China and US to ratify landmark Paris climate deal ahead of G20 summit, sources reveal

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?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 26, 2016 3:26 pm

…Obama is betting on Hillary winning so she can continue his outrageous abuse of the U.S. Constitution and systematic corruption of American laws…

Tom in Indy
Reply to  Marcus
August 27, 2016 6:35 am

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.

Reply to  Tom in Indy
August 27, 2016 7:37 am

This is why we must have an Article V Convention of States to stop this abusive federal government!

Reply to  Tom in Indy
August 27, 2016 8:10 am

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.

Reply to  Marcus
August 27, 2016 6:36 am

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.

Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 3:27 pm

Vintage Obama. Get it done fast, ram it down the people’s throats before anyone can stop you.
Will of the people? Ha.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:17 pm

Can’t voice your opinion when that of your President is rammed down your throat, can you? Chokes on you.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2016 6:24 am

Update: Obama’s [war] on Maine
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.

Reply to  john
August 27, 2016 6:27 am

Sorry, should be “Obama’s war on Maine”.

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
August 26, 2016 3:29 pm

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?

NW sage
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
August 26, 2016 3:42 pm

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!

Reply to  NW sage
August 26, 2016 5:20 pm

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.

Reply to  NW sage
August 26, 2016 5:32 pm

I think you have to invade Poland and France before invading Russia.

Reply to  NW sage
August 27, 2016 2:29 am

@smc….that’ll be easy, all the poles are elsewhere inEurope and the French love a good surrender :-O

Reply to  NW sage
August 27, 2016 3:51 am

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  NW sage
August 28, 2016 6:47 am

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.

Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
August 26, 2016 4:01 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 6:53 pm

I’m communicating with my Congress Critters about their taking the issue to SCOTUS.

August 26, 2016 3:35 pm

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).

Joel Snider
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 3:44 pm

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.

Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 3:52 pm

I’ll take the clown with a pair…….

Phil R
Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 4:01 pm

Clown seconded!

Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 5:21 pm

♪♫Send in the clowns…♪♫

Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 5:23 pm

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:

george e. smith
Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 7:07 pm

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.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 11:39 pm

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…

Reply to  Latitude
August 27, 2016 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. I’ve accused Gary Johnson of a lot of things but being a Libertarian is NOT one of them!

Reply to  Latitude
August 27, 2016 7:41 am

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.

Dale Muncie
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 7:28 pm


Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 11:02 pm

I’m an old bridge player . . ; ) and I don’t see him as a clown. He’s an American.

Leo Smith
Reply to  JohnKnight
August 26, 2016 11:18 pm

Some say the difference is ‘not significant’. ;’-)

Reply to  JohnKnight
August 27, 2016 5:22 am

George Soros? Angela Merkel? Michel Obama? ET? . . ; )

Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 7:23 am

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.

Reply to  Taphonomic
August 27, 2016 10:01 am

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.

tony mcleod
Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 10:01 pm

Fairy Godmother sounds like the pick of those.

Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 3:37 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 3:47 pm

The Republic is doomed.

Reply to  Gabro
August 26, 2016 4:23 pm

the republic died a long time ago

Reply to  Gabro
August 26, 2016 5:22 pm

To the sound of applause.

Reply to  Gabro
August 26, 2016 5:34 pm

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.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 4:05 am

The income tax and women’s suffrage destroyed the

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 3:47 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:00 pm

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:14 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:28 pm

Starting a fight you cannot hope to win is never smart… on the battlefield, in the bar, or in politics.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:31 pm

The Republican Party is useless.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 4:47 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 5:05 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 5:15 pm

The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump…..
democrats republicans…..same dog…different collar

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 5:21 pm

IMO, the fact the ‘Establishment’ (RNC, DNC, Judiciary and Press) hates Trump is the best endorsement Trump (or any other candidate) could possibly get.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2016 5:26 pm

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.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2016 9:55 am

“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.

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 5:29 pm

And does Al Gore regret not supporting impeachment of Bill Clinton? Gore would have become president had Clinton not finished his term.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mayor of Venus
August 26, 2016 6:01 pm

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.

Tom Halla
August 26, 2016 3:50 pm

Obama apparently believes the same thing as the Chinese, that his assent alone is needed. And Obama taught Constitutional Law?

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 26, 2016 4:02 pm

TH, your indignation here is unfortunately misplaced. See following comment.

August 26, 2016 3:55 pm

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.

Curious George
Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 4:48 pm

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.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 4:54 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 5:10 pm

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?

Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 5:31 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 28, 2016 8:22 pm

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

CD in Wisconsin
August 26, 2016 3:56 pm

“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. ?????

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 26, 2016 4:08 pm

Its an executive greement, not a treaty, for US legal purposes.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 5:12 pm

That sounds like somebody trying to split a very fine frog hair.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 5:32 pm

SMC, unfortunately that is what lawyers do for a living.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 6:29 pm

Lawyers…sigh 🙁

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 7:08 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 7:21 pm

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?

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 7:23 pm

Well, Ristvan if not a treaty there isn’t anything for Obama to ratify, so why are they talking about ratification?

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 8:38 pm

OK, late, I might try one more time. Oh heck, not. You aint got it by now, you never will.

Reply to  ristvan
August 27, 2016 8:34 am

A presidential executive agreement can be undone by the next president. This “agreement” is only good as long as Obama is president.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 26, 2016 8:16 pm

Well, all above, optics per Obama versus legal reality. That you have to disseminate.

August 26, 2016 3:57 pm

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

Reply to  luysii
August 26, 2016 4:26 pm

and often no food to ration

August 26, 2016 4:00 pm

“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.

Bruce Cobb
August 26, 2016 4:07 pm

The Chinese just don’t get Democracy.
Oddly enough, neither does Obama.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 26, 2016 6:07 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Johnson
August 27, 2016 6:55 am

Or Bernie!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 26, 2016 7:45 pm

They ‘get’ Democracy just fine. That’s why they are trying to destroy it.

August 26, 2016 4:09 pm

Poor thing….trying so hard to find a legacy
..and constantly making it worse

Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 4:17 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 4:27 pm

what a trouper….

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Latitude
August 26, 2016 4:26 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2016 5:02 pm

…Correction, “His legacy as the first HALF black US president is ensured by definition.”

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2016 6:01 pm

Maybe even the first foreign born half black president

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 27, 2016 8:44 am

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.

Kevin R.
Reply to  Latitude
August 27, 2016 6:13 pm

Ain’t that the truth. Obama’s legacy is the tale of Gilgamesh without any of the knowledge and wisdom gained at the end.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
August 26, 2016 4:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
August 26, 2016 5:09 pm

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.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 26, 2016 7:48 pm

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.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 26, 2016 8:13 pm

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.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 27, 2016 6:19 am

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… 🙂

August 26, 2016 4:36 pm

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

August 26, 2016 5:05 pm

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.

August 26, 2016 5:10 pm

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.

James at 48
August 26, 2016 5:12 pm

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.

Reply to  James at 48
August 26, 2016 5:17 pm

Is Al Gore visiting? 🙂

August 26, 2016 5:22 pm

Mother Nature does not do politics. Thermalization explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
August 27, 2016 10:09 pm

If it wasn’t for GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane, etc wouldn’t we be thermalized down towards Mars-like surface temps?

Reply to  tony mcleod
August 28, 2016 8:36 am

water vapor is the only ghg that has a significant effect on earth’s climate. And it is increasing.

August 26, 2016 5:22 pm

A treaty has the force of law, an agreement by only the President does not. And might be illegal as well.

Mike the Morlock
August 26, 2016 5:28 pm

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….

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
August 27, 2016 9:19 am

“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.
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:
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! 🙂

Tom in Florida
Reply to  TA
August 28, 2016 7:00 am

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.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
August 27, 2016 9:52 am

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,

Alan Robertson
August 26, 2016 5:49 pm

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.

August 26, 2016 5:50 pm

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.

Reply to  bw
August 26, 2016 6:15 pm

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 !

Reply to  Marcus
August 27, 2016 5:46 am

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…

Reply to  Marcus
August 27, 2016 9:55 am


Ian W
Reply to  bw
August 26, 2016 6:56 pm

“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.

Reply to  bw
August 27, 2016 10:07 am

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.

August 26, 2016 6:02 pm

On a related note We could be heroes

Reply to  clipe
August 27, 2016 6:15 am

Excellent link, clipe. You should post that in Tips and Notes.

Reply to  clipe
August 27, 2016 10:41 am

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”.

August 26, 2016 6:16 pm

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:

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  lenbilen
August 26, 2016 6:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 6:45 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 7:44 pm

Ratification, like Removal of the president, requires a 2/3 affirmative vote. Quite unlikely.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 7:53 pm

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.

Ipso Phakto
August 26, 2016 6:32 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Ipso Phakto
August 26, 2016 6:39 pm

++++ 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].”

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 6:48 pm

So the GOP politicians are mellow? Or are they in the tank?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 7:45 pm

Darn you, mod 🙂

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 26, 2016 8:18 pm

There was bumper sticker here in California to that effect. Unfortunately, “Fruitfly” Brown was reelected Governor on the coat-tails of Obama I.

August 26, 2016 6:50 pm

Wait a minute … the color brown doesn’t make it through moderation???
[What was pruned did not make it through moderation … .mod]

Reply to  BillK
August 26, 2016 7:14 pm

It wasn’t just the word brown… Despite the common usage in bathrooms, in the context of this thread it could easily be construed as a racist comment.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 8:27 pm

My personal view of all modern day Democrats is that they are Brown and desperately deserve to be flushed down due to their lack of ethics and tolerance of no-ethics within their party.
That view has zero to do with anyone’s skin color, and everything to do with what one sees in the toilet bowl after a satisfying #2. No racism needed what so ever. #ethicslessDemocrats

Leo Smith
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 11:26 pm

What? is any mention of colour in any context now racist?
Obama, is BLACK. Not Brown. Trump is WHITE, not yellow.
Black white brown red yellow. And of course Green.
All vile bigotry these days.
sheesh. This blog is sinking under the weight of its own inability to reject the modern politically correct cant.

Leo Smith
Reply to  BillK
August 26, 2016 11:22 pm

Oh dear. Is the prudery of Islamic state now the US cultural norm?

August 26, 2016 7:24 pm

This is all based on a story in the South China News, a newspaper. I seem to recall that a newspaper once published a story that wasn’t true…

Reply to  Ronald P Ginzler
August 26, 2016 7:39 pm

What?!? Are you trying to imply that journalists may not be entirely honest about the news they report? That journalists might ‘color’ their stories with their biases? That journalists may promote, nay advocate, issues they and/or their editors favor? I can’t believe you would insinuate such a thing!!! :))

August 26, 2016 7:51 pm

What is ratified by the President alone can be rescinded by the next president. Obama is counting on the next president being unwilling to rock the boat when it comes to an agreement with China and not wanting to risk their disfavor. He’s counting on the same thing with his Iran agreement. Of course, by the time the next president is in a position to do anything, Iran will have already received the billions they were promised. Who knows what he is promising to China. We may never know because secret side agreements are all the rage these days.

Reply to  Louis
August 26, 2016 8:00 pm

Our next president is likely going to have to fight a war with China…and Iran…and Russia

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 8:43 pm

SMC August 26, 2016 at 8:00 pm
I tend to agree with you on China and Iran. but I don’t think Russia wants bad relation with us. I think the present administration made a absolute mess of USA -Russian diplomacy.
One thing to bear in mind, Russia’s population is some where between 146,000,000-143,000,000
yes the population is declining. Considering we both have the same real enemies they probably want President Obama gone as much as us if not more. Also I suspect Hillary has already burned all the bridges with her accusations of the Russians hacking the DNC.
just my two cents worth

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  SMC
August 26, 2016 8:50 pm

Oh and SMC I am proud to say I voted for this guy twice and wish I could vote for another one like him. Maybe Mr Trump will be as good.


Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 5:30 am

It’s too bad Reagan isn’t alive and well today. Talk about a landslide election if he were…

Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 5:51 am

I think Russia, China and Iran have an under the table deal with the devil. If one starts the conflict, it won’t take long for the other two to pile on.
As for Hillary burning bridges with Russia, I don’t think so. I think the focus on Russian hacking is for domestic consumption. A way to distract her supporters by focusing on an external threat instead of DNC’s internal problems.
my 2 cents…

Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 11:06 am

I don’t think Russia wants a war with the U.S., but they will side with China in China’s territorial disputes, and China will do the same for Russia. Strength is the only thing that is going to keep either one of them from encroaching on their neighbors. It may not take a war, but it will certainly take strength and the enemy must know you are willing to use that strength if they cross a certain line.
Obama has seriously weakened the U.S. position in the world, to the point that even petty dictators like the Mad Mullahs of Iran are thumbing their nose at Obama. Next time the Iranian swiftboats come out to harrass a U.S. naval vessel, the U.S. ought to blow one of them out of the water, and my bet is there won’t be nearly as much of that going on in the future.
The next president will have to establish to the world that he is not another pacifist like Obama. That’s going to take tough talk, building up the U.S. military, and a willingness to take military action if necessary.
Bullies don’t stop pushing their envelope until someone puts a stop to it. With Obama, the bullies are now getting used to getting their way. The next U.S. president will have to show the bullies that there will be serious consequences to future bullying. The bullies may think the next president is like Obama, and the bullies may overstep as a result, so the next president wants to nip that thought in their minds, the bud, by projecting strength and determination.
And unfortunately, with Obama’s pacifism on display all this time, the next U.S. president will have to prove himself on the battlefield. Will have to prove to the world he is prepared to do battle, if that becomes necessary, because Obama has shown them a U.S. president who is not prepared to do battle.
That’s what bullies understand: Force. They will behave if they think you can hurt them. Except for the crazy ones, of course. Those, you really do have to hurt. Like the Islamic Terror Army and all the other murderous radical Islamists out there. There is no dealing with them. They die, or we die.
Fortunately for Trump, he can establish his military bonifides early in his term by launching a successful destruction of the Islamic Terror Army. It’s destruction is supported by the U.S. population, and our enemies can stand back and watch what a real army can do.
All Trump has to do is tell his generals he wants the Islamic Terror Army gone as soon as possible, and then put the plan in their capable hands. Give the U.S. military their heads, and they’ll knock out the Islamic Terror Army in a matter of months. Even with our current depleted military. Obama has had them handcuffed for the last eight years.

August 26, 2016 7:53 pm

Of course President Obama lied to Chinese President Xi Jinping!
One wouldn’t want Xi Jinping, or the Chinese people, to feel left out.

August 26, 2016 8:16 pm

The US won’t ratify anything before 9/2. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Ends.

August 26, 2016 8:23 pm

Hillary has every intent of adhering to this unconstitutional Paris TREATY, regardless of its legal and enforceability issues, and irrespective of its devastating economic consequences.
When have legal, ethical, logical, moral, and economic considerations ever held sway over Hillary’s corrupt actions? All of her actions have the express purposes of increasing her personal power, control and money.
Even if this unconstitutional TREATY makes it to SCOTUS, since she’ll appoint Scalia’s replacement (plus a possible 2 more if elected POTUS), there is NO doubt what the ruling be (see previous sentence)..
And so it goes….

August 26, 2016 9:08 pm

There’s really no chance the treaty will be ratified. That requires both houses of Congress. It won’t happen. I’m taking bets. I’ll give 20 to 1 against ratification.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Bartleby
August 26, 2016 9:13 pm

No, only the Senate by a two-thirds vote ratifies treaties. A majority vote in both houses would be required on the probably neccessary enforcing legislation.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 27, 2016 12:17 am

Yep, exactly. So this would be what we in the bleachers call a “non-event”.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 27, 2016 2:29 pm

The current senate is not the body which was originally designed by the Founders for the Republic to ratify things like treaties.
Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution (1787) said “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”
The 17th Amendment (1913, same year as the 16th Amendment – Income Tax, what a busy year!) modified Article 1 to read “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”
As Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention in 1787:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 28, 2016 6:27 am

Yirgach August 27, 2016 at 2:29 pm
Few people are aware of this. It is this Amendment alone that , in my opinion, did more to start the destruction of the Constitution than any other act in our history.

August 26, 2016 9:39 pm

Even the NSA can’t figure out what to do with China’s intercepted data.
Garbage out, garbage in.

August 26, 2016 10:05 pm

The USSA is dying. And the meeja is cheering.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 26, 2016 10:48 pm

“Climate Change” is not “Global Warming”
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy, Agrometeorologist
Weather & Climate: Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Weather & climate respectively refer to short-term & long-term events in the atmosphere. Averages and extremes in climate in terms of meteorological parameters such as temperature, precipitation, wind, relative humidity, etc for individual stations can be seen in normal books published by meteorological departments using 30 year period. Thus, temperature is only one parameter of weather and climate. Meteorological parameters do not act independently but they interact with each other in the atmosphere. Change in one parameter has an impact on the other parameters. They vary with climate system. The major components of climate system are the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the crystosphere, the land surface and the biosphere. General circulation patterns relating to wind systems are superposed on the climate system. These play vital role on local and regional weather and climate. Thus, weather and climate vary with space and time.
Climate Change: Changes in climate are not new. They were there in the past and will be there in the future. These are inbuilt variations in nature. However, with the increased interference of humans on nature, the natural variations are being modified at local and regional scales. The combination of these is known as climate change. However, climate change has turned in to political satire of “global warming and carbon credits”, which carry billions of dollars to share that is evident even from the 2015 Paris Agreement.
(A) Natural variability consists of (a) irregular variations that include intra-seasonal & intra-annual variations and (b) systematic variations expressed by fluctuations or cyclic variations of different durations. These are beyond human control and thus needs to adapt to them. That is exactly what our forefathers did in the case of water resources and agriculture.
(B) The man-induced variations have two parts. They are changes through (a) greenhouse effect and (b) non-greenhouse effect. The former has two components, namely (i) global warming since 1951 through anthropogenic greenhouse gases — Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuel use, and (ii) impact of aerosols from volcanic eruptions. The later is ecological changes associated with the changes in land & water use and cover, which are defined by (i) “urban-heat-island effect” and (ii) “rural-cold-island effect”.
Global Warming: The global average annual temperature is derived from the data series over land and ocean but they present non-uniform distribution with both space and time. Same is also the case with the Carbon Dioxide. Systematic measurements over oceans started only since 1990 and prior to that the ships used to take observations enroute. Contamination and covering with filth of the ocean waters steadily increasing. From 1973 onwards though satellites started measuring the data but officially the data is available since 1979. For the same period balloon data series are also available. As this data series showed lower annual average temperature over that of ground based measured data, this data was withdrawn from the internet. To show there is significant increase in global temperature due to global warming, some organizations that are maintaining the ground based data lowered the past data and raised the current data. With all these the past 20 years the trend showed a hiatus-pause.
In the global [land & ocean] temperature anomaly data series of 1880 to 2010, the trend component presented an increase of 0.6 oC per century. Over this trend superposed a 60-year cycle wherein the sine curve varied between – 0.3 oC to and 0.3 oC. According to IPCC from 1951 more than half of the global average temperature anomaly is associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases effect (B/a). Global warming is part of this (B/a/i). Even if we assume global warming component as 50%, the trend associated with it is only 0.3 oC per century. Even this is basically because of lowering the past data and rising current data. Also, the data is corrupted by having met network concentrated in urban areas and thus overemphasizing urban-heat-island effect and by having sparse met network in rural areas [which is more than twice that of urban areas] and thus underemphasizing rural-cold-island effect. This is not the case with satellite data.
Thus, so far the Global warming component is less than 0.15 oC only. It is insignificant when compared to intra-annual and intra-seasonal changes in temperature and thus has little impact on nature. The global warming component was attributed to cause sea level rise, ice melts, glaciers retreat, impact crop production, cause extreme weather events, rainfall-monsoon changes, etc, etc. There is no way we can we expect these with that meagre change in temperature.
Destruction of Nature: Nature is being destroyed by both natural disasters such as cyclonic activity, earthquakes, volcanic activity, tsunamis, etc; and activities to meet human greed such as wars, oil-gas-water extraction, physical destruction of ecologically sensitive zones & destruction of natural water flow systems, etc. Many a times such destruction and their associated changes in nature are attributed to global warming. The reality is quite different. Let me present few cases in this direction.
(i) Flood Disasters: Droughts and floods are common to India for that matter world over. Each year one part or the other in India experiences the floods and droughts. The severity of destruction changes with the time of the year, the terrain, with the population growth, and growth in infrastructure. However, with the violation of existing local, state and national laws the destruction is aggravated. This is the case with flood disasters in Uttarkhand in June 2013 and Jammu & Kashmir in 2014; November-December 2015 floods in Chennai in Tamil Nadu & Nellore in Andhra Pradesh; September 2000 floods in Hyderabad in Telangana. All these disasters are associated with the apathy of government agencies as they were unable to control the illegal construction activities along the river beds and converting rainwater channels, rivers, water bodies in to concrete jungle. Now governments are putting the blame on global warming as it cannot defend against such onslaught by politicians and bureaucrats to protect themselves for wrong doings.
(ii) Heat & Cold waves: Heat & cold waves are also common to certain parts of India in summer & winter in association with the Western Disturbances, part of General Circulation Pattern. The high pressure belt over Nagpur region defines the impact zones.
(iii) Himalayan Glaciers Melt: IPCC pronounced in its AR4 Report stating that the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035. Same way Al Gore concluded that Greenland will be ice free in five years. When we questioned UN Secretary General through a letter the veracity on such pronouncements in 2009, these conclusions were withdrawn but only after they received Noble Prize. Government informed to Indian Parliament after Paris meet in 2015 that 86.6% of 2181 of Himalayan Glaciers are not receding.
Natural Variability: Water is a natural resource, fundamental to life, livelihood, food security and sustainable development; it is also a scarce resource. India has more than 17.11% of the world’s population, but has only 4.6% of world’s water resources with 2.3% of world’s land area. Precipitation and snow melt provide the fresh water; though they are renewable, they are highly variable with space and time; climate change plays vital role in the year to year water availability over different parts of India.
At national level the variability of southwest monsoon precipitation [June to September] appears to be very low – coefficient of variation is 9.9% — but as we go smaller areas like state or met sub-division they are higher – Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema & Telangana sub-divisions, respectively they are 22.2%, 28.8% & 23.5%. The rainfall in July, August & September months over Telangana met sub-division vary highly between 25-50 mm and more than 400-425 mm in a month. This is the type of temporal variability we experience. In the case of special variation, the drought proneness reaches as high as 60% of the years in rain shadow zone of Western Ghats like Anantapur-Bellary-Sangly zone to zero percent in good rainfall zones. Without understanding these, people make statements like “unusually extreme”.
Destruction of Western Ghats and Himalayas, more particularly foot-hills, will have disastrous effect on climate, more particularly on precipitation. For example, with the removal of hillock in the Santacruz Airport for the expansion of runways, reduced the rainfall by about 300 mm; but subsequently with densely built tall structures all around brought the rainfall to more or less to the original condition.
Earth’s climate is dynamic and always changing through the natural cycle. What we are experiencing now is part of this system. All India Southwest monsoon precipitation, that constitutes 78% of the annual, since 1871 to date followed a 60-year cycle. By 1987, two cycles have been completed. The third cycle started in 1987 and will continue up to around 2046 in which the first 30 years form part of better rainfall period [this will end by 2016] and the next 30 years form part of poor rainfall period [starting from 2017]. The frequency of occurrence of floods in the northwestern Indian rivers followed this pattern. Hurricanes and Typhoons also follow this cyclic pattern but in opposite direction. Same is the case with ocean temperatures in Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
However, this is not applicable to individual states or regions. For example, Andhra Pradesh a southeastern part of Indian States receives rainfall not only in southwest monsoon season but also in the northeast monsoon season [October to December] and as well cyclonic storms in summer [pre-monsoon season, April-May]. Both the monsoons rainfall presents a 56-year cycle but in opposite pattern. The frequency of occurrence of cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal followed northeast monsoon 56-year cycle pattern. The annual rainfall presents 132 year cycle in which in the 66 year below the average cycle part [prior to 1935] present 12 years with excess rainfall [>110% of the average] and in 24 years with deficit rainfall [< 90% of the average]; in the 66-year above the average cycle part [from 1935 to 2000] present 24 years with excess rainfall and in 12 years with deficit rainfall. The current below the average part of 66 years cycle part will be similar to prior to 1935, started in 2001. Water availability in the Krishna River basin presents similar pattern in terms of surplus & deficit.
Agro-climate studies: This is exactly what the nations should be pondering upon.
Because of these scenarios, there is a need to carryout detailed agro-climate analysis at individual station level and region level to develop adaptive measures and as well development of water resources like interlinking of rivers, construction of dams and application of micro-irrigation, etc. In fact such analysis provides basic information such as drought proneness, sustainable growing period and sustainable period for planting.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor WMO/UN

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 27, 2016 2:18 am

I read your comment with great interest.( It deserves to have its own heading.) I am not a meteorologist but a statistician and marketer with a good understanding of agronomy and experience in crop marketing. As you would appreciate weather and climate at a local, national and international level come in to play when it comes to production, forecasting and especially export marketing. It seems to me that people in our industry know far more about climate than those driving the climate change agenda. Often we have the suited boffins addressing growers to tell us the latest climate change doomsday scenario, we listen politely, then get on with our business. There are a number of more experienced climate/computer companies around that now customise analysis of weather not only to a specific property and region but also analyse competitors by region to project possible seasonal crop failures, allowing longer term planning to fill a gap and take advantage of market demand. This is exciting stuff and it provides far more benefit to people and nations than the AGW political movement that is a huge and unnecessary cost to governments and their people.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  mem
August 27, 2016 7:00 am

“…it provides far more benefit to people and nations than the AGW political movement that is a huge and unnecessary cost to governments and theirpeople.”

Reply to  mem
August 28, 2016 6:40 pm

I suggest you take everything Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says with a grain of salt . . rather than the pound or two I recommend when listening to the CAGW gang ; )

August 26, 2016 11:09 pm

The Paris Agreement enter into force when at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the agreement.
So far, 23 parties have ratified.
It is interesting to see that almost all of the parties first to ratify are small island nations. I guess the rising sea levels are felt more directly as an existential threat there.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 27, 2016 3:25 am

Alternatively, the expectation of a tsunami of dollars heading their brings about a ‘let’s get this thing signed’ attitude.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 27, 2016 8:27 am

If I lived on one of islands, I’d see Yankee dollars coming my way. Of course I’d ratify it. What’s the down side? It’s not like they have some manufacturing plant that will have to close on account of it.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 27, 2016 10:54 am

“As of 23 August 2016, there are 180 signatories…. 23 States have also deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.”
So the 23 are those who expect to profit from COP21. The 157 who have yet to commit are likely to include those who expect to pay.

August 26, 2016 11:55 pm

The term ‘ratification’ used by the SCP author infers that the Paris Agreement is a legally binding treaty. The US position is that the Paris agreement does not fit that definition, therefore it doesn’t have to be ratified by the Senate. The formal process of ‘accepting’ or ‘approving’ the Paris Agreement can take the form of a presidential order or statement.

Reply to  DWR54
August 27, 2016 12:15 am

That should be ‘implies’ – not ‘infers’! ‘Causes one to infer…’ I mean.

Reply to  DWR54
August 27, 2016 5:35 am

Like that little unilateral war Obama has going against the People of the State of Maine?
Obama is pushing the TPP for his cronies, Especially his jobs czar at GE who just moved his HQ to Boston and thousands of jobs overseas. GE recently acquired Alstom and just got a $2 billion deal for Amtrak. They also went Enron on the offshore thingy.
GE Affiliate Keeps $476M Award Over Failed Wind Turbine Pact
GE Summons Enron’s Ghost as First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Rises
Alstom says wins $2 billion U.S. train deal
Ge acquires alstom
However, one of Obama’s other darlings, Abengoa/Iberdrola (Atlantica Yield), Spanish entities who received hundreds of millions in stimulus funds is going the way of SUNE.
The good governor of Maine once told POTUS where to go. In 3 part harmony, myself and the rest of Maine (and others) now are singing the tune. Long live Joshua Chamberlain and the regiment from Maine for freeing the folks that were being racially suppressed. You are welcome.

Johann Wundersamer
August 27, 2016 3:41 am

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.”
– don’t panic, Myron: barking isn’t biting, they’re just playing.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 28, 2016 6:21 am

The problem is that so many Americans with heads full of mush have no idea about the ratification process in the U.S. and they will just assume the President can do this.

August 27, 2016 5:14 am

No problem. We’ll enforce the treaty with the same care as China. Besides, China doesn’t have to do anything for 14 years. The US can pretend to be China and enforce the treaty in whatever way they want. China never considered any treaty binding. Why should the US, especially since it’s not legally binding as a treaty.

August 27, 2016 6:02 am

Bill Clinton, it should be remembered, did this same cowardly thing just before he left office by signing Kyoto

Harry Passfield
Reply to  hunter
August 27, 2016 7:11 am

And then, if my (UK) memory recalls, pardoned an awful lot of very questionable people. I wonder who Obama will pardon…

Pamela Gray
August 27, 2016 8:56 am

Trump: The incarnation of Bugs Bunny, that wrascally wrabbit. It may be a vote down the that wrabbit hole but it will be better to do down the hole with him than having to fight off the feds when they come to my house to confiscate whatever they have currently deemed unfit for humans to own.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
August 27, 2016 8:57 am

Fingers flying faster than brain is thinking. Typos too numerous to fix.

August 27, 2016 9:27 am

….afterwards there will be a coronation also.

August 27, 2016 10:05 am

Meanwhile the super weapons of WW3 are shaping up next door in NK with sub launched ballistic missiles and mobile launcher long range missiles on land. Enjoy the nuclear winter.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 27, 2016 11:48 am

North Korea, in and of itself, isn’t much of a threat. They can cause some significant damage and havoc in general but, the South Koreans would hand them their heads in short order. The real problem starts when North Korea begins losing and the Chinese jump into the fight. At that point, the US would jump in. It would then go nuclear very quickly. Russia and Iran would very likely take advantage of the situation and begin operation in their areas of interest. Russia in Europe and Iran in the Middle East.

Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 1:55 pm

You are out of date.

Reply to  SMC
August 27, 2016 3:54 pm

No, I’m not. The North Koreans, by themselves, are not a threat to the US. The can do some considerable damage to the South but, that’s about it. Their long range ballistic missiles, both land based and sub launched are not reliable. Nor do they, yet, have the ability to carry a nuclear warhead. The North does not need SLBM’s or long range land based missiles to attack South Korea. Also, their submarines are laughable. Their logistics are almost nonexistent. They are a one shot pistol, then they’re done. Things change when China jumps in. At that point, it becomes a whole different ball game.

Reply to  SMC
August 28, 2016 9:07 am

South Korea and much of east Asia are relying on the U.S. as an ally since they don’t possess any of these special weapons. That reliance is ultimately dangerous and explains the development of long range missiles by NK–to be a wedge between allies in choosing the west coast over allies. It will be like Ambassador Joseph Kennedy recommending to cut and run from Britain as a lost cause.

August 27, 2016 11:31 am

Redifining words is a trick the Left uses to confuse the issues. It’s deliberate. It’s like “politically correct”. Leftist thought is the only thing that is politically correct, but they don’t call it Leftist thought, they call it Mainstream thought, by using the “politically correct” description, thus giving it the appearance of general acceptance by the public, rather than limited to Leftist thought and acceptance.
The Left is on the march, and they have lots of tricks, not just word tricks, they use to further their agenda. It’s all written down in black and white, you just have to know where to look. They have a plan on how to undermine our society, and they are carrying it out, and are being successful at it.
We will find out after this election whether or not we are too late to stop the Left from gaining too much power over us. A scary thought, isn’t it. Anything looks better than that. Then there’s Trump. There are lots of signs that Trump, even with all his flaws (which are comparatively small), does have a movement going on. Let’s hope so for all our sakes. Won’t be long now.

August 27, 2016 11:43 am

Maximum Leader . I like that . Interesting to Google .

August 27, 2016 3:43 pm

President Barack Obama has no legal authority to ratify any Treaty of any kind ever.
If he is doing so then this is a high crime and treason.

August 27, 2016 8:19 pm

The Fonz jumped the shark. The Prez jumps the Whale.

Tom in Florida
August 28, 2016 6:18 am

“One of my undergrads, who is smart and motivated, thought that it meant the government putting money into one business or another. ”
The progressive belief is that the government owns everything. The government then allows people to have certain things and rights, a top down system. The statement above shows how the progressive’s agenda it to indoctrinate people into their beliefs. Of course, they only believe this when they are the ones on top.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 28, 2016 9:12 am

Yes and if you look at the party plank of tax increases and that of Bernie and other franchisees of the same planks it is based on scanning of assets out there to be tapped, not incentives to grow the tax base like in the old days. It is a zero sum mentality based on power plays.

August 30, 2016 2:43 pm

Executive decisions have consequences. This could be Obama’s Operation Blue Star.

Verified by MonsterInsights