The IPCC can't learn from past mistakes – wants more grey literature

Berenyi–
ICSU is involved with the Future Earth Alliance I have been writing about with the Beverly Forum and UNESCO and UNEP and DIVERSITAS and a few others.
Hey. I didn’t create the name. Future Earth is going operational in 2013 treaty or not unless we understand it and start to say no funding at the national levels.
And get that the bureaucrats still know they have education internationally. In May the Economic and Social Council of the UN said they would be using ed going forward. And would go over that agenda in the July meeting.

The IPCC is irrelevant now.

Lets understand that this is all about the full take-over and control of the IPCC by global NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF.
They’re the ones who sponsor and publish regional grey literature.

I don’t think we should be overly critical of the IPCC and AR5 yet, they appear to be trying to overcome a purely technical problem with their ‘grey literature’ approach.
I seem to recall Pachauri bragging (Glaciergate) something to the effect “one tiny error in over 3000 pages”.
Quantity, not quality, is the order of the day for the IMPRESSIVE Report (AR4 distributed to officialdom worldwide, probably only a handful ever fully read to this day).
I suspect their technical problem lies in that fewer scientists of the ‘climate’ variety are prepared to risk their reputations by contributing, and then watching their work battered into conformity during the review process, sometimes without their consent.
Faced with this, what can a poor IPCC do to bulk up their Report to the necessary number of pages without ‘grey literature’?
Sarc/ – hardly necessary, I think

Can you imagine any other “science” working like this?
Imagine medicine accepting magazine articles written by activists. Imagine particle physics insisting that its working groups must include a quota of women. Imagine chemistry insisting that publications show no geographical bias.
What it achieves is making sure that one or two western activists in each group are surrounded by people who will not challenge them. Instead of arranging for a range of views in each group, which would be anathema, they can block that by the ridiculous insistence on geographical spread.

“I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction.”
This realization is only just settling in Anthony????
As you seem to have recently concluded in the article after this one “Delusion is a big problem with the green crowd”. You can add to this observation that a lack of critical thinking skills, an extreme cognitive bias and the general lack of an ethical compass also afflicts members of the green movement.

Pittzer says:
June 22, 2012 at 11:27 am
Is there a mechanism whereby the US government could write IPCC out of it’s share of the UN funding?
_______________________________
Yes!

…The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

…”This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

….Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

“Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.
…Article VI of the Constitution states:
Clause 2 – “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
Clause 2 has the following interpretation from

….Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the[p.921]State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States—‘the supreme law of the land’.”18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court….
Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment
…. For a century after Marshall’s death, however, the Court proceeded on the theory that the Tenth Amendment had the effect of withdrawing various matters of internal police from the reach of power expressly committed to Congress…..
Speaking for the majority, Justice Barbour seized the opportunity to proclaim a new doctrine.

“But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”23

Justice Story, in dissent, stated that Marshall had heard the previous argument and reached the conclusion that the New York statute was unconstitutional.24
The conception of a “complete, unqualified and exclusive” police power residing in the States and limiting the powers of the National Government was endorsed by Chief Justice Taney ten years later in the License Cases.25 In upholding state laws requiring licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including those imported from other States or from foreign countries, he set up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in drawing the line between the mutually exclusive, reciprocally limiting fields of power occupied by the national and state governments.26….
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art6_user.html#art6_hd4

There is a heck of a lot more written in the CRS Annotated Constitution about where state’s rights override the federal government. The interesting thing is the Supreme Court decisions are not cast in stone so the Supreme Court can overturn prior interpretations as was done in the case of Federal vs the States.
The way things are going I think we may actually see states nullify agreements with the United Nations. The Constitution specifically say treaties are among nations and the UN is not a nation. Congress got around that point with a law declaring the UN a nation and not an organization.

…. The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation…. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm