COP22 Marrakesh Panic Over a Possible Trump Victory

Marrakesh - View from the Hill.

Marrakesh – View from the Hill. De Daniel CsörfölyTrabajo propio, CC BY-SA 3.0, Enlace

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The 20,000 strong inner core of the global climate movement, currently gathered in Marrakesh, is quietly panicking over the looming possibility that Trump will cut off most of their “US leadership”.

Prospect of ‘President Trump’ Casts Cloud Over COP 22 Climate Conference

Experts who spend their days plotting contingency plans to avert the effects of climate change are now confronted with another weighty scenario: what happens if Donald Trump wins the election.

A dark cloud is hanging over Marrakesh, Morocco, this week as climate experts and world leaders gather for their first major summit since signing a landmark deal in Paris last year to tackle climate change.

The COP 22 climate confab kicks off on Monday — just one day before the U.S. presidential election. And should Americans elect Republican Trump, an avowed climate change skeptic who has pledged to rip up the Paris agreement, experts worry that a slew of global accords could crumble.

U.S. leadership was critical in getting the Paris agreement across the finish line,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a think tank focused on the environment. “Many in Marrakesh will be watching very closely for the election outcome.”

Still there are safeguards in place that would preserve the U.S. government’s involvement in the Paris accord, with or without a Trump presidency.

The agreement has already been ratified and terms formally kicked in on Nov. 4. Parties involved with the agreement are now officially locked into the plan for the next four years — the exact span of the next U.S. president’s term.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prospect-president-trump-casts-cloud-over-cop-22-climate-conference-n677246

The rather shaky claim about US “ratification” and “safeguards” against US disengagement is intriguing.

If the Paris agreement was ratified by the USA, it certainly was not ratified by the US Federal Senate.

Perhaps there is a new amendment to the constitution which I am not aware of, which states that US Presidents have the power to bind the United States to international treaties, without review by other branches of government.

Advertisements

223 thoughts on “COP22 Marrakesh Panic Over a Possible Trump Victory

  1. The rest of the world may have ratified Paris Climate Rag but, unless the US Senate ratified it in a secret closed door session, it’s not worth the paper its printed on… In the USA.

    It sounds like the Watermelons are trying to declare victory, in order to convince everyone they have won, when in reality, they haven’t won a thing… Seems to be a common Watermelon mindset.

    • “It sounds like the Watermelons are trying to declare victory, in order to convince everyone they have won, when in reality, they haven’t won a thing… Seems to be a common Watermelon mindset.”

      Yes.

      • In preparation for the moral-superiority-posturing, virtue-signalling outraged ‘protests’ and ‘civil actions’ authorized by ‘social license’ when it’s not approved, of course.

      • The rather shaky claim about US “ratification”

        Well it’s not the “watermelons” who are having trouble sticking to the facts , it’s our Eric.

        I do not find anything in what he reproduced which claims that US has ratified the Paris agreement, so there’s not much point in getting all hot an bothered about people saying something they have not said.

        However, you will find this untrue claim being made on the Guardian’s site, despite my correspondence with them pointing out the error. They seem to think they can redefine what happens if they lie about it often enough. They apparently over-estimate their influence.

        Maybe they should just stick to reporting the news rather than trying to alter it to what they wish it was!

      • Greg, Obama says: “When you vote, you are a citizen” and “I accept, therefore it’s ratified”, or so …

    • You seem to think the US Constitution means what is written in it. Justice Roberts has some news for you.

      • If there is anyone who actually believes that the US Congress or its Politicians can not change their minds about signed agreements or Treaties …… then that someone should ask a few Native American Indians what they think bout it.

      • A Supreme Court decision upheld that the sitting President can revoke a signed treaty with the stroke of a pen, Congressional input not needed.

      • It says whatever rights the Constitution authorizes the government (Congress) to curtail ” In order to form a more perfect union ” WE the People retain ALL of our other rights under the Declaration of Independence per Article IX of the Bill of Rights.

        The Constitution doesn’t GIVE any rights. Of course not; we already declared for our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, so we got ’em all but we permit the gummint some leeway in some cases just to prevent anarchy.

        But after tomorrow, who knows who will stand up for the Constitution OR the Declaration of Independence which precedes it.

        G

        Lying to the Congress, as in ” If you like your plan, you can keep your plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” as Obummer lied blatantly to the people and also to the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obummer care based on his assertions.
        No Republican voted for anything in OB care, and nobody in the Congress even bothered to read any of the 2500 page document; and of course they probably wrote not one word of it.
        So Martha Stuart was jailed for lying to the FBI. I don’t believe she was ever charged or tried or convicted of insider trading; whether or not she committed that no-no.
        Lying to the Congress and the people and the media about an organized mohammedan Terrorist attack on a US consulate in Benghazi doesn’t rise to the level of a criminal act if you are Secretary of State, waiting for that 3Am phone ring.

  2. Oh, Noes!! Then they couldn’t fly to exotic places to talk about how bad Climate Change is!!!

    The Horror! The Horror!!!

  3. Wait,, didn’t Paris solve climate change? Why is there a COP 22? Oh ya, to keep the gravy train rolling…

  4. Their Panic will end in less than 48 hours.

    Here is the collection of forecasts for the election:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    The most optimistic for Trump Puts it at 2::1 against.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    I intend to spend Tuesday evening listening to my new CDs of Renaissance Lute music by Paul O’Dette. He is widely acknowledged to be the world’s best lutenist.

      • Walter Sobchak November 7, 2016 at 9:16 am

        … I abide events.

        You are The Dude.

        No matter what happens, the wrong person will win. I will be spending the evening with Scarlatti.

        Is anyone else worried about what will happen down ticket?

      • nope….I’m expecting an outbreak of terrorist attacks
        obviously even the muslim terrorists in this country have been told to not do anything to swing he election in Trump’s favor

      • Griff: Sadly, Mr. O’Dette is ignored by the mass culture.

        Lattitude: There will be terrorist attacks regardless of the American elections. The terrorists are unconcerned with the strange behavior of kufirs.

      • I will vote for the US Senate candidate of the state Republican party. I intend write the name of Evan McMullin in as a candidate for President, and Mindy Finn for Vice President.

        The O’Dette CDs are a substitute for listening to the blather fest on television and disturbing my tranquility. I will read a book concerning ancient history.

      • “I intend write the name of Evan McMullin in as a candidate for President, and Mindy Finn for Vice President.”

        You must be from Utah, Walter. If so, Trump will win Utah, at least according to the latest polls. If you are in Utah, and vote third party, you are really not taking a big chance on electing the most corrupt politican in U.S. history, Hillary Clinton as president. But I have to wonder what kind of mindset it is that would take a chance on turning our nation over to a Clinton Crime Syndicate, in a battleground state. How can they justify taking action, or inaction, that will amount to putting the equivalent of Chicago Ganster Al Capone in the White House? How can Trump be worse than that? What are you people thinking?

      • BTW, a female friend of mine, who has been a Hillary supporter all along, voted yesterday, and said she just couldn’t bring herself to vote for Hillary. I was a little bit shocked. I had not expected that. Maybe we will get lots of such pleasant surprises tomorrow.

      • I don’t live in Utah. I am not a Mormon. I plan to write in Mr. McMullen’s name as a protest against the major party candidates, both of who are far below the minimum qualifications in personal character to hold any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

      • I don’t know if I’d say Hillary is the most corrupt politician in U.S. history, if only because she wouldn’t be getting away with most of the things she has if Obama wasn’t covering for her and preventing her from being prosecuted.

      • TA writes:

        How can Trump be worse than that? What are you people thinking?

        And that’s the classic “devil you know…” problem. Hillary is so far away from individual freedom and liberty I’ll end up voting for someone that’s obviously a “player” just to keep a known player out of office. Sure, Trump is a wildcard, but we actually know Hillary is in it for the sole purpose of enriching herself. Trump has a little money, if he doesn’t make the White House he won’t starve. The same can be said of Hillary.

        But Trump made his money building things. Hillary made her money selling the US in pieces. It’s not that either has money, it’s about where it came from for me.

    • Yes, polls are showing a Clinton win by a narrow but sufficient margin. If we remember recent events, on the eve of the vote, polls also showed that Brexit would lose by a narrow but sufficient margin.

      • I agree Hillary will most likely win. Polls show a significant margin, Trump is toast. No help coming for him. If he’d only learned to curb his natural tendency to be honest, whatever the cost, he’d be a shoe in. But he just couldn’t stop talking about pussy…

        What was he thinking? I’d never do that. I can’t even type the word “pussy” without cringing a little bit. I’ve been bludgeoned into being politically correct for so many years it’s become second nature. I can’t even smoke a pipe 25′ from a store entrance anymore. It’s enough to give me hives.

        Does that make me a member of the persecuted class?

    • Well one thing that will come out of this election will be completely NEW definitions of Crime, and Perjury; and right out of the mouth of the head of the FBI; Comey or Comfey or something like that.

      He confirmed for us that FBI does stand for ” ** Bunch of Idiots; ” I never have figured out what the F stands for.

      We’ve come a long way from the T&V days of : ” The FBI; …In Color ; Starring Ephrem Zimbalist Junior.” His dad was a very famous Concert Volinist.

      Comfey or Comey or whoever probably plays the Kazoo !

      G

      Well at this point: ” What difference does it make ?? “

    • They did the same thing with Brexit. 6hours before the vote, you could get odds of 12 to 1 to remain. The odds were fixed to try and influence the voters.

      • Peter Oneil
        November 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm

        They did the same thing with Brexit. 6hours before the vote, you could get odds of 12 to 1 to remain. The odds were fixed to try and influence the voters.

        Don’t forget that in Britain there is a paper trail and complete recounts are possible until everyone is satisfied. Not so much with the electronic vote counting in many (most?) US election polling stations. If you want to check out the possibilities look up fraction magic.

        SteveT

    • Walter cites an article that says: “Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 38-yard field goal.

      Thanks Walter. As a former practicing member of the dark statistical arts, I thought this was both an appropriate way to express the probabilities and an entertaining one.

      +10

      • Not one I like though? Still, a very good way to communicate the probability. The double negative is a problem so you might want to work on that?

    • HAha, polls and predictions wrong again….wow, you folks who believe in socialist propaganda still haven’t learned a darn thing for 80 years….I hear that communism will succeed in the Soviet Union and that the Nazi party really is a cool movement in Germany…smh…

  5. The vermin are panicked…because someone might call the exterminator

    The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump

    • The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump

      It’s a great way to break down the problem. I agree. I don’t like Trump, I own a “Cthulu in 2016: This Time Vote For the Greater of Two Evils” t-shirt. There’s just no way I’ll be able to vote for anyone I think would represent me, but I sure know I won’t ever vote for Hillary. No way. Not happening. Ever.

  6. The USA has not legally ratified the Paris Agreement – as POTUS (silly name) declared it is an agreement which he can ratify, it should have no legal force in the USA. When the Senate ratifies it (IF?) then it will have legal force, perhaps!

    Australia has not ratified it yet. And on this evening’s TV, Senator Roberts said he had asked CSIRO staff at a press conference if given the temperature changes over the last 2000 years, was there any danger. Apparently the CSIRO spokesman said “No”. So there !

  7. UNFCCC definitions:

    US “leadership” = a big chunk of the money that bankrolls the climate scam.

    We can only hope that a slew of UN brokered accords will crumble, such as the HFC scam signed last month in Kigali.

  8. If US leadership was key, meaning without it there would be no agreement among the others, one wonders what is going on in the USA that provides such a bolster to the AG climate change hypothesis.

    Why does ‘truth’ need a leader? Why isn’t truth enough?

    If one looks at the history of religious movements, one of the clear indicators of truth is that the movement endures in spite of enormous opposition because the truth endures and base opposition melts away, dissolved in its contradictions.

    In the climate business, there is so much base behaviour that points to obvious underlying flaws, it is not tenable that a scam of this proportion can endure more than a few years. If its proponents had aspired to less than total control over the entire economy of the world and all its peoples, it might have had more of a chance, but total control attracts curious inspection. The science-priest class, appealed to as semi-divine in knowledge and character (“They wouldn’t lie to us!”) is chomping at the bit to implement their favourite ‘cure’ which inevitably includes a prominent position for themselves, often with a veto.

    The fear pervading the Moroccan meeting is not the presidency itself, it is that a loud voice can be raised forcing an examination of their endless, mindless, outrageous claims and wild-eyed prognostications of global doom. It means the greatest fear is that light will shine into their back rooms. When you are advocating something you really feel is true, you invite such illumined examination. When questions and investigation are shunned, it is an indication there is much to hide from prying eyes.

    • I don’t know. In 1843-1844, the Millerite movement predicted the end of the world, based on their Biblical interpretation. Naturally, they were a little disappointed. Most of them left.

      The few who didn’t founded the 7th Day Adventist Church. Global warming could be here a long time.

  9. This election is key for getting the EPA, the DOE, the Military, NOAA, NASA. etc… out of the muck of climate and back to where they are suppose to be: EPA(reasonable water, air and land pollution safeguards), DOE (facing the reality that nuclear, clean coal and NG are the future) Military (focus on the military and drop any climate bull) NOAA (real housecleaning and real research again) NASA (space duh…)

    • so those 5 agencies are researching and/or endorsing the science of climate change exactly why?

      I note the CIA also believes it is a real threat to international security…

      • Why?
        Money. Even if it was a coming ice age they would be doing the same. And of course you have fallen for it too.

      • Re international security.
        Future events will show that climate has little to do with it. The middle east will forever be a problem are more significant that anything else in the world.

      • endorsing the science of climate change exactly why?
        They were ordered to, by executive order from the POTUS.
        They are executive branch agencies, they are compelled by law to follow executive orders.

        On another note:
        CIA thinks “Climate Change” is a real threat?? Oh really?
        I wonder what the CIA thinks about huge amounts of classified info sitting on an unsecured mail server. Maybe they will never tell us because their opinion is classified information.

      • The CIA is not the effing stupid Griff. They do not believe it is an international threat. They believe the earth is greening and food production is increasing as a direct result of CO2 fertilization.

      • “so those 5 agencies are researching and/or endorsing the science of climate change exactly why?

        I note the CIA also believes it is a real threat to international security…”

        Griff, all those agencies do what the boss tells them to do. The Boss is President Obama. You give the impession that these agencies would, on their on violition, adopt these climate change policies.

        Without Obama pushing it, I doubt it. I definitely doubt the U.S. military would be doing anything with regard to CAGW. They have better things to do than chase Green pipe dreams and fantasies. They live in the real world, thank you very much.

      • TonyL has the correct response. As I have posted many, many times here on “The (New) Voice of the Free Press” or WUWT, it is the Executive Orders (EO’s) that force the direction of expenditures with the title of Sustainability within these government entities. No other reason.

        However, where executing the EO’s has caused expenditures of scarce annual program funding on projects with no tangible improvements in the stated missions of the branches of government – solely for the ‘feel good’ Sustainability mandates – is where this whole approach fails the taxpayer.

        In my humble opinion, most of the funding for Sustainability projects within the federal government of the USA could (and should) be discontinued.

        MCR

      • And one of NASA’s priorities became outreach to Muslims in the Middle East. So? They do as directed.

      • Both Napoleon’s army, and the Wehrmacht discovered the enormous benefits that extreme cold has militarily.

        G

    • Her name tag indicated that the lady’s name was USDA. It was everything I could do to keep my mouth shut. :-)

      • NASA sent a bunch of Pakistani kids to space camp. I guess that’s alright. I’m sure some Pakistani kids are interested in space, but I think the Pakistani government should have been the ones to pay the $500,000.00 cost of it. Then NASA could spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on sending U.S. kids to space camp, along with the Pakistani kids.

        Trump will probably want other nations to pay their own way when sending kids to Space Camp. I think that’s a good idea. I don’t see any reason why the American taxpayer should be funding Space Camp for nations that can fund it themselves.

  10. I think “US leadership” really means “US cash”. One sure way to eliminate global warming (or whatever it’s called today) is to cut off the flow money to the alarmists.

      • Trump needs a YUGE turnout for him (and us), to make up for all the cheating on the part of the Left. It’s a possibility.

      • He who counts the votes controls the result. Who controls all those electronic voting machines. ?

        How do you call for a recount of electronic “votes” ?

        The political establishment runs the voting process, the political establishment’s candidate will win.
        The trick is to have your thumb on the balance without leaning so heavily that it’s blatantly obvious to all who are watching that your are cheating.

        During Brexit vote they under-estimated the mood of the british people and did not lean hard enough.

  11. “Perhaps there is a new amendment to the constitution which I am not aware of, which states that US Presidents have the power to bind the United States to international treaties, without review by other branches of government.”

    No there was no such amendment. What we have is a government that doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the constitution. They do whatever they feel like. And they get away with it because the American people don’t give a rat’s rear end about the constitution either. In fact they know very little about the constitution. Want proof? Try this ;
    How many articles are there in the constitution? What do any of the articles deal with?

    The constitution defines our government and protects all of our rights. If we allow government to ignore it we could lose our entire representative form of government and all of our rights too. America could look like NAZI Germany part 2. And most people would not even know how it happened.

    • There are 7 articles. Article 1 deals with the legislative branch. Article 2 deals with the executive branc. Article 3 deals with the judicial branch. Article 4 deals with the relationship between the states. Article 5 deals with admendmending the constitution. Article 6 essentially says the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Article 7 is about ratification.

  12. One could think that people in Sweden can also vote in the presidential election in US, due to how media are reporting here. It’s basically a campaign for Hilarious Clinton … including mandatory smearing of Trump. Of course, the pseudo greens are afraid here too, what would happen if Trump wins the election.

    • Two things US viewers will not have seen is the BBC’s hack job on Trump every broadcast – one last week was ‘exposing’ some facts about how Trump’s grandfather made money in Canada in 1899. If that were to be applied to other presidents the fact that G Bush Sr’s father was selling as much steel to the Nazis as he could up to the moment the US government literally chained the doors of his NY office.

      The Donald’s grandfather? In the 19th century?

      The CBC on the other hand was a little closer to home, answering the question “How did Trump make his money?” As if that was a secret?

      They sure didn’t broach the question, “How did the Clinton’s make their money?”

      • The one of the candidates I would dare to meet in a dark alley at night, is Trump. The other one would most probably rob me or even worse …

      • Crispin,”If that were to be applied to other presidents the fact that G Bush Sr’s father was selling as much steel to the Nazis as he could up to the moment the US ”
        I was always told that it was Joe Kennedy that did the steel. Bush might have been selling oil or Pharma

      • asybot

        Really? My history of US presidential forefathers is obviously not up to scratch if that is the case. Kennedy Sr was known for smuggling hooch. I don’t think he traded steel. Can someone confirm?

      • “Crispin in Waterloo November 7, 2016 at 1:07 pm

        Kennedy Sr was known for smuggling hooch.”

        The Kennedy family fortune was indeed derived from smuggling hooch in the prohibition years. Just like Gore family wealth derived from oil/coal and tobacco, Al making lots from carbon credit scams.

    • The Left is in control of nearly all the news media outlets in the western world. They have one point of view, and one point of view only, whether it is in the U.S., or Europe, or DownUnder.

      • Yeah, everytime the ‘people’ ‘working’ within media here are asked about their political view, over 50% answer they vote for the ‘green’ party. Most of the rest for the socialists and some for the former (?) communist party (which is the only party here that has officially apologized for the their behaviour during the first half of the 20th century. Not the sister party of the German Labour Party [DAP/NSDAP] though …). Very few support liberals or any of the rest of the right wing parties.

  13. Trump is facing 3 to 1 odds against him. I’ll happily take those odds to level a blow against climate lunacy. When has there been a better chance?

    • China is merely to do what is best for China, and part of that is the pretense that they are “going along” with the climate sham. Because they think we’re stupid, and will decide “gee, I guess we should go along with it too.”

      • “Because they think we’re stupid, and will decide “gee, I guess we should go along with it too.”

        That’s right, and if the Left is in charge of things in the U.S., the Chinese would be correct in thinking our Leftist leaders are stupid, and will have an urge to go along. That’s exactly what our stupid Leftist leaders would do.

      • And one of the reasons why China is so keen to aggressively annexe swathes of the South China sea by building on remote coral reefs, is because many people hope there may be very large oil or gas deposits to be mined there. The Chinese government will continue doing this whether Clinton wins or whether Trump wins.

        Per the Paris climate-twaddle agreement, China has agreed to carry on increasing Chinese fossil fuel use until they don’t want or need to increase it further. This is the reality.

      • mh: No, China is “building on remote coral reefs” because they are firmly convinced that the sea level will rise up to 20 feet by 2100. Has nothing to do with possession of vast deposits of nasty “fossil fuels”. /s

    • The info at the link basically says:
      China is currently churning out huge amounts of CO2. In 5 years time they really, really promise to produce a little less of the gargantuan amount they currently produce.
      Thankfully, they’ll still be producing huge amounts of plant food.

      The Chinese are just stringing along the gullible greens (Griff) and taking them for the fools they are, flogging them worthless windmills and sun-catchers.

      BTW “Fighting climate change”. Ho ho! Fighting natural cycles is like trying to paint the sky.

      • China is currently churning out huge amounts of CO2. In 5 years time they really, really promise to produce a little less of the gargantuan amount they currently produce.

        NO THEY DIDN’T. They said they would produce more goods and more CO2 but slightly more efficiently. Like of all the alarmists who gleefully think China are now on side, they are just saying they will be more efficient, which makes great economic sense, They will also shut down a lot of crappy polluting ( real type pollution ) coal-fired power stations that are making their air unbreathable. We will probably be paying them “carbon credits” to do it as well.

        Why shouldn’t they agree. It’s win-win for them and lose-lose for the West. Nothing to do with climate.

      • Trump is pretty poorly informed about all this, claiming it is chinese hoax. They were probably the last ones to start playing the game and should be thanked by the rest of the world for scuppering COP21.

      • “Trump is pretty poorly informed about all this, claiming it is chinese hoax.”

        Greg, it was a JOKE. I guess Trump needs a /sarc sign he can hold up for the benefit of the confused, so they know when he is joking or not.

      • What he probably heard and/or knows is that China gives global warming mitigation lip service to America’s detriment since for all intents and purposes, its exempt or otherwise will never comply. Saying it was invented by them, while technically incorrect, is motivationally the same and easier to convey as an allegorical comment.

    • So the Chinese will continue to pretend to abide by their international agreements, and expect us to continue to pretend that we believe them?

      • Paul Penrose
        November 7, 2016 at 9:40 am

        So the Chinese will continue to pretend to abide by their international agreements, and expect us to continue to pretend that we believe them?

        They don’t need to pretend anything. As I understand it, the Paris agreement allows them to continue as they see fit until 2030 and then they have promised to review where to go from there ( in the meantime they can make voluntary and meaningless plans to make some emissions reductions, or not – as long as they are reviewed every five years). That is the total of their commitment.

        SteveT

    • Griff, have you figured out how the climate is actually changing that has you so concerned? What do you hope the Paris accords and this dog and pony show in Marrakesh will accomplish?

    • Maybe someday, Griff will explain to us, at what point in the history of the Earth was the climate NOT changing…

      • “at what point in the history of the Earth was the climate NOT changing”

        Now *there* is a good question. I would like to hear the answer to it myself.

        That’s sounds like a question Trump ought to ask during the upcoming climate change debate. :)

    • “…According to the plan, by 2020, the level of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be 18 percent lower than in 2015….”

      GDP growth over the same period: 40% 15% increase in CO2 emissions (not that it wold have any negative effect on climate)

    • China aims for 20% “renewable”

      They are currently above that. :-)

      Poor Griff can’t comprehend this.

    • I am always puzzled as to whether you are a paid troll., or actually believe the bunk you spout, griff.

      • Either way he seems pretty successful , about half the comments here take him seriously enough to be talking about him or replying to him.

        If he is not a paid troll, he should probably start looking around for sponsorship.

        There’s a very well organised, multimillion dollar industry of natural climate changes deniers out there.

      • Either way he seems pretty successful , about half the comments here take him seriously enough to be talking about him or replying to him.

        If he is not a paid troll, he should probably start looking around for sponsorship.

        There’s a very well organised, multimillion dollar industry of natural climate changes denyerz out there.

    • India and China alone plan to build 1617 new coal power plants by 2030. Indonesia intends building 47.
      Between 50 and 86 new coal plants are planned for Turkey in the next few years.
      Japan and South Korea are pressing ahead with plans to open at least 60 new coal-fired power plants over the next 10 years.

      New coal-fired plants have been proposed in
      Germany, France, Italy, Slovakia, and the UK,
      Cambodia, Laos, Oman, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan.
      Dominican Republic, Guatemala,
      Morocco, Namibia, Senegal,

      So DON’T PANIC, Griff.. there will be PLENTY of atmospheric CO2 for all the world.

      Sure, the climate change AGENDA may bring down the living standards in the developed countries foolish enough to follow the scam… but the developing countries will more than pick up the global supply of CO2. :-)

      And, assuming that you are in one of those developed countries, that means that YOUR living standards will take the hit. And the lower-end, like you, will suffer the most. The big end of town will hardly feel a thing, except to watch as their wallets expand at YOUR expense.

  14. There are no climate “experts”. Those so-called all believe that every square meter of the Earth puts out more energy per unit time (390 W/m^2) than the planet receives from the Sun (342 W/m^2). That includes the “lukewarmers” like Watts and Monckton, not just the alarmists. How can you expect sanity from political ideologues armed with such “experts”, and a “climate debate” that does not even notice that gross violation of the conservation of energy, which prevents any intelligent discussion at all? This generation–including all here–is incompetent. Period.

    [“all here–is incompetent” then do shut up and don’t visit again if that’s how you feel – Anthony]

    • @ Harry, The earth radiates the excess heat, just ask Al Gore he told us that the Earth is “Millions and Millions of degrees” below the mantle. That heat has to go somewhere right?

    • harry, you really need to get past first grade thermodynamics before posting. You are less likely to embarrass yourself that way.
      Yes, at the top of the atmosphere the earth will always radiate the same amount of energy as it gets from the sun.
      The question, how hot does the surface have to get in order to radiate that much energy through the insulator known as the atmosphere.

      • “The question, how hot does the surface have to get in order to radiate that much energy through the insulator known as the atmosphere.”

        And the atmosphere is a very poor insulator. From a spectral perspective, its like a blanket with holes equal in area to what remains of the blanket. The real question is that if the surface emits about 390 W/m^2 consequential to it’s temperature, and does so with only 240 W/m^2 of solar input (after reflection), for a total ‘gain’ of 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing, how does the next W/m^2 of forcing result in 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions in order to achieve the claimed temperature rise of 0.8C? Making this claim even more absurd is that owing to the requirements of the T^4 relationship between temperature and power density, the sensitivity for the next W/m^2 of forcing must be less than that for all the W/m^2 that preceded.

        Consider that for the first W/m^2 of forcing, increasing total input from 0 W/m^2 to 1 W/m^2, the temperature will increase from 0C to about 65C for a sensitivity of 65C per W/m^2. From 1 W/m^2 of total input to 2 W/m^2, the temperature will increase to about 77C for a sensitivity of 12C per W/m^2. By the time we get to 90 W/m^2, the temperature is up to about 200K where the 90’th W/m^2 of forcing had a sensitivity of less than 0.6 K W/m^2 which was slightly less than the average when there was only 89 W/m^2 of total input power. Already we are at a sensitivity less than the 0.8C per W/m^2 claimed as the nominal sensitivity at the current average temperature.

        Even if we consider a nonsensical linear sensitivity from 200K up to the current temperature of 288K as the input is increased from 90 W/m^2 up to 239 W/m^2, the sensitivity becomes 88K per 129 W/m^2 or 0.68 C per W/m^2 and again, is below the stated mean. Clearly, the T^4 relationship continues above 200K regardless of feedback or any other concerns, thus the sensitivity must be less than 0.68K and in fact must be far less.

      • “Could you please state in two simple sentences what you tried ti elaborate in your reply?”

        Consensus climate science can not connect the dots between the sensitivity an ideal black body at 200K and the sensitivity that they claim. Below 200K, the Earth is effectively an ideal BB since the relevant GHG’s (except ozone) will not be in gaseous form.

        In simpler terms, consensus climate science fails to acknowledge the role of the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW relative to the sensitivity, where from a math and physics point of view, the sensitivity is the slope of the Stefan-Boltzmann curve and no amount of feedback, or anything else for that matter, can change the basic 1/T^3 dependence of the sensitivity to temperature.

  15. “” IF “” the pay to play team wins the vote ?? not for long, if one observes the Clinton costumes , the front view is the $12,999 one, but the back, when she is climbing stairs, shows an outline of legs the size of elephants,

  16. The Guardian goes all in. Trump as president spells climate doom!

    Clinton, Trump and foreign policy: global conflicts await the next president
    Trump’s anti-trade isolationism and Clinton’s Obama-esque policies diverge in how they would approach North Korea’s nuclear weapons or Isis in Syria and Iraq
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/07/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-north-korea-syria-russia-china

    UN climate talks open under shadow of US elections
    Marrakech summit buoyed by gathering momentum but threatened by the possibility of climate change (D-word) Donald Trump entering the White House
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/un-climate-talks-open-under-shadow-of-us-elections-marrakech-summit

    President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again (By Nuccitelli)
    From science denial to xenophobia to misogyny, Trump brings out the worst in Americans, and wants to reverse 50 years of progress
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/nov/07/president-trump-would-make-america-deplorable-again

    • “President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again (By Nuccitelli)
      From science denial to xenophobia to misogyny, Trump brings out the worst in Americans, and wants to reverse 50 years of progress”

      Trump wants to reverse the 50 years of “progress” made by the radical Left in taking over the country. That’s what they don’t like about Trump. He will burst their delusional bubble, at least for a little while, and he will remove their control, which is the really important thing Trump will do.

      The Left doesn’t like losing their power. They can get downright nasty about it.

      • Speaking as a woman, I find Mr. Trump’s “science denial” to be about on a par with his “misogyny”. Someone above said that of the two candidates he’d rather meet in a dark alley, he’d rather meet Trump. Again, speaking as a woman — ditto.

  17. the real reason to visit Marrakesh is to hang out at the market and eat fabulous carbonized carbohydrates and proteins at the largest daily bbq on the planet …

    • Looking at the world
      Through the sunset in your eyes
      Trying to make the train
      To clear Moroccan skies
      Bugs and pigs and chicken call
      Animal carpet wall to wall
      American man is five foot tall

    • Yes i have been there (in Marrakesh) long time ago in a journey in a VW T2 Microbus from Germany, and it was the second best journey of my life. (The best one was staying in Tanzania with my wife and five cildren for seven years – with a VW Beetle and a T4 Microbus.)

    • “largest daily bbq on the planet”
      Ok, I don’t know anything about this Marrakesh place, but now you’ve got this Texan’s attention. So, what kind of BBQ do they have?

  18. The howling, moaning, and groaning from the Climate bedwetters would be delicious if Trump were to win. Not holding my breath though. He needs Florida, and that’s looking iffy with the Latino vote most likely overwhelmingly going for Clinton.

    • Here we go! :)

      FLORIDA SHOCK: TRUMP OUTPERFORMS ROMNEY BY 130,000 IN EARLY VOTING!

      Mon Nov 07 2016 12:03:12 ET
      **World Exclusive**

      Data obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT shows presidential underdog Donald Trump outperforming Republican 2012 election results in Florida.

      Mitt Romney went into Election Day down 161,000 in absentee ballots and early voting. He ended up losing the state by 74,000.

      This time, in a dramatic surprise twist, Trump is only down 32,500! And Republicans tend to outvote Democrats on Election Day in Florida.

      EDITOR’S NOTE: A late poll showed Trump nearing 50% in the sunshine state.

      Developing…

      • TA, votes are not counted until the polls are closed. Please don’t confuse the number of people registered with a particular party showing up to vote, as voting for the candidate of that party.

      • HENRY, the post in question is referencing absentee ballots. While we don’t know how the people involved have voted, we can check the voter registration of those who have sent in absentee ballots.
        What the article says is that there are a lot more absentee ballots from Republican registered voters than there was 4 years ago.

  19. The scientific method has been under assault since politics started to meddle with climate science and the IPCC was formed consequential to a fear sparked by misinterpreting ice core data, bolstered by an ignorantly crafted narrative driven by precaution against a scary future that first principles physics precludes from happening. What should be far more concerning to any sane scientist is that if Clinton wins, the scientific method will finally die a horrible death, the precedent will be cast in stone and science going forward will preferentially adhere to a narrative, rather than reality. Owing to the damage done by the Obama administration which will be perpetuated and made far worse by Clinton, the progressive left will succeed in their quest to revert science back to the middle ages, just as the Islamic terrorists want to do to civilization itself. It’s hard to tell which is worse, both are self destructive, ignorantly justified and the only way to get the people affected to cooperate is by lies, delusion and force.

    • “Owing to the damage done by the Obama administration which will be perpetuated and made far worse by Clinton, the progressive left will succeed in their quest to revert science back to the middle ages, just as the Islamic terrorists want to do to civilization itself. It’s hard to tell which is worse, both are self destructive, ignorantly justified and the only way to get the people affected to cooperate is by lies, delusion and force.”

      If the Radical Left takes over, that means western civilization is finished because the Left will not oppose the infiltration of Radical Islam into Western societies, and in doing so will sow the seeds of the West’s own destruction.

      Europe is on the brink just for this reason and just because the European radical Left has turned a blind eye to the dangers they face with this uncontrolled islamic immigration.

      I pray the people of Europe wake up soon. It sounds like they are starting to take their situation seriously, unlike their politicians, but the momentum in not yet in their favor.

      A Trump election will help these things. It will provide a counterargument to the radical Left’s view of things, and strenthen the voices on the right in countries around the world.

      We need to take the world back from the Radical Left. Their failed ideology has brought us to the brink of destruction. We need to pull out of the dive the Radical Left has put us in, and level out.

      • TA,
        It’s not the radical left, but the main stream left that has been taken over by a self destructive and counter productive progressive ideology of evil wrapped in benevolence. The bait is to make people feel good about themselves by always choosing the path that will win the most favor with their target voters, truth or financial consequences be damned and then, they get their target voters dependent on them at the expense of everyone else. This is the evil behind open borders, regulatory hell, obscene taxation without adequate representation, the decay of the inner cities, globalization to the detriment of America and more, all for the purpose of providing the illusion of benevolence so that they can maintain their grip on power. If the American voters don’t wake up, it really won’t matter what happens in Europe, Obama’s transformation will be completed and we will all suffer the consequences as America’s fall into irrelevancy and then decay becomes irreversible.

  20. Trump says that he will put America baqck to work and expand the economy at over 4% a year. That sound s good for the economy doesn’t it. The stock market should really love him. Well, at 1:13PM EST, the stock market is now pricing in the prospect of a Trump defeat. it is up 345 points or 1.93% on the day. Trump’s surge last week sent the market down.

    it seems that the stock market can detect an ignorant blowhard who stiffs his suppliers and knows what this halfwit would do to the national and world economies.

    • The stock market goes up. The stock market goes down. A 345 point swing? Meh, who cares, seen it before, we’ll see it again. Besides, the DJIA has been, essentially, flat since April.

    • …The “stock Market” wants a Clinton win, not a Trump win…The only thing that improved under Obama was the stock market and Hillary will continue Obama policies that are only good for the rich elite…

    • Well, inflated prices of many things (including stocks) may go down when the insane fiscal policies of zero interest rate and endless quantitative easing are terminated.

      • Trump’s plan is to have massive tax cuts and to increase spending. That is to push massive amounts of money into the economy. That is to the same effect as quantitative easing.

      • As opposed to Hillary’s plan which will put people out of work, businesses out of business, increase taxes on the middle class, increase the cost of energy (and subsequently everything else) and increase spending.

      • Wall Street only loves money. if they thought that Trump could expand the US national economy at over 4% a year, they would truly love him and the markets would soar. Don’t get between an investment banker and a nickel that someone has dropped on the street.

        However, they see that this fool’s economic and tax “plan” requires growth of that magnitude to prevent it from causing accumulated deficits of over 10 trillion dollars. That is 10^13 dollars that this blowhard would add to the national debt. The magnitude of harm that the election of this loud mouthed ignoramus would do cannot be over estimated.

      • “The magnitude of harm that the election of this loud mouthed ignoramus would do cannot be over estimated.”

        I think you just did. Over estimate it, I mean.

      • You need to know that the expert traders are set up to go long or short. With Hillary, they will go short and because there are a lot less “shorters” and it is a zero sum game, those in the right position will make most of the money.

    • There are thousands of things that impact the value of the stock market.
      Only a fool tries to assign a single motive to the market.

  21. Here are the three false assumptions which Griff and other believers in this world foolishly embrace:

    (1) That science is incapable of being corrupted by money and politics. When government and science climb into the same bed, it is extremely foolish and naieve to believe that this is not possible. The U.N. and its UNFCC and national govts everywhere all in the same bed here abusing science for financial and political activist ends.

    (2) That a so-called “consensus” in science (and everywhere else), if and when there is one, is incapable of being wrong. If my understanding of some science history here is correct, this is not always true. For many years, medical science believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and anxiety. If I recall correctly, it became known some time back that a bacteria can be responsible for ulcers.

    Is it also not true that, for many years, science believed that the Earth’s tectonic plates did not move? Are we now aware that they do indeed move very slowly? If these two examples from science history are indeed true, then by no means should we believe in the correctness of so-called “consensus”.

    (3) That individuals like Griff are incapable of believing in the wrong people…which I suppose ties back to (2) above. This, in my opinion, is a flaw in human thinking and psychology. When we hear someone saying things that are consistent with what we need and want to believe, then that person presumably is incapable of being wrong in our minds. It’s as much an emotional thing as it is anything else. This is the power that underlies all religious cults. The contrary, falsifying evidence that runs against the grain of the accepted belief system is then rejected or downplayed for emotional reasons if for no other ones. A religious belief system can be mistaken for and falsely treated as science or something resembling it. That point has been made here many times at WUWT.

    Griff’s inability to understand any of the above demonstrates that he still has quite a bit to learn from life. It leaves one wondering if individuals like him ever will learn these lessons from life.

    • ……sorry, misspelled naive. Is it also not true that, for many decades, Pluto was accepted in astronomy as a full-fledged planet? I myself recall being told that is was in grade school. Was its downgrading to the status of a dwarf-planet not due to a better understanding of its nature after many decades? Again, if this is true, then should scientific “consensus” be the basis for decision-making, whether it is about climate change or anything else?

      • Pluto’s downgrading had more to do with the fact that we were beginning to find a number of similar sized objects at similar distances from the sun.
        We were either going to have to live with a rapidly growing number of planets, or redefine the definition of “planet” to exclude Pluto like objects.

  22. Don’t worry. Your $100 billion drawing rights on U.S. citizens is secure, along with many others. We’ll take it from their kids if necessary.

  23. The ‘finish line’ for Paris is NOT Obama’s signature. It is US Senate ratification – and it still hasn’t gotten there yet. Trump will make sure it never will.

    • You are incorrect about the first statement. There are three levels of international agreements. The firstmis a true treaty, defined by Jefferson as eternally binding save by mutual agreement. That requires senate ratification. Second is a pact, which requires simple majority enabling legislation in both houses. TPP is a pact. Pacts must have unilateral opt out clauses. Third is an executive agreement, signable by the president under three narrow and specific circumstances: his responibilities in foreign policy (e.g. Recognizing countries and ambassadors), as commander in chief (e.g. Agreeing to a foreign NATO head), and persuant to hismobligations to faithfully uphold the law. COP22 is this last, the argument being the Clean Air Act.
      Means nothing, because Trump can remove all funding and exercize the opt out on Jan 22.

  24. The confabs are always in places I would like to visit on other peoples money. But we already know about that don’t we.

    The US is slouching into these agreements much like our lack of immigration law enforcement. There is a consensus at the top and if the people don’t agree they just “let it happen” Republican Senator Charles Grassley if Iowa is a good example of this. Nominally a powerful member of a party that does not favor alternative energy mandates; Chuck gets nuts if you try to end the wind subsidy.

    All those useless Easter Island like giants scarring the Iowa countryside spin off money to the FOX (friends of Chuck). So the game is rigged.

  25. It’s true that countries are “locked in” to the agreement for four years. But at any time after three years in force for a party, the party may resign on a year’s notice. In the meantime there’s no requirement on a party to make any actual reductions in its emissions. The Paris treaty is a piece of fluff because countries have such widely differing aims and views they couldn’t agree on breakfast.

  26. they couldn’t agree on breakfast.>?i>
    Smoked peppered mackerel, marmalade on hot buttered Ciabatta toast, and some filtered Kenya please, white no sugar.

  27. He probably won’t win. The GOP put up / allowed a completely lame candidate. Anyone who’s not some sort of cultish follower could see that from the get go. It’s really sad. Anyone besides Trump would have wiped out Clinton. Hopefully next time around the GOP will ignore bigots, truthers, Nazis, tin foilers and all the other fiends. There are still real conservatives out here who are not monsters or loons. And most of us know Russia is still an enemy.

    • …And yet he gets 25,000 at his rallies almost every time in every state…Hillary is lucky when she gets 3,000 and Caine gets 300 !! That is a lot of “monsters and loons” in every state !!

    • James wrote: “He probably won’t win. The GOP put up / allowed a completely lame candidate.”

      The establishment GOP fought Trump all the way. They are still fighting Trump. Trump is still standing.

      James: “Anyone who’s not some sort of cultish follower could see that from the get go.”

      So anyone who currently supports Trump is a cultish follower?

      James: “It’s really sad. Anyone besides Trump would have wiped out Clinton.”

      Trump wiped out all the other Republicans. Don’t think Hillary didn’t have dirt on all the other Republican candidates, and if they didn’t have any, they would just make it up like they have done with Trump. The intensity of the negative pileon would be no different, just the details.

      None of the Republican candidates could have stood up to the Leftwing Media (with the exception of Huckabee). The Leftwing Media would have rolled over them like a steamroller, just like they are trying to do to Trump now. Except Trump fights back. The other candidates would already have surrendered. They all desire to be loved by the Leftwing Media, so they really can’t fight back and attack them the way Trump does. They would be alienating their loved one the Leftwing Media, and that’s the last thing they want to do. They think the Leftwing Media is essential to their success. Trump doesn’t play those games.

      Trump has one blemish on his side, the Lockerroom talk. That’s opposed to all the corruption and criminality on Hillary’s side. It’s no contest!!! The choice is clear, and it’s not Hillary.

      • James: “It’s really sad. Anyone besides Trump would have wiped out Clinton.”

        I disagree. The media is so in the tank for the progressive left, it wouldn’t have mattered who the Republican candidate was, the press would have still pilloried them relentlessly. This bias has always been present but took on a life of its own with the first Obama election, where they fell in love with the idea of a charismatic minority President who promoted the vacuous promise of hope and change. In 2012, Romney was clearly the better candidate, but the media decided it wanted more Obama. If not for the media enabling the Benghazi cover up by promoting the party line of a inflammatory video, his fecklessly inept foreign policy would have been revealed and Obama would have never won. Clinton is such a wreck of a candidate and exhibits such obvious criminal behavior, Trump should be ahead by 20 points, but because of a media that heavily favors Clinton, he is not.

      • TA ” Trump has one blemish on his side, the Lockerroom talk. That’s opposed to all the corruption and criminality on Hillary’s side. It’s no contest!!! The choice is clear, and it’s not Hillary.”

        Smart women know the truth. The truth is, men are thinking about sex every seven minutes.
        Smart women know that men talk this way. Now, there is a difference in the abrupt ways, language or terms various men use. Some are worse than others. Some Men grow up and some do not.

        The guys yelling at the girl walking down the street with perverse taunts is a D*I*C*K*.
        The guys talking low amongst themselves , just looking , have some morals.

        Smart women will vote Trump.

        Dear Hillary, I ain’t no stand by a woman Tammy Wynette voter.

    • “So anyone who currently supports Trump is a cultish follower?”

      A grand total of nobody said that. Please argue against what your opponent actually said.

      “Trump wiped out all the other Republicans. ”

      Not true. Had the race started with Trump and one other candidate, he would have lost.
      The problem was that the conservative vote was divided between 3 or 4 candidates. By the time most of them had dropped out Trump had “won” enough primaries to make his lead unassailable.
      Over all Trump barely got 30% of the votes. That’s not wiping out in my book.

      Trump has many blemishes, starting with his history of supporting liberal positions and Democrat candidates and finishing with his disasterous economic and foreign policies.

    • James….any candidate the GOP put up…would be lame
      That’s their game….they don’t want to win the presidency

      Trump was not their candidate…and he’s doing better than McCain and Romney, which were their candidates

      The biggest fear the GOP has…is actually winning the presidency

      • Asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, are given public housing which is in bad condition and no one wants to rent and get a weekly allowance of £36.95 per person.

        Immigrants would only get the same as a UK citizen, assuming they were legally allowed to work… EU migrants typically claim less in benefits than UK natives.

  28. Item: During the primary campaign, the Republican candidates complained that the media was going easy on Trump.

    Item: I am an election Judge here in Texas. it was my perception that the Donks were crossing over to vote for Trump.

    Item: The drop in the nationwide numbers voting in the Donk’s primary was about equal to the increase in the Republican’s primary.

    Item: The media repeats over and over unsupported allegations of what Trump might have said while ignoring the crimes of Mrs. Bubba Clinton (The trailer trash wife of the first trailer trash president)

    So…..for all you fools that are taking the high moral ground and voting for anybody else. You have been screwed.

    • “So…..for all you fools that are taking the high moral ground and voting for anybody else. You have been screwed.”

      They have screwed themselves and all the rest of us if it ends up putting Hillary “Houdini” Clinton in the White House. I hope this “Houdini” moniker is just temporary, and after tomorrow, we never have to figure Hillary Clinton into our future plans again, and she will finally get caught up in one of her “tricks”.

    • Hillary had her housekeeper print out classified documents at Hillary’s home, along with her other household duties.

      That right there is enough to convict Hillary Clinton of gross negligence *with* intent.

      If Trump wins and we get an honest Department of Justice in place, the entire Clinton family and friends may be subject to jail time. They are certainly guilty of numerous federal felonies. Any competent prosecutor could make a case against these people with what we know now.

      If Hillary gets elected, she can stonewall this for a long time. If Trump gets elected, she cannot. It’s kind of a matter of life or death for the Clintons and their associates. They are going down if they lose. They may go down, even if they don’t, but that will be a hell of a road to have to travel. But we can’t let injustice stand, can we? I didn’t think so.

      • Both candidates suck. This is the mother of all “lose – lose” elections. Reality bites, yes it does.

      • I don’t see any serious downside with Trump. I see a LOT of downside with Clinton. Lose-Lose does not describe the situation properly. We might win taking one side, Trump’s. We will definitely lose taking Clinton’s side. The practical choice is clear.

  29. The problem with the US Constitution is that after all, it is just a piece of paper. If the President declines to follow it, and the Congress declines to contradict him, and the Supreme Courts decides it says whatever they want it to say… well, then, We The People only have as a final resort the solution offered up in 1776.

    • The real problem is the lying Leftwing Media, who create a false reality for millions of people, and render them incapable of properly governing themselves by lionizing the bad guys and demonizing the good guys.

      Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would never have been elected had they not had the Leftwing Media doing everything in their power to fool the American people into thinking these were the best candidates we had.

      The Leftwing Media has betrayed its duty to report the truth to the American people so they can make good decisions for their future. Now, the Leftwing Media has turned into a propaganda machine to promote Leftwing ideology and gain political power for the Left. Domestic enemies of our freedoms is what they are.

  30. King Obama must have put his royal stamp on the agreement, and handed the decree down to his minions to execute, or face certain death. Thus it is written and thus it shall be.

  31. The Republican politicians first said Obama’s “ratification” required Senate approval, then said it meant nothing anyway when he announced what he had signed. It appears that this is a fight Republicans don’t believe they can win – yes, the President CAN commit the Nation to such treaties himself – or they are okay with what he did.

    I no longer trust either side to be honest about their beliefs on CAGW. COP21 has no teeth and all powers are currently no acting on their rhetoric. For or against? And why? It all looks like a shell game that might not even have a pea involved.

    Except for taxation and crony capitalism, none of the activities look to reduce energy use, consumption in general or CO2 emissions for the next 30 years.

    So much for the world about to die.

  32. The rather shaky claim about US “ratification” and “safeguards” against US disengagement is intriguing.

    My exact thoughts Eric; what are these “safeguards”? Exactly? Are they planning to nuke Marrakesh on Wednesday? Whatever it is, it sounds shady and more than a little conspiratorial (oops, there’s that word again. I’ll buy tinfoil tomorrow…)

  33. There’s no need for them to fear. How people vote in America tomorrow is irrelevant. The system has been so corrupted, only Hillary will be allowed to be president. Trump cannot win, even if a sufficient number of citizens vote for him that he would win the popular vote and the electoral college as well, it won’t matter.

    The end justifies the means, and the democrats running the US will not allow their power to slip away. In a quote usually attributed to one of their great heroes, Joseph Stalin, “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

    • “even if a sufficient number of citizens vote for him that he would win the popular vote and the electoral college as well, it won’t matter2

      The US has rigorous checks on voters a really, really low level of voter fraud… this is just not the case.

    • If they’re running the US why did they allow the Republicans to gerrymander congressional districts so that it’s virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the House?

  34. There is ZERO chance Trump wins.
    And he should be very happy about it.
    Just google “Clinton body count”.

  35. Information for non US citizens (and probably most US citizens) about how this works.

    Today is the day when each State and Wash DC will vote for a list of electors who will then cast their votes for President and Vice-President. That vote will take place on Dec 19th. Electors are associated with the candidate who is on the ballot however, there is no obligation for those Electors to vote for their associated candidate. They can vote for someone else. Now, all Electors are presumed to be loyal party members who would in fact vote for the candidate they are associated with but there is no law that they must. This vote is then sent to Congress which will, in the presence of a joint session, count the votes and announce the winner. That will happen on Jan 6th. So we will not know how all the Electors actually voted until Jan 6th when it becomes official.

    If no candidate gets the required 270 electoral votes, the election goes immediately to the House of Representatives where each State delegation will get one vote and the winner will be declared President. The Vice President will be chosen by the Senate in the same manner.

    If there was ever an election where some of the Electors will vote for someone else rather than their associated candidate, this is it. Imagine what would happen if the projected winner by the media turns out not to win. Velly intellisting.

  36. There is a major difficulty with paperless electronic systems – there is no possibility of a recount.
    This is the fundamental reason for switching to a paperless system by the “elites/bureaucracy”.

    Once these machines are in place, one only has to influence or change the software and anyone can win. The “Fraction Magic” system, for example, can be set up in advance at any level with pre-programmed margins e.g. 80% v. 20% or 50.1% v. 49.9% and the software will produce that result rounding up the number of votes to whole numbers. Providing one has the manpower it can be carried out in real time on the day.

    Everybody who votes is told their vote has been counted correctly but any intermediate check would show the pre-programmed results in terms of a percentage share of the total vote, as will the final result.

    The only possible defence against this would be an accurate exit poll of all voters!

    It would be interesting to see the comparison of voting percentages in paperless voting areas against the remaining paper based systems which are much more difficult to make major changes to. I would wager there will be a significant discrepancy.

    SteveT

    • First of all, you can never get an accurate exit poll. People say different things in public and you would have to interview everyone so why not just manually count their votes.

      In Sarasota County there is a paper trail. We mark a ballot that is fed into an optical scanner and the ballot itself is preserved. Now, I couldn’t tell you whether the scanner has been programmed to produce a certain outcome or not. How do we know it recorded my vote as I voted?
      Although tedious, I believe it to be necessary to go back to a paper ballot and count each one in the presence of a member of each party who would then together certify a fair count. I do not trust electronics for voting.

      • Yes, that was what I intended to convey. The exclamation mark was intended to indicate the impossibility of an accurate exit poll – although any exit poll may indicate a problem depending on the degree of manipulation.
        Any method that involves a means of obtaining an instant answer (electronic or electro-mechanical) is open to abuse far more so than counting a more obvious number of paper ballots (especially as if there is any doubt, a more stringent count can be carried out when the paper votes exist).

        SteveT

  37. Should Trump win, climate skeptics should be poised to take full advantage of having someone with an open mind on climate science in the White House. A free and open debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of CO2 as a possible cause of harmful warming should be undertaken. A positive result could be a curtailment of government funding of climate science research with a concomitant reduction in wasteful spending.

  38. I think we are going to be amazed at how quickly the climate movement begins to fall apart, now that the Hillary campaign has no more reason to pump money into it.

    In the climate wars, we here have just survived an all-out assault over the last few months, and we’re still standing. And now they are suddenly all out of gas!!!

    Of all the possibilities, even I never thought our battle could be won in a single night. And I know it’s not over – but this is like the Battle of Midway in the Pacific War. After that one was over, and the momentum shifted, all of the action for the aggressors was just one long retreat.

  39. I agree with wws that once money stops flowing into scientifically dubious climate research the air will quickly come out of the AGW balloon. Perhaps some of those visiting and posting on this site can be instrumental in educating the Trump administration in the area of climate research. What an opportunity, as wws clearly recognizes.

Comments are closed.