in an attempt to block construction. Friends of Science says that this totalitarian approach of "No Pipelines" is unrealistic and destructive to the Canadian economy and democracy.

National Observer: Canada's "big five" banks are the largest backers of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project, according to the company's financial documents.

In total, 26 banks from Canada, the United States, Japan, Europe, and China have committed about $7.25 billion through a combination of share purchases and loans.

Canadian banks have made the largest investments. TD Bank has committed about $731 million, and RBC $714 million. Scotiabank and CIBC have each committed roughly $639 million while Bank of Montreal came in at $446 million, and National Bank at $407 million. Smaller Canadian commitments include ATB Financial at $150 million and Canadian Western Bank at $50 million.

Desjardins pledged $145 million towards the project. The company has since announced a temporary suspension of any future support for pipelines.

The Trans Mountain pipeline is facing renewed questioning because B.C.'s new premier, John Horgan, has promised to "use every tool available" to block its construction. The new government hasn't specified what actions it will take but has a number of options available.

In the prospectus for its 2017 IPO, Kinder Morgan acknowledged that the project could be "inhibited, delayed or stopped" by a variety of forces, including rising sea levels, Indigenous legal action, and governmental or community opposition.

In June, a coalition of Indigenous and environmental groups launched campaigns targeting the banks backing Kinder Morgan Canada. Lead signatories included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and Grand Chief Serge Simon of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake in Quebec.

Dutch bank ING responded by announcing that it would no longer finance pipelines from the Canadian oil sands. ING had previously withdrawn its involvement in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The move followed an announcement by Sweden's pension fund AP7 that it was divesting from pipeline company TransCanada and five other companies because their activities are not compatible with the Paris climate agreement.

Kinder Morgan Canada's president, Ian Anderson held a quarterly earnings report on July 19 and assured investors that the company is on track to begin construction in September of 2017.

In past public statements, BC’s Premier Horgan has vowed to stop Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, though this would violate Canadian Rule of Law. In the National Post of July 25, 2017, BC’s Green Party leader, former climate science modeller, Andrew Weaver is quoted as saying: “B.C.’s future does not lie in chasing yesterday’s fossil fuel economy.”

Andrew Weaver might be more convincing if he put his climate models into public domain so they can be peer reviewed. Most climate modellers will not - that is not science!

Friends of Science says this is misleading as the International Energy Agency reports that today’s economies run almost entirely on fossil fuels and that is not expected to change any time soon: 

“In 2014, the shares of primary energy supply by energy source were: 

oil, 31.3%; 

coal, 28.8%; 

natural gas, 21.0 %; 

biofuels and waste, 10.3%; 

nuclear, 4.8%; 

hydro, 2.4%; 

and “other”, including all renewables energy sources, 1.4%.“

Commentator Marian L. Tupy calls out the “Totalitarianism of Environmentalists” in his July 19th, 2017 blog post.

Canada appears to be moving toward being less competitive all the time with demands for additional environmental and regulatory reviews, as discussed in a July 20, 2017 post by Ottawa energy policy consultant Robert Lyman.

Additional demands for aboriginal consultation in resource development based on ‘traditional knowledge’ is a concept disputed by Lyman in this post of July 26, 2017.

The recently released 2-part study of “The Changing World of Energy and the Geopolitical Challenges” by EU energy expert Samuele Furfari, Ph.D., professor at the Free University of Brussels, shows that fossil fuel use and exports proliferate world-wide.

As expressed in his May 9th, 2017 presentation to Friends of Science Society, Robert Lyman, explained that Canada cannot survive the present climate change policies. The “No Pipeline” mentality of anti-oil activists and Canada’s drastic GHG reduction targets will shutter virtually all economical drivers of the Canadian economy. Furthermore, Lyman points out that such one-sided demands are not democratic. Presentation posted on YouTube: youtu.be/acjGXJvgTBs

The absurdity of it all is that the world needs energy and they will get it from fossil fuels because renewable energy sources are not nearly developed enough to replace them. If they don't get fossil fuels from Canada, they will get them from elsewhere, and the only real effect is that Canada is out tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. That is a lot of unemployed people! Since we have a government that spends money like it grows on trees, there will be little left in government coffers to invest or even encourage investment in renewable energies.

But, alas, we won't need much energy when half the country is out of work. Is that the plan?

Friends of Science Society dispute the anti-oil activist climate catastrophe claims, saying that human influence on climate change is nominal compared to natural influences, such as the interactions of solar cycles driving ocean oscillations, among other factors.

Friends of Science is celebrating 15 years of reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2).

Millions in Foreign Funds Spent in 2015 Fed Election to Defeat Harper, Report

In total, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome and many of those third parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation

And those are just the ones we know about. There were possibly many millions more in pre-election donations. 

International interference in the Canadian election was predicted by the UK's Lord Monkton in 2014 (see below). 

This expose of Tides Foundation is just the tip of the iceberg. But our far-left government in Canada is afraid of ice-bergs and there is no way a full-scale investigation into the funding of the 2015 election will occur, although there should be, as there should also be an investigation into the funding of the 2017 British Columbia elections - they smell just as fishy.

Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press, Postmedia News

Foreign money funnelled towards Canadian political advocacy groups affected the outcome of the 2015 federal election, according to a document filed last week with Elections Canada and obtained in part by the Calgary Herald.

The 36-page report entitled: Elections Canada Complaint Regarding Foreign Influence in the 2015 Canadian Election, alleges third parties worked with each other, which may have bypassed election spending limits — all of which appears to be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act states that “a third party shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, a limit set out . . . in any manner, including by splitting itself into two or more third parties for the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined election advertising expenses exceed the limit.”

“Electoral outcomes were influenced,” alleges the report.

The Canada Elections Act also states: “No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate” unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

“Yet the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners,” alleges the complaint, submitted by Canada Decides, a registered society with three listed directors — including Joan Crockatt, a former Conservative MP for Calgary Centre, who lost her seat to Liberal Kent Hehr, now the MP for the once long-held Tory riding and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The other two directors include Chad Hallman, a University of Toronto political science student.

The number of third parties registered during the 2015 general election more than doubled, to 114 compared with 55, in the 2011 election.

Much worse than Russian/US interference

Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse

In total, the 114 third parties spent $6 million and many of those third parties were funded by California-and New York-based Tides Foundation — which is known in Canada for holding numerous anti-Canadian oil campaigns.

In 2015, Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million of U.S. money to Canadian third parties in the election year, according to the report.

Crockatt’s seat was one of the 29 targeted by an organization called Leadnow through its “largest ever campaign” called Vote Together. The complaint by Canada Decides alleges that foreign money “spawned” Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt says Canadians should be concerned about any kind of foreign involvement in our elections.

“The whole concept and idea of foreign influence in an election is an important issue and is something that Canadians should not tolerate,” Bratt said Monday.

Tides Foundation and Leadnow representatives did not return repeated phone calls and emails from the Herald to respond to concerns raised by Canada Decides.

A December 2015 Leadnow report, Defeating Harper, discusses how effective its campaign was in the 2015 general election. “The Conservatives were defeated in 25 out of 29 ridings, and . . . in the seats the Conservatives lost, our recommended candidate was the winner 96 per cent of the time.”

Leadnow’s Defeat Harper report also states: “We selected target ridings with field teams run by paid Leadnow organizers….”

Crockatt lost her Calgary Centre seat by 750 votes.

Conservative MP Lawrence Toet lost his Manitoba seat of Elmwood-Transcona to the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie by just 61 votes.

THE CANADIAN PRESS / Adrian Wyld

Former Conservative Finance Minister Joe Oliver lost his seat to Liberal Marco Mendicino with a margin of 5,800 votes. Only six per cent of voters in that riding voted for the NDP candidate, who complained of Leadnow’s tactics on Twitter.

Leadnow staff members flew around the country on numerous occasions, as Facebook postings and photographs show, to distribute flyers and put up signs. Also, 57 local polls were commissioned across 37 ridings urging citizens to strategically vote for the most winnable, left-of-centre candidate in order to defeat the Conservative candidate.

There is an $8,788 spending limit per riding for the election. NDP candidates and even CUPE complained about Leadnow’s activities being anti-democratic.

“This is not a partisan issue or a case of sour grapes by Conservatives,” insists Hallman, 20.

“This is a Canadian issue. This affects all Canadians whether you’re an NDP, Green, Liberal or Conservative. You should be very concerned about foreign money being spent in Canada during an election campaign.”

Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this. This happened in the 2015 election

Crockatt, who prior to becoming a Member of Parliament was a journalist, including a stint as an editor with the Calgary Herald, said researchers from Fredericton to Nanaimo worked for 18 months gathering information on this issue.

“Foreign money meddled in a big way in our election and that’s not right,” she added. “Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse — foreign money, in many cases by very wealthy people — was donated and arguably changed the outcome of our Canadian election. It needs to be taken seriously and investigated.”

In the 2015 annual report of the California-based Online Progressive Engagement Network (OPEN) where Ben Brandzel, one of Leadnow’s founders, currently works, he said: “We ended the year with . . . a Canadian campaign that moved the needle during the national election, contributing greatly to the ousting of the conservative Harper government.”

Just how greatly these foreign organizations and money contributed to interfering in the Canadian election needs to be investigated by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, states Canada Decides.

“The threat to Canadian election sovereignty is real and must be eliminated by the Commissioner as quickly and decisively as possible,” adds the report.

It appears as though Yves Cote, commissioner of Elections Canada, is considering doing just that.

Cote admitted during an April 13 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that an investigation needs to be launched following questions by Conservative Senators Linda Frum and Bob Runciman.

“Issues of significance have been raised . . .” said Cote, during the senate committee hearing, “which in my view deserves Parliament taking the time to looking at the situation, trying to understand what has happened, what is likely to happen and then taking measures . . . to make sure there is compliance.”

Cote added that “the Supreme Court of Canada said the objective of maintaining a level playing field is, for them, a very important objective.”

Senator Frum is planning to introduce a private member’s bill updating the Canada Elections Act to prohibit third parties from accepting foreign funding for domestic political activity.

Canadians can only donate $1,550 to political parties and candidates. Union and corporate donations have been banned completely, and yet in the Senate hearing, Commissioner Cote said that as long as foreign money is donated to a third party six months prior to the election writ being dropped, the amount that can be donated is endless.

Frum made the following observation during the April 13 senate hearing: “I could take a cheque for $10 million from Saudi Arabia, from Iran, from China — I could take any amount of money from a foreign contributor so long as I, a Canadian citizen, am receiving it?”

Cote said as long as funds are received six months before an election “the third party is free to use that money.”

“Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this,” added Frum. “This happened in the 2015 election.”

So, the interference by the American liberal lobby groups may actually pale in comparison to money that might have come in to Canada from other international interests. 

In 2014, only Canada and Australia stood in the way of a global climate accord to be signed in Paris in December, 2015. That year, Lord Christopher Monkton overheard Sir David King, William Hague's (Home Secretary) United Kingdom “climate change ambassador” who was asked by the Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons (UK) in May 2014 “whether all the nations of the world were in principle ready to sign their people's rights away in such a treaty,” to which he replied “Oh yes, but there are two stand-outs.  One is Canada, but don't worry about Canada.  They've got an election in the spring of 2015 and we and the U.N. will make sure that the present government is removed.”  Monckton recalled his absolute bluntness about the matter.

The other holdout was Australia which was in an arguably stronger position as there was no election until after the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference.  With Tony Abbott as leader there was no chance that Australia would be signing the treaty. Monckton warned of the need to protect Abbott and the danger from the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the United Nations, doing their best to remove him ahead of this year’s Climate Change Conference. 

In February this year (2015), barely five months after Monckton's warning, Abbott survived a first attempt on his leadership from the Turnbull faction.  However, incessant negative and biased media coverage influenced the perception of Turnbull by the Australian population, and hence depressed his polling figures. Consequently, a substantial number of government MPs became anxious with an election less than a year away.  In September, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Abbott was replaced by Turnbull 54-44 in a leadership spill ballot.

The above is documented on a post on the eve of the Canadian elections in Oct. 2015: One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor.

The implication is that this has much less to do with actual climate change and more to do with the UN assuming authority over every country in the world. It would start with climate change but the end result would be 'One-World Government!' At least, that's the theory. And there are arguments to support that theory.

This is one of the reasons Trump's presidency has upset so many people - it is delaying the inevitable, One-World government. It also contributes to the numbers of the  many working to undermine Trump and get him impeached. Lest you get a false impression - I despise Trump and many of the things he is doing or trying to do. But not giving the UN authority over the USA is not one of them.

USA's Own Climate Change Rep Ominously Threatens US

Heads Up, America

There is a remarkable theory promoted by Lord Christopher Monkton that the climate deal agreed to in Paris in December was less about the climate and more about countries surrendering autonomy to a 'world body', in other words the beginnings of a one-world government. 

In his theory he predicted the fall of Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia in a caucus coup. He even predicted that it would be Malcolm Turnbull who would engineer Abbot's fall. Turnbull is now Prime Minister of Australia. Abbott was dead-set against a binding climate protocol.

Monkton also predicted that Stephen Harper would be defeated in last fall's election. He makes this incredible claim: Monckton recounted a conversation when Sir David King, William Hague's United Kingdom “climate change ambassador” was asked by the Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons in May 2014 “whether all the nations of the world were in principle ready to sign their peoples rights away in such a treaty,” to which he replied “Oh yes, but there are two stand-outs.  One is Canada, but don't worry about Canada.  They've got an election in the spring of 2015 and we and the U.N. will make sure that the present government is removed.”  Monckton recalled his absolute bluntness about the matter.

So with Abbott and Harper gone, just in time for Paris, there was no-one with sense enough to stop madness, and now we are well on our way to the dreaded one-world government that the Bible has been warning us about for nearly 2 millennium. (Rev 13:1,2; Dan 7:16-24).

This article from the BBC certainly does nothing to counter that theory. Indeed, it seems the as yet unformed (unless it turns out to be the IPCC) and non-elected panel that would administer punishment for miscreant countries, is already wielding power, or at least threats. 

In this case the threat comes from the USA's own representative at Paris, Todd Stern. Perhaps he is just blustering in the hope of landing a senior position on the aforementioned panel, or perhaps he is just campaigning for the Democrats, but his threats sound quite real and may be a glimpse of what awaits countries who do sign the agreement and surrender control of their country to as yet unknown and non-elected people.

Lord Christopher Monkton

'Consequences' for the US if it quits Paris climate deal

From BBC Science & Environment

The US faces "diplomatic consequences" if a new President decides to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

American climate envoy Todd Stern said the reaction would be far greater than when the US left the Kyoto Protocol under President Bush.

Many countries are worried that a Republican victory in November's presidential election would see the US walk away from the landmark Paris deal.

But Mr Stern said he thinks this is unlikely given the global reaction.

The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to stall President Obama's Clean Power Plan has raised concerns in many parts of the world that the US might not be able to live up to the carbon cutting commitments it made in the French capital in December.

French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius @ COP21  Getty Images

Faith in the law

As US lead negotiator, Todd Stern has been visiting Europe as part of efforts to "reassure" countries that America will stick to its promises.

"We anticipate that the Clean Power Plan will be upheld," he told reporters in London.

"But if for whatever reason it is not, then we will have to use other means to get to our target, but we are not backing off our target."

As well as worries over the Supreme Court ruling on the White House plan to limit emissions, many countries are also concerned about the impact of a new Republican administration on US climate policy, something highlighted by President Obama in recent days.

"They're all denying climate change," the President said, referring to the Republican candidates seeking the party's presidential nomination.

"This is not just Mr Trump," Mr Obama continued. "There's not a single candidate in the Republican primary that thinks we should do anything about climate change, that thinks it's serious."

Todd Stern Getty Images

Climate envoy Todd Stern says that the US will stick to its commitments "come what may".

Mr Stern recalled that the election of President George W Bush saw the US renounce the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first, flawed attempt to limit carbon emissions.

He said that there was a clear record of what happened, and it was "diplomatically challenging" for the US.

If they reneged on Paris, he said, it would be much worse.

"There was a lot of blowback that the US got generally diplomatically across the range of diplomatic concerns and I have no doubt that it would be very significant if the US were to do that with regard to Paris, probably much, much more significant than what happened before."

"There is a record there that you can look at to have a pretty good sense that there would be diplomatic consequences."

The scale of possible repercussions would make it highly unlikely that a new President would pull out of the Paris deal, Mr Stern said.

Sign and join

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has asked global leaders to come to New York in April for the official signing of the Paris agreement. To become operational, the treaty needs 55 countries representing more than 55% of global emissions sign and ratify it.

Mr Stern said that the US would sign in April and join the agreement this year.

The leaders of France, Peru and Morocco have already stated that they will attend the gathering.

French President Francois Hollande is likely to be accompanied by his minister of environment, Segolene Royal, who has taken over from Laurent Fabius as president of the climate negotiation process.

She will be in charge until the next meeting in Marrakech in November.

One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor

Monckton: Harper defeat in Canada election will allow 

“world government” win at UN Paris climate meet

 Lord Christopher Monckton giving 2014 presentation in Australia titled
"Our Last Year of Freedom?"

Andrew Smith, Australian correspondent
 and Steve Jalsevac
Life Site
BRISBANE, Australia, October 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – According to Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Monday's Canadian election will decide if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom he calls the last man standing against the establishment of a 'one world government', will remain against a deliberate international effort to remove him. 

The second last, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was overthrown, as predicted by Monckton in 2014, in order to clear the way for this international scheme. 

With Harper out of the way, warned Monckton, world governance will finally begin with a successful December, 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Another major factor for the Climate treaty’s likely success this time, after many past failures, is the unprecedented, strong public support of the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Francis.  

The Harper Conservative government has consistently opposed these binding international agreements that impose dramatic limits on the sovereignty of nations in order to resolve still-much-disputed, environmentalist claims of dangerous man-induced climate change.

Organizers of the Paris summit are proclaiming that “for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations,” they “aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate.” At risk, according to Monckton and many other critics of the “fraudulent” climate change movement, is democracy, its associated freedoms, and the Christian way of life worldwide.

In September 2014, Monckton spoke in Brisbane, detailing his claims of the fraud behind the global warming 'science'. Monckton exposed what he says are the true intentions of what has been presented to the world as a noble environmentalist cause that demands urgent action. 

One of my biggest problems with global warming deniers is their claim that it is all a fraud. I could never see the motive behind committing such a fraud until now. If the UN is able to get all countries to agree to climate goals with penalties for failure, they will, in effect, have formed the basis for a one-world government. Spreading from the innocuous climate portfolio into more substantial areas of our lives will be so much easier.

This concealed push for a one-world government began at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009, with a treaty draft containing “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism …” (UNFCCC draft of the Copenhagen Treaty, Annex 1, Para. 38, 15 September 2009)  (emphasis added)  It was blocked by China.  The Copenhagen conference also included an emphasis on population control as the final solution.

As Monckton points out, “This (environmental treaty) process has nothing to do with the weather.  It has nothing to do with man's impact on the weather.  It has everything to do with establishing the socialist international at the heart of the UN and making every nation bow the knee to this new dictatorship, and the climate is merely a fig leaf to cover what they are trying to do.”

"We'll make sure (Harper) is removed"

Monckton recounted a conversation when Sir David King, William Hague's United Kingdom “climate change ambassador” was asked by the Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons in May 2014 “whether all the nations of the world were in principle ready to sign their peoples rights away in such a treaty,” to which he replied “Oh yes, but there are two stand-outs.  One is Canada, but don't worry about Canada.  They've got an election in the spring of 2015 and we and the U.N. will make sure that the present government is removed.”  Monckton recalled his absolute bluntness about the matter.

The other holdout was Australia which was in an arguably stronger position as there was no election until after the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference.  With Tony Abbott as leader there was no chance that Australia would be signing the treaty.  In 2014, Abbott had taken the unusual step of sending an additional minister to accompany foreign minister Julie Bishop to ensure that she did not vote for the treaty at the 2014 Climate Change Conference in Lima.


Monkton predicts Abbott's fall

Monckton warned of the need to protect Abbott and the danger from the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the United Nations, doing their best to remove him ahead of this year’s Climate Change Conference. 

In February this year, barely five months after Monckton's warning, Abbott survived a first attempt on his leadership from the Turnbull faction.  However, incessant negative and biased media coverage influenced the perception of Turnbull by the Australian population, and hence depressed his polling figures. Consequently, a substantial number of government MPs became anxious with an election less than a year away.  In September, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Abbott was replaced by Turnbull 54-44 in a leadership spill ballot.

The outcome of the Canadian election remains to be seen, but the aim of any behind the scenes involvement by the UN and other climate extremists would be to effect a change of government so that Canada's vote at the December climate conference will be changed.

Monckton has urged people to write to their MPs and ask them to ensure that any treaty draft or treaty that is signed has a clause added that enables a country “when it eventually comes off the Kool-aid and wakes up” to withdraw at a later date after giving sufficient notice.  He provided a previously used example from Article 27 if the Kyoto protocol which Canada itself has used to withdraw from that treaty.

“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.”
By default, the 2015 Paris treaty agreement will not have this.  According to Monckton, we need to “make sure that the nations of the world are not locked into something which in due course they would very nearly all bitterly regret.”

Mr. Monckton was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. In 1986 he was among the first to advise the prime minister that “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Centre for Forecasting: but she, like him, later changed her view. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles on global warming in The Sunday Telegraph in November 2006 crashed its website after attracting 127,000 hits within two hours of publication.

A speech by Mr. Monckton to 1,000 citizens of St. Paul, Minnesota in October 2009, in which he drew public attention to a then little-known draft plan by the U.N. to establish an unelected world government at the (now-failed) climate summit at Copenhagen in December 2009, received 1,000,000 YouTube hits in a week – thought to be the fastest-ever YouTube platinum for a political speech. Some five million have now seen the presentation on various websites.