by Myron Ebell
The South China Morning Post reported on Thursday that U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping “are set to jointly announce their ratification” of the Paris Climate Treaty when they meet on 2nd September before the G-20 Summit. This is curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
Here is the language from Article Two, Section Two, Clause Two of the U. S. Constitution: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
The article by Li Jing references this curious requirement: “There are still some uncertainties from the US side due to the complicated US system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept 2,” said a source, who declined to be named.
In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, “So be it.”
Later in the article, Li Jing again tries to explain the inscrutable U. S. methods for ratifying a treaty: “US law allows the nation to join international agreements in a number of ways, including through the authority of the president.”
Lo and behold, the President of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, “So be it.” And it is so. Who knew that President Barack Obama has become our Maximum Leader, or perhaps I should say our dear Maximum Leader?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/08/26/china-and-us-to-ratify-paris-climate-treaty/
…Obama is betting on Hillary winning so she can continue his outrageous abuse of the U.S. Constitution and systematic corruption of American laws…
Election of Hillary will allow Progressives to seal off the Executive Branch from the Legislative Branch. Harry Reid and the Senate changed the rules so that a President’s judicial appointments to Federal Court are passed with a simple majority. Obama began the process of stacking the Federal Courts with Progressives. Furthermore, Hillary will appoint at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.
Pay attention. The result is that there will be no way to overturn Executive Actions/Orders. Challenges to Executive Actions/Orders (and the actions of Federal Agencies) must go through the Federal Court System. After 8 years of Hillary, there will be no chance that any Conservative challenge to a Progressive President’s Executive edict/mandate will advance through the Federal Court System and be overturned by the Supreme Court. No chance.
Tell me why I am wrong.
Any challenge by a Republican controlled Congress will be vetoed. Republicans will never again hold a veto-proof majority in both Houses of Congress. The press, “the 4th branch” will see to it.
As I see it, Hillary’s ability to neuter the Legislative Branch through judicial appointments is the REAL issue of this campaign.
This is why we must have an Article V Convention of States to stop this abusive federal government!
I guess congress can shut down the Feds by simply refusing to enact budgets. The individual states can pass laws to increase taxes and take over federal functions. They can also form compacts to share the bureaucratic mechanisms and self defense forces. This may be a better outcome.
Obama and the Chinese leader both understand that the Climate Treaty was always just an excuse to force Perestroika on the West and the planned restructuring of the social, economic, and political systems. Obama wants to make sure, whoever the next President is, the federal agencies will continue to force this agenda. Unfortunately, political control of people, places, and the economy has Bipartisan support by politicians at every level of government because it is in their best interests and the interests of their cronies. They are at the planning and steering table. It’s why I once heard the Preident of Georgia Tech instinctively insist that the US has state capitalism because that is the term he had heard at conferences we are not invited to. Fits with the Chinese economic model.
At its core all this is premised on restructuring education globally, especially Preschool-high school. That’s how I found the rest of this story. Thanks for that link. It fits with what Bill Gates has said and why the Asian Confrence came to Seattle last year.
Vintage Obama. Get it done fast, ram it down the people’s throats before anyone can stop you.
Will of the people? Ha.
Can’t voice your opinion when that of your President is rammed down your throat, can you? Chokes on you.
Update: Obama’s [war] on Maine
Donor threat might force park service to vacate Patten space
http://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/26/outdoors/donor-threat-might-force-park-service-to-vacate-patten-space/
PATTEN, Maine — National Park Service officials might have to leave work space provided to them by a local nonprofit museum after a donor threatened to withhold funding in protest of the new Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, officials said Friday.
The donor, who represents a local forest products industry business whom Patten Lumbermen’s Museum Curator Rhonda Brophy declined to identify, told her during a telephone call on Friday that “he has spoken to many people who feel the same way,” Brophy said Friday. “They are upset.”
The threat came two days after President Barack Obama signed an executive order accepting entrepreneur Roxanne Quimby’s 87,563-acre donation to the park service. The five monument parcels are about 5 miles west of the museum, which is on Shin Pond Road. Park service officials opened a similar office in Millinocket on Thursday.
The museum’s board of directors will meet at the museum at 7 p.m. Thursday to discuss the funding threat and how park service officials came to occupy a table in the front left corner of the museum, Brophy said.
Sorry, should be “Obama’s war on Maine”.
Well according to John Kerry treaties only have to be approved by the Congress if they have enforcement mechanisms. And since he himself admits that his treaty is an unenforceable piece of fiction then who cares?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-says-paris-agreement-crafted-to-avoid-congress/article/2578256
Can’t fault Kerry’s logic. It appears the enforcement mechanism for THIS treaty in the US is the President himself (sound like prosecutorial discretion?) Therefore the treaty requires a 2/3 affirmative vote by all Senators present. Aside from the problem of securing a quorum, that shouldn’t be an issue if all the pesky ‘anti’ Senators are being held for questioning about their loyalty and cannot therefore vote.
New Democracy in action!
I shall be careful not to tread into forbidden territory here, lest I evoke shrieks of “Godwin’s Law,” but the usual method is to (a) Burn down the Reichstag; (2) Blame another political party; (3) After the riots start, take the legislators who are members of that party into “protective custody;” (4) While those legislators are incarcerated, and can’t attend, take a vote on laws to make their party illegal and give “emergency” powers to the Chancellor; (5) Invade Russia. I may have left a few steps out, or put them in the wrong order, but that’s the gist of it. I expect the necessary steps to begin just prior to the time when we would have normally had an election.
I think you have to invade Poland and France before invading Russia.
@smc….that’ll be easy, all the poles are elsewhere inEurope and the French love a good surrender :-O
Not really. It’s easier if treaties are approved but given the enormous power Congress has delegated to the Executive along with an oligarch of five sitting SCOTUS judges, Obama will simply unleash the regulatory agencies up to and maybe including the equivalent of a carbon tax. They likely have all of them in the wings and will obey an Executive Order to release them. After all, they’ve had seven and a half years to game the system and there’s only four months to go.
jorgekafkazar August 26, 2016 at 5:20 pm
Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution gives protection for Senators and Congressmen against such abuses.
“They shall, in all cases except Treason, Felony and Breach of Peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same…”
Now the real question is, if such a thing happened will the People stand for it? I believe it would finally push us over the edge and start an armed rebellion against those in power.
No, Kerry has that wrong, as usual. See a bit of con law in below just posted comment. Unlike Obama, I not only took con law at Harvard, I learned and still remember it.
I’m communicating with my Congress Critters about their taking the issue to SCOTUS.
President Obama can’t get out of office fast enough. Unfortunately, our choices for replacing him are a clown (Trump), a crook (Clinton), a wingnut (Johnson) and a fairy godmother (Stein).
I think Obama’s going to continue to be a problem – maybe even a bigger one – once he gets out of office – no longer constrained even by the appearance of convention – and becomes a walking lawsuit to make sure his agenda is untouched.
I’ll take the clown with a pair…….
Clown seconded!
♪♫Send in the clowns…♪♫
The “clown’s” attitude matches about perfectly with the “alt-right” that most don’t understand (or misrepresent), and that Dems, hate (no illegal immigration, no sharia, fiscal responsibility, must believe in America first values, laws and language). So he’s on my vote list:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/26/spoke-guy-shouted-pepe-hillarys-alt-right-speech/
I’ll take the very next stray mongrel dog that drags its A*** down our street, so long as it isn’t Hillary Clinton.
I simply can’t fathom the NO-Trumpers (conservatives) who say they refuse to vote for Trump, as they were Ted Cruz backers. And they don’t even seem to realize what that decision leads to.
Evidently they haven’t heard of the SCOTUS.
G
@george e smith, et alia: Don’t misunderstand me, I dislike Trump intensely as a presidential candidate, and to this day believe he is the LEAST likely of the top 8 (or so) GOP primary candidates to beat ANYONE coming out of the Dem primaries.
That said, looking at things in the relatively conservative way that I tend to, I’d have rather seen Bernie Sanders elected than Mrs. Bill Clinton, since (IMO) an honest Communist is better than a lying traitorous felon any time of the day. And since Trump is (again, IMO) better than Sanders…
Trump actually reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn. The hair, the bombastic attitude, the verbal abuse, etc. Given the choices I’ll take Foghorn For President. I’ve accused Gary Johnson of a lot of things but being a Libertarian is NOT one of them!
TRM August 27, 2016 at 12:29 am : “Trump actually reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn. The hair, the bombastic attitude, the verbal abuse, etc. Given the choices I’ll take Foghorn For President.”
Trump is like the actor Rodney Dangerfield, in the movie where Dangerfield is a rich millionaire, who is basically a blue-collar worker who made good, but is still crude, and unrepentatent about the social graces, and goes into the snooty rich-man’s Country Club in the local town and blows it up, and takes it over from the snooty rich guys, just like Trump is blowing up the status quo in the public arena.
Dangerfield was a millionaire builder in the movie, with a heart of gold, and a blunt way of speaking. Sounds like Trump to me.
+10
I’m an old bridge player . . ; ) and I don’t see him as a clown. He’s an American.
Some say the difference is ‘not significant’. ;’-)
George Soros? Angela Merkel? Michel Obama? ET? . . ; )
Saw Stein on being interviewed by Charles Payne on Fox Business. One of the statements she made that 99% of all scientists believe in Global Warming. It’s amazing how 77 of 79 climate scientists has now become 99% of all scientists.
There are a number of sources for 97-99% support. She may have been referring to the John Cook survey, or perhaps to just some tweet she read last week.
Fairy Godmother sounds like the pick of those.
Obama gets this ability to stomp all over the US constitution and make up laws by fiatnot inspite of Congress, but precisely because of Senate Democrats giving him immunity from removal.
With a Republican in the WH, if a President became in need of Removal (as Nixon did), Senate Republicans would tell the President to resign else face (House) impeachment and (Senate) removal. Senate Democrats would eagerly join Republicans in removing a Republican president.
However, The reverse is not true, as we saw with the perjurious Bill Clinton. Hillary would similarly get immunity from removal from her fellow dishonest Democrats. Hillary, armed with the immunity idol doll, will continue Obama’s progressive dismantlement of our Representative Democracy and the rule of law.
The Republic is doomed.
the republic died a long time ago
To the sound of applause.
Well the “Republics” in Europe are definitely doomed (just a matter of time) and yet remains to be seen if Britain is too far gone to recover from a future Muslim takeover.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/20/migrant-violence-rises-calais-police-numbers-decline/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/16/london-mayor-to-set-up-police-online-hate-crime-hub-in-partnership-with-social-media-firms/
The income tax and women’s suffrage destroyed the
I think it’s fair to give Republicans their fair share of the blame since they openly said that they’d taken impeachment off the table – Democrats are expected to protect their president – but when the opposing party – which was put into power specifically to halt his agenda – gives a rogue president a free reign – financing, legislation – hey, whatever you need, Barry – that’s worse. I don’t now whether it’s cowardice or under the table coordination, but in the end, it’s betrayal.
House leadership took Impeachment off-the-table precisely because there was no chance of Removal in the Senate. They legally are 2 separate processes, just as a Grand Jury indictment is futile if there is no chance of conviction at trial.
And talk of futile impeachment was a distraction, especially with the politically biased mainstream media reporting.
If you throw a punch, it forces the opponent to defend. They didn’t do that. Fear of what the press might say simply means you shouldn’t be in the job in the first place, as Republicans are NEVER going to get non-biased reporting. Let’s not pretend we’ve not gotten one excuse after another – parroting exactly the above Paul Ryan-styled rationalization – why they never got up and fought for anything.
That, in a nutshell, is why Trump won the nomination. Someone willing, for God’s sake, to fight.
Starting a fight you cannot hope to win is never smart… on the battlefield, in the bar, or in politics.
The Republican Party is useless.
TCE,
And the Democratic Party is hopelessly unethical (see for ex: Harry Reid) and tolerating of unethical behavior by its own as long as it is for the progressive agenda.
Your point on Republicans is taken though, but our Presidential elections are not multiple choices or fill-in-the-blank questions.
That said,
You have do have 4 choices on election day in November.
Vote for:
1. Clinton, a serial habitual liar without ethics to be our Chief Executive.
2. Trump, the blowhard with no experience.
3. Throw-away vote on Green whackjob or Libertarian pothead.
4. Stay home and drink to passout to alleviate the pain of 1-3 above.
Democrat Party = Socialists
Republican Party = Democratic Socialists (with some exceptions)
Neither party has the best interests of the people or nation at heart. It’s one of several reasons why both parties hate the clown (Trump).
As for the impeachment thing, joelobryan has it right. Obama wasn’t going to be removed from office by the Senate. It would have done more harm than good to impeach Obama and not remove him from office.
There is always a fifth option: Vote for 1, 2 or 3 and then go home and drink till you pass out to alleviate the pain.
The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump…..
democrats republicans…..same dog…different collar
IMO, the fact the ‘Establishment’ (RNC, DNC, Judiciary and Press) hates Trump is the best endorsement Trump (or any other candidate) could possibly get.
Lat,
Trump is the only choice if you still believe in our Constitutional process. Hillary with immunity from removal will be like Obama, a dictator. Trump will have to operate within ethical and constitutional boundaries or face removal.
“It’s NOT a tumor!” Well, okay, it IS a tumor, but it’s NOT a treaty. A treaty requires Senate ratification. Obama’s not even pretending any more. What a disaster this man has been for the US. I’d vote for Trump even if the ONLY difference was his opposition to climate change based socialism.
And does Al Gore regret not supporting impeachment of Bill Clinton? Gore would have become president had Clinton not finished his term.
It would have been political suicide for Gore to have supported Removal of Bill Clinton.
Gore had to operate within the confines of the Democratic Party, a party without ethics.
It is why Hilliary must not deviate from Obama’s agenda or legacy. She must campaign on the Obama 3rd term agenda. In the Democratic Party, one’s Loyalty to the politcal agenda overrides ethics and the rule of law.
Obama apparently believes the same thing as the Chinese, that his assent alone is needed. And Obama taught Constitutional Law?
TH, your indignation here is unfortunately misplaced. See following comment.
The article perpetuates a gross misconception about treaties. There are actually 3 types in the US Constitution as it has been interpreted over 225 years:
Ratification by 2/3 of senate is required under Thomas Jefferson’s 1805 definition: immutable forever except by mutual consent. That is a treaty per Article 2 section 2.2.
Then there are ‘pacts’ which require majority consent enabling legislation in both houses (TPP is an example). These are distinguished from treaties by containing a unilateral opt out clause; COP21 has such a clause.
Finally, there are mere Executive Agreements. The President can make these on his own in three areas: foreign policy (e.g. Recognition of governments/ambassadors), as Commander in Chief (arguably the Iran nuclear deal), and in his capacity as ‘CEO’ charged with faithfully executing the laws of the land. Obama is arguing that since COP21 is this last, and he is furthering the Clean Air Act. That CPP is likely unconstitutional throws a possible wrench into that view.
Vote wisely this November.
Not just treaties. Where he can’t get that horrible Congress to agree with him, he rules by an executive order. As he is a constitutional lawyer, all he pushes down our throats is undoubtedly in the spirit of the Constitution, as well as in its letter. I bet he will ratify COP21 using Method Three to a full satisfaction of our Chinese and Iranian friends.
With the precedents he’s set in NOT “faithfully executing the laws of the land,” it’d be hilarious for him to try and fall back on that.
If an agreement requires ratification with the head of state of another government, that seems to imply the agreement is actually a treaty… at least to my mind. Could a successful argument be made to that effect?
SMC, unfortunately not. What the other side does has zero bearing on what the US does. The three classifications are determined by just two things: wording (like opt out) and subject matter. COP21 has an opt out so is not a treaty and the subject matter is within the Clean Air Act as presently (arguably wrongly under Mass. v. EPA sue and settle nonsense) interpreted, so not a Pact. That gives Obama all the legal fig leaf he needs.
Late to this party, but I don’t know about the presence or absence of an ‘opt-out’ clause being a desideratum. Treaties historically can be junked if one side or the other deems them violated. They can also be abrogated unilaterally. I don’t know if that takes ⅔ of the Senate, as ratification does. Maybe you can elucidate.
/Mr Lynn
“The South China Morning Post reported on Thursday that U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping “are set to jointly announce their ratification” of the Paris Climate Treaty………”
I’m confused. I thought it was an agreement, not a treaty. ?????
Its an executive greement, not a treaty, for US legal purposes.
That sounds like somebody trying to split a very fine frog hair.
SMC, unfortunately that is what lawyers do for a living.
Lawyers…sigh 🙁
ristvan, thank you for your discussion.
What was all that discussion about the “individual commitments not being enforceable, therefore not a treaty?” I understand your argument, but this “opt out” is new to me.
My understanding is the politicos are relying on moral suasion to keep the “Executive Agreement” in place.
Dave Fair
Another couple of thoughts, ristvan:
What about provisions for ratcheting up “commitments” periodically?
What about obligations to include measures in national budgets to achieve commitments?
Well, Ristvan if not a treaty there isn’t anything for Obama to ratify, so why are they talking about ratification?
OK, late, I might try one more time. Oh heck, not. You aint got it by now, you never will.
A presidential executive agreement can be undone by the next president. This “agreement” is only good as long as Obama is president.
Well, all above, optics per Obama versus legal reality. That you have to disseminate.
It’s basically ruling by decree, a fond dream of the left — Maduro has it, and look how well Venezuela is doing. Ditto Castro and Kim Il Jong. What the three have in common is — food rationing
and often no food to ration
“China and US to ratify landmark Paris climate deal ahead of G20 summit, sources reveal”
Well. That should hold about as much relevance as a leaky bucket holds water. And in other news, Ketchup Kerry has medals!
“And Obama taught Constitutional Law?”
NO. He just showed up to say he was there, sorta like the way he is the un-CIC.
The Chinese just don’t get Democracy.
Oddly enough, neither does Obama.
I don’t consider that odd at all. Obama was brought up in a household headed by a communist leaning single mother, and in a household headed by communist leaning grandparents who found communist leaning mentors of a similar race for examples. That’s hardly any different than the Communist Chinese leaders.
Or Bernie!
They ‘get’ Democracy just fine. That’s why they are trying to destroy it.
Poor thing….trying so hard to find a legacy
..and constantly making it worse
Yup. Obamacare failing as insurance companies exit exchanges after losses. Trillions in new debt without any economic stimulus. Failure in Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, and Iran. CPP probably unconstitutional.
But on the bright side, his golf handicap is better because he stayed on Nantucket playing rather than going to the Louisiana floods like Trump but not Clinton.
what a trouper….
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-golf-la-575×251.jpg
His legacy as the first black US president is ensured by definition.
Otherwise his historical presidential legacy is failure, by his own unilateral executive actions. Unilateral rewriting laws and getting smackdowns from the judiciary, as Obama has incurred, is not the actions of a successful US president.
Successful Presidents are able to get a reluctant Congress to give him/her legislation that is favorable to the President’s broader agenda. Bushx2 and Reagan did it with Democrat controlled Congresses, Clinton did it with Newt Gingrich and Congressional Republicans.
Obama’s go-it-alone rule by fiat is the clear signature of a failed President.
…Correction, “His legacy as the first HALF black US president is ensured by definition.”
Maybe even the first foreign born half black president
History will not be kind to Obama. An example: A poll of Jordanians showed that 75 percent of Jordanians blamed Obama for the rise of the Islamic Terror Army. Fifty-percent of Iraqis blamed Obama for ISIS rise.
The only thing Obama has succeded in is trashing the U.S. Constitution. Everything else he has done has been a dismal, dangerous failure.
Ain’t that the truth. Obama’s legacy is the tale of Gilgamesh without any of the knowledge and wisdom gained at the end.
Who said this was a ‘treaty’?
Wasn’t the whole point of the event to come up with something that wasn’t a treaty?
I attended the Federal government’s national climate change action discussion (getting public input) in Kitchener last Thursday. It was attended by 500 of the tin hat faithful. The atmosphere was truly amazing – every major climate organisation was there with the big ones having stands including the one operating at the University of Waterloo that wants to bring the entire petroleum industry to a halt. The most interesting observation was that there were clearly two social groups present: those with a vested interest who knew they were fooling everyone in order to advance their agenda, and the group we lampoon as ‘sheeple’ who’s good intentions and limited understanding are exploited by those who ‘control the message’. It very much had a cult-like atmosphere which any hint of disagreement indicated that you needed just a little re-education and monitoring. The leadership/followership learning-how-to-think atmosphere was very much like a Scientology meeting.
The national Minister relevant was there with other national MPs with the introduction including the mention of Canada’s ‘obligations’ under the Paris Agreement. Even in that atmosphere, choked with ambition, angst and guilt, no one dared call it a ‘treaty’.
I sat in with the youth meeting to see what they were thinking. I found them well intentioned and very credulous. Thinking did not exit the box. My contribution was to point out that complex problems require consultation to solve. Consultation requires disciplined behaviour and skill. This is a necessary but abstract element of any complete solution, and is not a physical technology. Finding the truth requires keeping the door of knowledge open.
The essence of declarative treaties is that the problem is defined, solution known and the application of it is all that remains. I wonder how this joint declaration thing will look by 2020. Every indication is the cooling is going to be brutal.
but really in Beijing
I’ve no idea what you do for a living, but I am insanely jealous. You must have enough frequent flyer miles for a free trip to Mars.
Being top tier in an airline rewards program just means you have no life… Same thing goes with a hotel chain rewards program. Nothing to be jealous about.
just means you have no life
Oh I know that, I’ve been a road warrior. With as much sarcasm as one can muster, oh joy, my reward for living on airplanes for months at a time is to get a free trip on an airplane. sarc/off. But I mostly criss crossed north america, Crispin sees the whole freaking world. And if you work it right, you can slide personal days into a lot of business trips.
I’ve been around the world a few times. It’s mostly overrated IMO. Of course, I’m not usually traveling to the tourist destinations and seeing the nicer parts. Nor do I generally have the time to go see the nicer parts, even when I’m in the vicinity, and spend excessive amounts of money, that I can ill afford to spend, for a questionable cultural ROI… Hmmm, maybe all work and no play have made SMC a dull boy… 🙂
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
The Chinese are world leaders in making commitments to set targets to meet deadlines to implement agreements to take decisive action to fix a definite date to determine broad outlines for future meetings to come together multilaterally to make commitments to set targets to meet deadlines…
But you all know the rest.
I wish Australia would learn to spout all this claptrap while opening a shiny new coal power plant every week. Even the Germans do the hypocrisy thing much better than us dumb skippies.
No parliament should be able to bind its successor, but the left plan to bypass democratic rules by putting their policies into international treaties. Resist.
Meanwhile in other news, here in SF: Coolest August everrrrrrrrrrr (at least in terms of day time highs). Due to La Nina driven coastal stratus and on shore winds.
Is Al Gore visiting? 🙂
Mother Nature does not do politics. Thermalization explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
If it wasn’t for GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane, etc wouldn’t we be thermalized down towards Mars-like surface temps?
water vapor is the only ghg that has a significant effect on earth’s climate. And it is increasing. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
A treaty has the force of law, an agreement by only the President does not. And might be illegal as well.
Note the timing Sept 2nd. While the G-20 Summit is mentioned it has little to do with that. After the signing President Obama will have two full months to campaign for Hillary and other Dems. based on the need for a Progressive Democratic President and Senate to ratify the “treaty”. Also the need to have a progressive supreme court so that his policies cannot be over turned.
Make no mistake every Republican running will will be pressed to take a stand on this, and saying that CAGW is just a unproven theory is not going to cut it. They are going to have to shred to warmest arguments in 20 second sound bits. They will have to have to present plausible alternatives that the public can understand and believe. They will need the complete tool box of all available and reasonable possible causes.
The task republicans will face is to present to the public all of these alternatives especially if they are in credible peer reviewed journals. Oh and I mean publications that the specific audience considers credible.
The idea is to plant the seed of doubt in the minds of those who only hear the alarmist proclamations of doom.
Now how to go about doing this….
michael
“Make no mistake every Republican running will will be pressed to take a stand on this, and saying that CAGW is just a unproven theory is not going to cut it. They are going to have to shred to warmest arguments in 20 second sound bits. They will have to have to present plausible alternatives that the public can understand and believe. They will need the complete tool box of all available and reasonable possible causes.”
All the Republicans have to do is show the reporters and public a picture of the U.S. surface temperature chart and tell the folks that this chart is the true representation of the global temperatures, not the fake Hockey Stick chart the Alarmists use to try to scare everyone.
The U.S. temperature chart shows that the temperatures have been in a “long-term’ temperature *downtrend* since the 1930’s and before, and the temperatures are not shooting straight up like the bogus Hockey Stick charts show.
The true global surface temperature chart shows the temperatures have gone up a little in the past, and then down a little in the past, and now they have gone up a little again. Business as usual. Nothing to see here. No reason to panic.
I should add that the hybrid U.S./Global surface temperature chart I’m suggesting, should use the data from the satellites from 1979 to the present. That way we eliminate all those gyrations the Climate Change Gurus have introduced into the surface temperature record since 1998, to make it appear that each subsequent year is hotter than the last year, as a means of furthering their CAGW agenda.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-18-12-36-03.png
The blue line is the real global temperature profile. The blue line is in a downtrend.
And then we have the Bastardized Global surface temperature chart, the infamous Hockey Stick:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/graph-4.gif
The Hockey Stick is a false reality. The blue line profile in the other chart is the real global temperature profile. The Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, just before they conspired to change the official record to wipe out this high (see the Hockey Stick chart), so the blue line *has* to be the true global surface temperature profile. Unless the Climate Change Gurus were lying to themselves.
Where’s a climate reporter? I have something to say! 🙂
TA August 27, 2016 at 9:19 am
“All the Republicans have to do is show the reporters and public a picture of the U.S. surface temperature chart and tell the folks that this chart is the true representation of the global temperatures, not the fake Hockey Stick chart the Alarmists use to try to scare everyone.”
Once again I invoke Sales 101. Most people do not make decisions on facts, they make them on emotion and whats in it for me. You can tell them fact after fact after fact but without any emotional and economic tie they will not bite on the message. The CAGW side has been successful in selling the lie because of their methods. When will we learn.
Ipcc 1st scientific report found no agw, climategate email scandal, m mann s hockey stick , wind farms given license to kill by obama, no warming in 18 years, oceans not rising, …….dem ag s suing exxon,
The fact that huge effort was made to circumvent Constitutional processes in order to impose this agreement is more than troubling. It is nothing less than a trip flare going up. The enemy is in the wire.
There is currently an even more egregious treaty rewrite underway which poses an even greater threat to the nation. The UN Small Arms Treaty would place individual ownership of firearms under UN dictat, if implemented. That would trigger all alarm bells and sirens… the enemy has breached the gate… the balloon has gone up.
No matter the semantics. Whatever gets signed will never be enforced. The “agreement” is an attempt to bypass the constitutional duty of the senate. Any foreign agreements can only be ratified by the people via the senate. This action is another case where the US Supreme Court should immediately strike down any such presidential agreement. The powers of office of the president are strictly defined. This is one of most outrageous acts of many abuses of power by the current white house occupant, and should be met with overwhelming public reaction.
Unfortunately, if Hillary gets elected, the Supreme Court will be stacked with a super majority of liberal judges that will last at least 40 years…If you love America, you must vote Trump, no matter how painful it may be….The suffering Hillary will cause to the U.S. will be incurable !
The only pain I see is I want a president that will grab both parties by the short hairs and mop the floor with them…
+100000000000
“This action is another case where the US Supreme Court should immediately strike down any such presidential agreement. ”
And you expect a Supreme court stuffed with 3 Hillary appointees [to] do that? Anything Madam Hillary says will have force of law. Welcome to the new dawn.
Another aspect is if Trump gets elected, the Left will pester him to go along with Obama’s executive agreement. They will argue that if Trump does not go along, it will show that the U.S. cannot be trusted.
Trump should immediately rescind the agreement, which will send the proper message to the world: Don’t enter into agreements with rogue presidents who do not have the legal backing of the U.S. Constitution. Do so at you own peril in the future.
To ensure that you have a good agreement, make sure the U.S. president has the proper authority to make that agreement with you before entering into it. The U.S. laws are pretty clear. To everyone but Obama.
On a related note We could be heroes
Excellent link, clipe. You should post that in Tips and Notes.
That *was* a good link.
This is fair warning to the U.S. if we don’t want to have our own ‘energy poverty departments”.
There are real world consequences to believing in this false reality of CAGW. It’s hitting people where they live, and the alarmists and greens have just barely gotten started on this misbegotten endeavor of trying to reign in CO2, to the point of putting all of society in jeopardy from their unworkable “solutions”.
This leads to verse 96 of the Obama impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
I will sign the climate deal,
The Senate won’t dare to repeal!
Though they will both squirm and squeal
They will fold as soon as I say: Heel!
Here is the complete impeachment song: https://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/
Presidents #45 or #46 are completely free to tear-up and ignore any unratified “treaty” signed by #44. Same goes for the Iranian nuclear deal. Tear it up and stand with Israel.
Not if it’s ratified, which it might be if the Soviet-style national Dumpocraps retake the Senate by fair means or foul. And not if the next POTUS is the corrupt criminal, traitor and racketeer Clinton.
Gabby,
Ratification, like Removal of the president, requires a 2/3 affirmative vote. Quite unlikely.
With 51 Democrats, only 16 Republicans would be required. Maybe there wouldn’t be enough, but there are a lot of RINOs in the Senate.
Obama can make his token effort to beclown this “deal”, and then it can be flushed like a hot-mess the minute he leaves. Nothing about it is “enforceable”, nor is the US obliged to honor it, fund it, prepare for it, follow it in any way. This is a toothless kabuki-theater performance between one man and some other people. Ignore it until he leaves, then dispose of it.
++++ on flushing Obama down to the memory hole.
The old water conservation motto:
“If it’s yellow, let it mellow,
If it’s b[est trimmed, for prudence sake].”
So the GOP politicians are mellow? Or are they in the tank?
Darn you, mod 🙂
There was bumper sticker here in California to that effect. Unfortunately, “Fruitfly” Brown was reelected Governor on the coat-tails of Obama I.