Jeffrey Sachs: “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny”… Because Paris Climate Agreement

Guest bashing by David Middleton

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was the proximal reason we cancelled our subscription to Scientific American.  His monthly column, “Sustainable Developments” was nothing less than an annoying propaganda campaign for the imposition of  enviro-tyranny upon these tangentially United States.  The straw that broke my camel’s back was his demand that the Wall Street Journal cease and desist publishing editorials skeptical of Gorebal Warming.

Dr. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University.  Not to be confused with Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, The Earth Institute is a program which serves little purpose other than to teach non-science majors how to sound all sciency when spouting enviro-psychobabble.  The levels of ignorance on display in this CNN editorial are mind boggling.

 

Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny

By Jeffrey Sachs

Mon July 23, 2018

(CNN) The United States was born in a revolt against the tyranny of King George III. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of checks and balances, but in President Trump’s America, those safeguards are failing.

Donald Trump holds the grandiose belief that only he should rule America. Unchecked by cowed or complicit Republicans in Congress, Trump invokes executive authority to alter policies and practices long established by law and treaty.

[…]

[GOOD FRACKING GRIEF!!!  Hey Dr. Sachs, remember this???]

[…]

Trump used executive authority without Congressional mandate to… to announce the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound US obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change…

[AEUHHH????]

[…]

The Nazi henchman Hermann Göring explained in Nuremberg prison how easy it is to mobilize the public to war: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

[…]

[Godwin’s Law anyone?]

 

[Can you believe that Godwin created a Trump exemption to Godwin’s Law?  Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome has gone full (rhymes with petard).]

[…]

CNN

Note: The videos and red-bracketed comments represent my commentary and are not in the CNN editorial… I am only posting this notice because, if I didn’t, some commentator would probably accuse me of altering the CNN editorial because I don’t like CNN and they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Obama got us into the fracking Paris Climate Agreement with his pen and his phone, without Congressional mandate!

Trump used executive authority without Congressional mandate to… to announce the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound US obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change…

Hey Dr. Sachs!  President Trump had the executive authority, without Congressional mandate, to announce the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement… because it was not a TREATY and the agreement stipulated that he could do exactly what he did.

Hey Dr. Sachs!  President Trump even has the executive authority to withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  without Congressional mandate because… Drum roll, pleaseTHE UNITED STATES FRACKING CONSTITUTION and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change provide him with that authority…

Congressional Research Service

Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Stephen P. Mulligan
Legislative Attorney
May 4, 2018

[…]

Although the Constitution sets forth a definite procedure whereby the Executive has the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is silent as to how treaties may be terminated. Moreover, not all agreements between the United States and foreign nations take the form of Senate-approved, ratified treaties. The President also enters into executive agreements, which do not receive the Senate’s advice and consent, and “political commitments” that are not binding under domestic or international law. The legal procedure for withdrawal often depends on the type of agreement at issue, and the process may be further complicated when Congress has enacted legislation to give the international agreement domestic legal effect.

On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement—a multilateral, international agreement intended to reduce the effects of climate change. Historical practice suggests that, because the Obama Administration considered the Paris Agreement to be an executive agreement that did not require the Senate’s advice and consent, the President potentially may claim authority to withdraw without seeking approval from the legislative branch. By its terms, however, the Paris Agreement does not allow parties to complete the withdrawal process until November 2020, and Trump Administration officials have stated that the Administration intends to follow the multiyear withdrawal procedure. Consequently, absent additional action by the Trump Administration, the United States will remain a party to the Paris Agreement until November 2020, albeit one that has announced its intent to withdraw once it is eligible to do so.

[…]

Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement—a multilateral, international agreement intended to reduce the effects of climate change by maintaining global temperatures “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels[.]” The Paris Agreement is a subsidiary to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a broader, framework treaty entered into during the George H. W. Bush Administration. Unlike the UNFCCC, which received the Senate’s advice and consent in 1992, the Paris Agreement was not submitted to the Senate for approval. Instead, the Obama Administration took the position that the Paris Agreement is an executive agreement for which senatorial or congressional approval was not required. President Obama signed an instrument of acceptance of the Paris Agreement on August 29, 2016, which was deposited with U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon on September 3, 2016. The Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016.

Although the Obama Administration described the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement, it did not publicly articulate the precise sources of executive authority on which the President relied in entering into the Agreement.  Possible sources include the UNFCCC, existing statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Energy Policy Act, the President’s sole constitutional powers, or a combination of these authorities. While the precise source of authority is not readily apparent, there does not appear to be an underlying restriction on unilateral presidential withdrawal (i.e., a treaty reservation, statutory restriction, or other form of limitation) in any of the potential sources of executive authority. Therefore, the Paris Agreement would likely fall into the category of executive agreements that the Executive has terminated without seeking consent from the Senate or Congress.

[…]

Some commentators advocated for withdrawal from the parent treaty to the Paris Agreement—the UNFCCC—as a more expedient method of exiting the Paris Agreement. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that any party that withdraws from the UNFCCC shall be considered also to have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC has nearly identical withdrawal requirements to the Paris Agreement, but because the UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, the three-year withdrawal prohibition expired in 1997. Therefore withdrawal from both the parent treaty and the subsidiary Paris Agreement could be accomplished within one year. The Trump Administration, however, has not announced that it intends to take action with respect to the UNFCCC. Therefore, at present, the United States remains a party to the subsidiary Paris Agreement until Article 28’s withdrawal procedure is complete—albeit one that has announced its intention to withdraw once it is eligible to do so.

[…]

Congressional Research Service

Hey Dr. Sachs!… One more thing…

Featured image source.

Advertisements

269 thoughts on “Jeffrey Sachs: “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny”… Because Paris Climate Agreement

      • He founded the Earth Institute at Columbia University… Oh… You wanted qualifications… Hmmm… I’m drawing a blank.

        • Isn’t the Earth Institute a Fortune 500 corporation producing coal fired electricity? It is not? I am shocked, SHOCKED I say! 😉

        • Columbia University was the first Uni to welcome in the School of Frankfurt in the 1930s. So it’s the original infection of the modern cultural marxist-loons in the US.

        • My wife when studying book keeping years ago had to as part of the course do “Economics” her summery of the subject was “you give the same bit of information in as many different ways as you can” ie you buy an apple a day which any thinking person would understand but an economist would go on to state you buy 7 a week 30 odd a month and 365 in a year and if you lived X number of years you’ve bought X number of apples. She also said it was easy to see which way the teachers politics leaned and by one or two well chosen comments could divert them from their lesson and have them rambling on till the bell rang.

          James Bull

      • Well, he hired himself out as a consultant to advise governments in the very early ’90s as to how to reorganize themselves in the wake of the collapse of state communism in eastern Europe. In the case of Hungary they apparently took one look at his recommendations and ignored them.

        • And his collaboration with a true statistics expert, Steve McIntyre, gives his works a lot of credibility

      • And his understanding of economics allows him to knowledgeably speak about (i) statistics and (ii) economics, as in that’s a really stupid idea, economically, to make energy less efficient and more costly.

  1. The mind boggles at commentators who just emote without checking facts. Who was it said anyone can have opinions, but facts are facts and cannot be owned – or something like that?

    • It’s even worse than that. He actually thought that not only might Trump violate a treaty this way, but that he’d be the only one to notice it, and that Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, and the entire media establishment somehow missed it, along with everyone else who was involved with the accord!

  2. Godwin’s Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches unity.

    Murphy’s Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

    Cole’s Law: Shredded cabbage with dressing.

    • “Godwin’s Law” I learned something new today.
      Paul’s Law, “The less you know about something, the easier it seems to do it.”

      • Except that Godwin’s Law is next to useless. It describes the likelihood of a comparison being made. It says nothing about the accuracy of the comparison.

        • Godwin’s law is usually involves those not knowing either Hitler or WWII history.

          Proposed corollary to Godwin’s law: The less a snowflake or questionable academic knows about Hitler or WWII, the higher the probability they will compare some trivial thing to Hitler (in 2018, this counts as cogent debate).

      • The Way It Goes Sometimes… Murphy’s Laws

        Murphy’s Original Law
        If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.
        Murphy’s Law
        If anything can go wrong — it will.
        Murphy’s First Corollary
        Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
        Murphy’s Second Corollary
        It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
        Quantized Revision of Murphy’s Law
        Everything goes wrong all at once.
        Murphy’s Constant
        Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.
        The Murphy Philosophy
        Smile… tomorrow will be worse.

        Conclusions

          If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the first one to go wrong.
          Corollary – If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
          If several things that could have gone wrong have not gone wrong, it would have been ultimately beneficial for them to have gone wrong.
          Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
          If anything can’t go wrong, it will anyway.
          If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
          If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
          Everything takes longer than you think.
          You never find a lost article until you replace it.
          If nobody uses it, there’s a reason.
          You get the most of what you need the least.
          Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
          Mother nature is a bitch.

        https://murphyslaws.net/

        • Addenda – Three Rules of Bolivarian Socialism:

          1) If It Can Get Worse, It Will.

          2) It Can Always Get Worse.

          3) Under Capitalism, Man Exploits Man – Under Bolivarian Socialism, It’s The Exact Opposite!

          And always remember – that picture of Che Guevara on the t-shirts? He’s dead in the picture.

      • Eustace’s corollary to Murphy’s law:

        If (n) parts are required to complete a project, there will be (n-1) available.

        • Unless you complete the project with (n-1) parts, have a part left over, and subsequently determine that the extra part was essential.

        • Jtom’s laws of DIY:
          If you buy one, you will need two.
          If you buy two, they will be the wrong size.
          The price of a critical part will be inversely proportional to the travel distance required to obtain it.

    • From the Wikipedia entry: Godwin’s law is an internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches [100%]” … There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.

      The #resistance, including Sachs, has pegged the meter.

      • Law of diminishing Universities:
        a. Those who can’t, teach.
        b. Those who can’t teach, teach economics.
        c. Those who can’t teach economics, push global warming.

        • But I learned a lot in elementary college economics course. I specifically remember the prof, attempting to get student participation, asked “Why does the (federal) government collect taxes?” A fellow student answered the obvious “To have money to spend on various government functions and programs.” The prof responded “Oh, come come now. Don’t be naive.” That opened my mind to think that something everyone “knows” might be wrong. In this specific case, the correct answer is “to control inflation”.

          • Nothing? Cut federal taxes close to zero and have the Fed Reserve print the money needed for most all government expenses, and that would have no effect on inflation?
            Can we test this assertion experimentally, or just do an economic model?
            I expect a model would conclude that taxation is indeed a “control knob” of inflation, but not the only one.

        • You have no idea how deep the pit is in contemporary universities. Think about Women’s studies, and Queer studies. Economists are close to mathematicians compared to those yingyangs.

      • Johnson’s Law:
        Everything takes twice as long as you calculated, even when considering Johnson’s Law.

        • Krispy Kreme’s Law: analyzing any issue using circular logic, creates a hole in your argument.

        • Isn’t that Cheops’ Law? “Nothing is ever built on time or within budget”…

          Or as Ashleigh Brilliant puts it, “Everything takes longer than expected, even when you expected it to take longer than expected.”

    • One of MY favorite aphorisms is

      “Good judgment comes from experience.”
      “Experience comes from BAD judgment.”

      • As my father used to say “Learn from OTHER people’s mistakes. It costs less and doesn’t hurt nearly as much”.

    • You left off ripshin’s law:

      As an online discussion, which is even tangentially related to computers, grows longer, the probability of old-timers discussing the minutia of obsolete hardware, punch cards, and/or antiquated software platforms approaches 1.

      rip

    • The problem with Godwin’s Law is:

      1: Godwin didn’t invent the idea. but he curiously gets credit for it.

      2. “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

      – historian Raul Hilberg

  3. […Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome has gone full (rhymes with petard).]

    “Petard” is pronounced “peh ‘tard”. That does not rhyme with the word of which you are thinking

  4. Great job of showing that Trump is proceeding in a meticulously legal manner, in contrast to Obama.

    Why is it that Trump haters go so quickly to fascism or Hitler, as if this is clever? Do they think any “right wing” view that falls short of Hitler might be a matter for legitimate debate, and they might lose the argument? Better just go to Hitler and get it over with? Does this actually convince anyone?

    • SJWs always project. They know that if they controlled the entire government, they’d quickly go fascist, so they assume the right will, too.

      • I don’t think that’s the issue. As with all really dangerous people, they think they are right, and they think that makes them virtuous and they think that means everything they do must be virtuous.

        Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao at the grand scale, every nasty little dictator and authoritarian at the smaller scale.

    • “Why is it that Trump haters go so quickly to fascism or Hitler”
      I’m a Trump hater and I don’t need to go near either. I hate his contempt for honesty. He will say anything to protect himself. Even if it is easily seen to be a lie he knows his base don’t have any respect for truth so he is happy to flaunt his dishonesty. I mean look at the last week
      1. He starts by saying he believes Putin when he says he didn’t interfere in the election.
      2. Then a day later he says he got a word wrong, so now he does think they could have.
      3. Today he is saying “I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!”
      I mean WTF? And you lot swallow this BS.

          • Simon,

            It is human to want to appear to be right, and people in general bend the truth all the time. All one has to do is to pay close attention to what alarmists are saying to see that it is so.

            Now let’s talk about your extreme emotional response to common human behavior. You say that you “hate” Trump. Don’t you think that is a little over the top? Has he ever personally injured you? Has he singled you out for insults? Has he cheated you out of money? All of those kinds of things are reasonable excuses for hating someone. I would suggest that you are at least in need of some serious soul searching if you hate Trump solely for ideological reasons. But, then, maybe that is what distinguishes a zealot from well-adjusted people.

          • Simple Simon is the professional mascot of the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” crowd !! Gooooooo Simon !! LOL

          • Sorry I think you are being unreasonable. I think the man is pretty close to the most corrupt politician I have experienced in my life time. I think hate is a fair word to use for a guy who would sell the futures of generations to come for a few pieces of silver. Anyway I bet a few here would use the word to describe H Clinton or M Mann.

          • Translation…everything Trump does is to feather his own nest. And for the record, he hasn’t taken any of my “free stuff.” I work for my stuff.
            Can’t wait till Mueller releases what he has found out about the man, so the world can know the truth. Can’t be long now. Of course your team will call it fake news. Gonna be hard for thinking people to ignore what a republican investigator reports though.

          • Mueller has nothing on Trump. If he had anything we would have known about it by now.

            Mueller is trying to figure out how to keep himself out of a Congressional investigation into his actions currently and in the past.

            Mueller has a lot to answer for: He was FBI Director while Obama and Hillary were selling out the USA by selling uranium to Russian-controlled companies, and Mueller knew all about the corruption taking place on this deal beforehand and yet allowed it to go through.

            Mueller is not the “Golden Boy” portrayed by the Leftwing MSM. He hires 13 Trump-hating lawyers as his investigators, practices Gestapo tactics on Trump associates, and gives immunity to Tony Podesta, a Clinton crony hip deep in the Russia collusion story. It looks like partisan, political activity to me aimed at underming a sitting president. In other words: Sedition.

            And have you noticed that even though one of Mueller’s mandates is to investigate Russian interference in U.S. election, he hasn’t made one move to investigate anyone connected with the Hillary Clinton campaign even though we know Russians were involved in creating the Dirty (Lying) Dossier that Hillary paid to have created. Mueller seems to be blind to that aspect of the Russian interference.

          • “Mueller has nothing on Trump. If he had anything we would have known about it by now.”
            Complete garbage. Mueller is a pro and a highly respected one at that. It has been said all along you will not know what his team know till he wants you to. What we do know though is he has a number of people very close to Trump by the short and curlys. Why should he worry about Clinton, she is gone? But again you have no clue at all as to what he has on who. It’s why when he does release his findings it will be the most watched event in recent political “world” history.

          • He’s such a pro that his team indicted a Russian firm for a crime committed before they even existed. They’re THAT good. Even better they’re now fighting discovery and trying to delay going to trial.

          • Mueller is a pro
            You mean the Mueller who thought that the 3 companies and 13 Russians involved with the Concord Management collusion imbroglio would never show up in court, but did anyway and who now has to suffer the process of discovery from the defendant and who has continued to block this by delaying tactics past the 90 day dead line.
            That Mueller? That chump? That weasel?
            Can hardly wait….

          • When Mueller was chosen to lead the team he had almost universal approval – from the left and right. It’s only as the warts are staring to show in the Trump team that the right are panicking. Can’t wait to hear what he has.

          • Mueller has lost big cases and lost law suits for unethical practices that cost the tax payer many millions. He is unethical and deep state and has nothing on Trump.

          • Simon,
            It is interesting that you absolutely believe that Tom has “no clue at all as to what he has on who.” Yet, you talk as if you do! That is delusional! You are fooling yourself. That says a lot about why you see the world differently. You apparently believe that you have special insights that others don’t have. I’m not sure whether to call that hubris or simple arrogance. In any event, you only have your inflated opinion to support you — no actual facts.

          • Well let’s wait and see who is right. The great news is that unless Trump can stop the train (and he is doing everything in his power as is the corrupt right) sunlight is going to be shed on the man. Hurrah!!!!

          • Mueller is a “pro” alright, just not the type you’re thinking of. Mueller needs to worry about Clinton because she single handed compromised US security and corrupted the election process including FBI, DoJ, CIA, and others. In short Clinton has humiliated US integrity and reputation in the rest of the free democratic world.

          • Simon, as always you see everything through an extreme filter informed solely by your blinding hatred of the man who has threatened to cut off your supply of free stuff.

            You work for your stuff. That’s true, you vote early and often, so you are entitled.

          • Simon,
            You are demonstrating how out of touch with reality you are. You are assuming, without benefit of actual knowledge, that Mueller actually has or will have prosecutable evidence. That really is wishful thinking on your part. You don’t know the difference between wishful thinking and facts. You may actually be right, but you have no personal evidence to support your position. It will just be luck if you happen to be right. But, a prudent man would be prepared to be wrong. Have you considered your apology speech to this group should it turn out that you are wrong?

          • Simon, do you have any evidence to present showing Trump is corrupt or is selling the futures of generations to come for a few pieces of silver?

          • “Simon, do you have any evidence to present showing Trump is corrupt or is selling the futures of generations to come for a few pieces of silver?”
            Yep….. Trump university was as dodgy as hell. He lies about his affairs and about payments to people. I could go on…..

          • Simon,
            You said, “He lies about his affairs.” Like Mr. Bill? Are you judging his morality or his effectiveness as a president? We elected a president, not a moral paragon to stand behind a bully pulpit. What he has done within confines of his marriage is between him and his wife, just as it was with the Clintons.

          • Bollocks not when you suck up to the evangelicals to get their vote. That makes him a hypocrite.

          • Simon,
            Being a hypocrite is not the same as being corrupt, which is what you initially accused Trump of being. And speaking of hypocrites, do the phases “I did not have sex with that woman,” and “It all depends on what the meaning of is is,” not speak of hypocrisy if not outright lying? You see the world through selective blinders that only let you see what you want to see. If you only consider Trump to be corrupt, and not HRC, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

          • He is neither corrupt nor a politician. That he does not play the games of a career politician is one of the very things (among many) that gets the Left’s goat.

          • And without doubt it will be the very thing that will bring him down. His inability to STFU and breath through his nose will cost him.

          • Well Obama’s IRS went after conservative 501(c)3/4 groups.
            The husband of his SOS made surprisingly good cash on RUSSIAN speaking gigs.
            His attorney general has the distinction of being the one and only to be held in contempt of Congress.
            His Treasury Sec. was a tax fraud (but that’s OK as he was working for the NY Fed at the time…). Just an honest mistake. Trust me.
            His packed NLRB rammed through rulings to reward his union backers.
            His IRS leaked the confidential information on conservative donors.
            He weaponized the FBI and DOJ against his enemies.
            He paid back his green cronies.
            He illegally overrode US bankruptcy laws to give the UAW sweetheart deals on the GM & Chrysler bankruptcies.

            Obama is the most corrupt president we’ve had since FDR. Trump is uncouth and flaps his twitter fingers recklessly, but when it comes to honest government, he’s refreshingly honest.

          • Newflash, Obama was still corrupt. As was Hillary. Trump follows the rule of law, Barry and Hillary know that laws are only for the little people.

          • Simon,

            “Corrupt” usually means someone is taking money in exchange for political favors — such as when Clinton, acting as Secretary of State, awarded a position to a donor to the Clinton Fund. When the press found out about it, the guy resigned out of embarrassment because he was totally unqualified for the position. Politicians are notoriously corrupt at different levels, and are occasionally sanctioned for it. What instance of ‘pay for play’ that rises to the level of Clinton do you have in mind that distinguishes Trump?

            Just what do you have in mind when you accuse Trump of accepting a “few pieces of silver” in exchange ro “the futures of generations to come?” Are you suggesting that he is getting richer by virtue of serving in office, as apparently Clinton and Obama did? And just what do you have in mind when you say “futures?” Do you think that he is destroying the economy? The stock market and unemployment rate don’t support such a view! Now maybe you think that he is destroying the environment. The problem is, that is a personal belief, not a proven fact. There are many very bright people who disagree with that on principle, not because they are palming silver. You are confusing your belief system with differences of opinion.

            I don”t hate either HRC or Mikey. I think that HRC has committed criminal acts for which she has not been charged and I think that Mikey is either a fraud or self-deluded. Only he really knows which is the best description.

          • Sheesh Trumps very own campaign manager is going down for fraud.
            “Corrupt” usually means someone is taking money in exchange for political favors”… you mean like Trump is cashing in on being the president by using the presidential seal at his golf courses, or the way he hasn’t stepped away from his business while president, or promoting his daughters wares while president, or hiring out his holiday places to the guards who protect him… OMG the list goes on. So yes other presidents have pushed things, but Trump makes it an Olympic sport, and it is all gonna fall out when Mueller talks.

          • No, I mean something like the State Dept. buying copies of Barry’s book and distributing them to employees. Now THAT’s putting money in someone’s pocket.

          • Trump’s wealth ( personal net worth) has declined since the day he ran. He takes no salary. Obama’s net worth increased cover 1000 percent during his Presidency.

          • Simon,
            You said, “…it is all gonna fall out when Mueller talks.” Once again you are exhibiting blind faith in your beliefs, without benefit of any actual facts. You don’t have any inside contacts to the Mueller investigation. You, like everyone else, are limited to what the MSM shares with the public. It doesn’t look like they are being objective, so they are probably instilling more confidence in your view of the future than is warranted. Nonetheless, you are confident that you will be vindicated. Good luck.

          • Simon … What silver? What is his salary? How has his net worth changed some his election? ( hint, is has gone down considerably and he endures TDS for free!)

          • You should be ‘full-triggered’ by the DC swamp then … Trump should be your Messiah, he’s draining the liars even if he has to ‘bend the truth’ to do so. I’m surprised that an intellectual as you are was so easily consumed by the the SWAMP creatures … you swallow ?

      • “Simon: 1. He [Trump] starts by saying he believes Putin when he says he didn’t interfere in the election.
        2. Then a day later he says he got a word wrong, so now he does think they could have.”

        Trump has said all along that the Russians meddled in the election. Hannity showed about half a dozen video clips of Trump the other night saying just that, that the Russians had meddled in the elction. The first video clip was dated early in 2017, right before Trump was inaugurated. So his “slip of the lip” in Helsinki is backed up by his previous statements. Trump has consistently said the Russians meddled in the election. What he says didn’t happen is the Trump campaign colluding with the Russian meddling. Hillary was the one colluding with the Russians.

        Simon: “3. Today he is saying “I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!”
        I mean WTF? And you lot swallow this BS.”

        Sorry, Simon, Trump is just trolling the Left with this statement and it looks like he got you to bite. 🙂

        • ““Simon: 1. He [Trump] starts by saying he believes Putin when he says he didn’t interfere in the election.
          2. Then a day later he says he got a word wrong, so now he does think they could have.”
          Does that not seem beyond reasonable to you as an intelligent human being? Does that not ring alarm bells for you? Do you just swallow that nonsense like it is the truth? Any child could see he got on the plane from Finland, got hammered by everyone including his own team and so he took a a moronic line of “I said the wrong word.” Come on that is beyond believable to anyone surely.

          • So the Republican party is a bunch of pussies who can’t handle any implicit criticism or doubt on the intel agencies?

        • “Trump has said all along that the Russians meddled in the election. Hannity showed about half a dozen video clips of Trump the other night saying just that, that the Russians had meddled in the elction. ”
          But he wont say it in from of Putin. In fact while he shared the same stage he said for all to hear that he believed a dedicator over his his own secret service. WFT?

          • OVER the US IC, not his IC, but what he inherited, the ones who
            exonerated HRC despite clear high crimes,
            who destroyed evidence of Islamist insertion into US institutions,
            who ignored the tip to investigate the Boston bomber ( tip from Russia)
            Who almost got a anti Islamists blogger killed
            Who ignored black panther voter intimidation
            Who illegally spied on and unmasked political opponents
            Who hid from a FISA judge the funding source of the Clinton campaign document of lies known as the Steel Dossier
            Who are trying to illegally prosecute an elected President
            Hell ya, he does not trust them!

      • When will you ever learn to disregard what he says with what he does.
        Don’t forget what this President has done in a year and half compared to the previous resident who wasted 8 years(!!!) bowing and scraping to the dictators and kings. Let alone the racist divide he created and continues to foster.
        Athough I doubt your view of reality will allow that truth to leak in.

        • What’s he actually achieved other than given himself and his rich buddies a big fat tax break? Korea is not sorted. Russia is still meddling. The country is constantly in turmoil form all the BS and lieing the guy does. He’s made enemies of friends and friends with one very powerful and untrustworthy enemy.
          Don’t tell me he has fixed the economy. It was on the up when he took over. And if he doesn’t drop the tariff nonsense we could be in for a full on trade war.

          • He fixed the economy. 😉

            And tempests in liberal elite teacups do not countrywide turmoil make.

          • The economy was on the up when he got the job. Seems to be doing his best to shaft some very old and established companies. Harley Davidson a good example

          • Q1 GDP was weak in 2017, so no, it wasn’t “on the up.” His first full year has already beaten 5 of Barry’s. And Labfor has started to tick up for the first time in years.

            Barry was doing his best to shaft health care and the energy sector not to mention consumers. So far Trump’s only major mistake has been his trade policy. Otherwise he has been fantastically better at getting the bureaucrats’ boots off the neck of American industry.

          • “So far Trump’s only major mistake has been his trade policy. ”

            Remains to be seen if that is in fact a mistake. It looks to me like Trump is doing nothing more than ironing out the unfair trade lumps which previous administrations have allowed to accumulate over time. There will be some adjustments favourable to the US and then all of the wailing and outraged screaming will stop.

          • How did that go again? The 80’s called and they want their foreign policy back?

            Trump pressed NATO to up their defense spending.
            He lectured Germany on how they were exposing themselves to Russian extortion by relying on them for gas imports.
            He authorized deadly aid to Ukraine.
            He slapped around their Syrian proxy.
            He increased defense spending.
            He relaxed the irrational oil restrictions put in place by Obama putting downward pressure on the price of oil which is the key commodity propping up Russia.

            That is not making friends.

            Let’s contrast with what Barry did:
            He began his appeasement with the famous ‘Overload’ button (yes, the smartest President EVAH and the most qualifided SOS EVAH couldn’t even get a proper translation of the word ‘reset’) followed immediately by:
            Cancelling missile defense deployments to Eastern Europe to appease the Russians.
            He restricted oil exploration on federal lands.
            He sat on his hands while the Russians annexed Crimea.
            He invited them into Syria with his bumbling red line.

            But wait, there’s more!
            He buddied up to the Iranian theocrats.
            He directly interfered in Israeli elections.
            He threatened the UK over the brexit vote.
            He sucked up to Castro.
            Our European “friends” loved him because he agreed that Americans were bumbling fools who should really give up their sovereignty to our poorer, less tolerant, European guildocrats. I mean the notion of individual freedom is such an outdated 20th century concept compared to the dream of the UN.

          • He did something “against Russia”: he managed to convince Europe to wreck French’s agriculture by “punishing Russia”.

            While still the US was buying rocket engines from Russia.

            Of course François Hollande did nothing to protect French agriculture. Punishing Russia with less food exports was so powerful.

            Now these markets are lost forever. And Russia’s agriculture is stronger.

          • Simon,
            Virtually everyone got a tax break and many of the corporations have passed that on to employees as bonuses. Korea is a work in progress. He has done more in the last 5 months than any administration has done in the last 50 years. The country is in turmoil because the leftist media uses every possible excuse to discredit him and undercut his role as president. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column! The bottom line is that you don’t approve of the way he is trying to change things. Well, you aren’t president and it isn’t in your job description to second guess someone who does have the responsibility. Time will tell who was right. I doubt that you will make a public apology if it turns out you are the one with poor judgement.

          • “The country is in turmoil because the leftist media uses every possible excuse to discredit him and undercut his role as president. ”
            He doesn’t need the media to discredit himself. He is more than capable of doing that on his own. In fact it is a daily routine for him.

          • Simon, you have people with a lot of respect for the work of the intelligence community, and that includes those in that “community” who respect Crowdstrike so much they take their cartoonish work seriously, you have people who want to isolate and strongly punish Russia while still buying rocket parts from Russia, you have people who want to built “renewables” (wind, solar energy collectors) following a weather event where all “renewables” were wrecked, you have people who think that nearly all pro-Trump posts on social media are made by “bots”, you have people who have delegated the very idea of making up their mind to intel agencies, to the EPA, the FBI, the CDC… and Trump lacks credibility?

            And seriously, since when was Aleppo an important geopolitical matter? Why would Americans focus on Aleppo?

            Why ask people about Aleppo and not about whether they know the factor between factor between electric energy cost and electric energy storage cost and the factor between oil cost and oil storage cost?

          • “Well, you aren’t president and it isn’t in your job description to second guess someone who does have the responsibility.”
            Excuse me it is called democracy

          • Simon,
            You don’t actually live in a democracy. The USA is a Constitutional Republic wherein the representatives and senators are elected by democratic vote. Passing laws and censoring the president (elected by the Electoral College) are the responsibility of Congress, not you. Your responsibility is to stay current with the facts that are germane to who you cast your votes for at the next election. You have minimal influence over your elected representatives and even less over the other branches of government set up as checks and balances. Your lack of knowledge of just how our government works may explain a lot about your attitude and behavior. What you think is unimportant. It is the facts that are important, and you are selective in what you accept as facts.

          • “Time will tell who was right. I doubt that you will make a public apology if it turns out you are the one with poor judgement.”
            If Mueller reports that Trump has done nothing wrong I will personally come back and apologise to you. Will you do the same for me if the shoe is on the other foot?

          • All of the main protagonists have at one time or another during this Mueller farce come out and said that there is no evidence of Trump working with the Russians to affect the election. Mueller only seems to get bit players on decade old peripheral technical issues which if fairly applied in a non-partisan way would have half of the DNC wearing silver bangles. Bernie was not happy you know!

            That the Obama federal government used opposition research to spy on the Trump political campaign should rock your soul. Using the unverified Russia dossier as a large part of the FISA application is a sad chapter in American history and it is sad that you can’t recognise this.

          • If Mueller reports that Trump has done nothing wrong

            I’ll immediately start holding my breath waiting for a Leftist to admit they were wrong about something.

            Srsly, they still haven’t admitted they were wrong about the Population Bomb.

          • Yes, with the caveat that I’m not predicting what Mueller will say. I’m agnostic with respect to things I don’t have knowledge of.

          • “He’s made enemies of friends”

            Can you name those “friends”? Do you believe the population in European countries love Oncle Sam so much?

            Cause they generally do NOT. Why? Because of past meddling.

            Meddling in our democracy. In our referendums.

            Meddling in the definition of “intellectual property” when countries in Europe want to reduce the power of producers.

            Meddling in the definition of the nature of the European Union. Pushing the Union to integrate an Islamic country.

            Spying on our technologies, spying justified by the NYT which believes
            – it’s inferior tech anyway
            – the only way Europe businesses can sell tech is by cheating

            Phony respect for France’s intellectualism, predicated on the fact that the ideas of Marion-Maréchal Le Pen (which are somewhat center right, although some people think she is just far left like Marine Le Pen) are rejected.

            Phony love of France, a virtual France that hates military parades. Because military parades is a sign of communist dictatorship or something.

            France is like a young pretty lady you want to be photographed with for the US mainstream media: she better not have any thought without prior approval.

      • -If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
        -I learned about Hillary’s server the same way you did: by reading about it in the paper (He e-mailed her directly to that domain outside of .gov).
        -Benghazi was the result of a youtube video.
        -You didn’t build that (my personal fav).
        -I’m not a king. I don’t have the authority to change immigration law. Followed by Pen and a Phone.
        And the best one saved just for you:
        -“Of course the election won’t be rigged” – Barry Obama

        Enjoy the truthiness.

        • “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” or if you are Donald Trump you write your own doctors report and release it as written by the doctor to trick the masses into thinking you are in perfect health. All the time you are a fat bloated burger muncher.

          • I’ll take What Affects Americans for $1000, Alex. Both may be lies (the first certainly was), but only the first matters.

          • “or if you are Donald Trump you write your own doctors report and release it as written by the doctor to trick the masses into thinking you are in perfect health. All the time you are a fat bloated burger muncher.”

            Can’t respond to the comment, so you deflect. Nice.

          • Obama and Clinton (both of them) were not perfect, but Trump brings new definition to the word dishonest. Seriously the kids are already calling it a “Trumpy” when they think someone is lying to them.

      • Simon Simon Simon, sheesh!
        You said… ” He starts by saying he believes Putin when he says he didn’t interfere in the election.
        2. Then a day later he says he got a word wrong, so now he does think they could have.
        3. Today he is saying “I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher than me”

        Simon, every word is demonstrably true.
        How do we know. Numerous times Trump has said yes, Russia has a history of interfering in elections. ( hint to Simon, so does the USA, China, and most ALL nations) So it makes perfect sense that Trump would mean to say something he has said many times, he does not see why Russia would not have interfered in the election. The only context he has ever said the opposite is your number 3; where he has said Obama and Hillary were soft on Russia compared to him and therefore logically he does not see why Russia would promote him cover HRC.

        President Trump’s energy policy, his policy with Iran, his criticism of the Uranium one HRC scandal, and Obama’s ” I will be more flexible after the election” all logically back P. Trump’s claim of being harder on Russia.

        So Simon, you have nada, except for your irrational ” hate” and clear TDS.

  5. As a libertarian who wants small government
    and fewer wars, there’s not much to interest
    me among Republicans and Democrats.

    Trump is unusual — I support roughly half
    of what he has been doing so far.

    I also have to give Trump credit for entertaining me!

    About four years ago I wrote an article about Saul Alinsky,
    concluding that Republicans would have to use his tactics
    of ridicule and character attacks to beat Democrats.

    Trump practiced those tactics against Republican primary
    opponents, which may have cost him some support,
    and then took on the Democrats — and they still have no idea
    what hit them!

    Trump seems to have shaved at least 20 IQ points from Democrats,
    by making them go berserk, so they can’t think straight.

    The Democrat party has been in an unprecedented downhill slide
    since the 2008 Election, and now they seem to think they can
    reverse the slide with socialism.

    I call this controversy the Never Ending Election Circus.

    And this article was equally amusing.

    • Trump has also exposed a lot of entryism in the Republican party (where someone is an active member of a party but they actually agree with the ideology of a different party).

  6. This is about all the expertise that Jeffery Sachs possesses if you’ve ever seen his work or presentations. The term empty suit comes to mind. He gets away with the substitution of advocacy for competency.

  7. I’m not sure that two-party politics belongs here…..though it is hard to separate climate science politics and the two parties in the US.

    • Hansen
      Wild guess predictions of the future climate,
      and warnings of doom unless we all do what
      the leftists say, without question …
      is NOT real science, so it must be politics.

      The real science behind
      these wild guess predictions
      ends quickly — right after proving CO2
      acts as a greenhouse gas
      in a laboratory.

      Everything after that is
      assumptions and speculation
      by people who have
      grossly over-predicted warming
      for the past 30 years.

      Not to mention all their prior boogeymen,
      now forgotten because they
      stopped scaring people,
      such as DDT, acid rain,
      the hole in the ozone layer
      and global cooling.

      A real scientists would laugh at,
      or ignore,
      what passes for “modern climate science”,
      where people argue about tenths of a degree C.,
      and ignore the fact
      that a majority of our planet’ surface
      has no thermometers
      so the numbers are wild guessed
      by government bureaucrats,
      to compile a global average !

  8. I remember the days of looking forward to my monthly Scientific American. The ‘Amateur Scientist’ column’s annual April Fools column caught me not paying attention to the month a few times [‘How to build a Planck-mass accelerator In your solar system’ April 1989] – Almost 30 years since I could look forward to it now. Sad!

  9. I would take the position that the Paris treaty required Senate approval, and as there was none, Trump is not required to follow the withdrawal protocol, for to do otherwise is to set a very dangerous precedent which would transfer more power from our representatives to the executive branch.

    • By waiting until early Nov 2018, he will be making it a presidential election issue…. I’m not tired of winning yet, are you ?

    • Chad:
      “Paris” is voluntary,
      and voluntary is meaningless.

      O’Bummer wasted a billion dollars
      of our taxpayers’ money,
      but I hear not much more money
      is flowing into the green slush fund.

      It seems that nations that take the
      climate change fairy tale seriously
      love to talk but not spend much money !

  10. In the sixties I loved to read Scientific American. There was actual science reporting, with in depth explanations with diagrams and photos, helping me understand what was happening in the world of science. Remember the Martin Gardner’s Mathematical Games? Really hard for me, but neat to see the solutions.

    It’s all gone now. Sigh. Should be renamed the Politically Correct American.

    Can’t stand to even look at the cover.

    • JFK’s Apollo program made America scientific, great. Trump promised a NASA mission – so far not up to par – the Gateway is not enough. Actual boots on the Regolith, mining research, HE3, fusion will totally change scientific journalism. Science does not happen in a vacuum, pardon the pun….

      • America wasn’t great until the Apollo program?

        One constant with you, all good things come from government.

        • MarkW,
          No, the US wasn’t great until the Apollo program because the A-bomb and H-bombs were minor technological accomplishments marred by the sociological evil they brought upon Man. /sarc

          • Even prior to those, there was little things like a transcontinental railway, also the various technological advancements that made the rapid economic progress of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s possible.

      • NASA keeps throwing away its heavy-lift rockets so that makes it kind of difficult to put boots on the regolith.

        Maybe NASA should just buy heavy-lift capacity. It would be quicker and cheaper than the path they are following now.

  11. Jeffrey Sachs, the “reformer” of the post-Soviet, looted, liberalized by “shock therapy”, is likely having conniptions that Trump met Putin at Helsinki without “advisors”, and invited Putin to D.C. in Nov. This is the von Hayek modernizer. As any von Hayek observer knows the US Constitution is their target, especially the General Welfare preamble, and Hamilton’s Credit Clause. Trump must exercise that Credit Clause immediately to do what he promised – massive infratstructure programs. Just imagine Sachs’ attitude when FDR’s Glass-Steagall is forced on WallStreet, hopefully before the corporate debt bubble implodes with QE tapering.
    Looks like the opening salvo, dumping Paris, has hit right on target!

    Sachs supports cocaine production – Bolivia, teamed up with Soros in post-Soviet Poland.

  12. Remember when a “fascist” was anybody who told a hippie to do something he didn’t want to do? This is kind of like that.

  13. Sachs and other leftist depend on (or imagine) a couple of things. (1) Few understand history such as that Nazism was National Socialism and how Hitler came to power, through a relatively young parliamentary system of government and (2) Few understand the US Constitution or our system of government. Remember the left in the West has created a group of Brown Shirts they label the Anti-Fascist, Antifa. I will bet you could line up all the Antifa at any demonstration and ask them to define Nazism and none could answer the question.

    • If I remember correctly, ‘Antifa’ was founded by the Communists in Nazi Germany, and the people there supported the Nazis because, when their only choice was Nazis, Communists, or complete social collapse, they decided the Communists were worse.

      • That memory is failing. Even a minimum of homework would turn up their slogan : „Viertes Reich – nie Wieder!“ und „Bomber Harris – tu’ es wieder.“ Fourth Reich never again, Bomber Harris do it again. Hopefully Bomber Harris rings a bell? This all when Thatcher and Mitterand tried to stop the re-unification. Simply put Antifa has a Union Jack.

    • Part of the reason they wear masks is so you can’t see it’s the same 50 guys being sent city-to-city in trucks.

      • That’s probably true. I wonder which socialist billionaire is financing them.

        I hear these Antifa Nazis don’t like the laws being proposed that would make it illegal for them to wear their masks during demonstrations. They won’t be able to hide anymore. They don’t like not being able to hide. Real brave characters, aren’t they.

    • I actually believe that the Anti-FA really means anti First Amendment. It fits as they really seem to be against free speech.

        • They do seem to believe that they should be free to say whatever they want.
          It’s others who need to be restricted.

    • “I will bet you could line up all the Antifa at any demonstration and ask them to define Nazism and none could answer the question.”

      Hand them a mirror and they will be able to see the Nazis.

      • Of course the Antifa can define Fascism and Nazi. They all ‘Know’ in their socialist/progressive little hearts the the Nazi’s were ‘right-wing’. And also, the fascist Nazi’s were the natural enemies of the Communists. Who else was the natual enemies of the Communists? The Capitalists, of course. So the Nazi’s must have been Capitalists.

        Now, who else do we know who is right-wing and capitalist? Republicans, of course! Ipso facto Republicans must be fascist Nazis.

        ~¿~

        (I’d put ‘/sarc’ here, but nope. This really is how progressive millennials think)

  14. Sachs is an ugly hybrid of fringe driven stupidity and purposeful mendacity.
    His agenda is an attack on common sense and sound policy.
    Hypocritically, he would also prefer to have full tyrannical control to impose whatever he wanted.

    Elections are messy and obsolete.

    • Wait until Trump gets elected for a second term ! …TDS on steroids ! “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet !

      • And Putin meets Trump in D.C! Hopefully the cabal of Comey,Brennan,Clapper are neutered beforehand, although TDS on steroids tends to do that.

  15. “Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was the proximal reason we cancelled our subscription to Scientific American.”

    What took you so long? I canceled my many decades long subscription decades ago when the lead articles started being socialist/communist “social science” rather than real science and political bias was creeping into even the real science articles.

    • There was almost always at least one decent article… But the Sachs BS was too much. This was the last straw for me…

      September 14, 2006

      Fiddling While the Planet Burns

      Will the Wall Street Journal’s editorial writers accept a challenge to learn the truth about the science of global climate change?

      By Jeffrey D. Sachs

      Another summer of record-breaking temperatures brought power failures, heat waves, droughts and tropical storms throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Only one place seemed to remain cool: the air-conditioned offices of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. As New York City wilted beneath them, they sat insouciant and comfortable, hurling editorials of stunning misdirection at their readers, continuing their irresponsible drumbeat that global warming is junk science.

      Now I have nothing against the Wall Street Journal. It is an excellent paper, whose science column and news reporting have accurately and carefully carried the story of global climate change. Even the corporate advertisements that surround the editorial page tell of BP’s commitments to renewable energy and General Electric’s commitments to environmentally sound technologies. The editorial page sits in its own redoubt, separated from the reporters… and from the truth…

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fiddling-while-the-planet/

      Sachs was demanding that the Wall Street Journal retract their editorial criticism of the original and totally debunked Hockey Stick, MBH 98/99. I was so pissed off that I even wrote a letter to Scientific American, which I’m fairly certain they never published…

      September 18, 2006

      Letters to the Editors
      Scientific American
      415 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10017-1111

      “Fiddling While the Planet Burns”

      Scientific American
      Volume 295 Number 4
      October 2006, Page 39

      How in the heck can a respected science publication like Scientific American continue to allow non-scientists like Jeffrey Sachs to pawn off junk-science on the lay public? Why is it that almost every one of the global warming “Chicken Littles” turns out to be a biologist, ecologist or an economist like Dr. Sachs?

      Even more outraging is his enviro-marxist demand that the Wall Street Journal be muzzled and that its efforts to illuminate the junk-science of people like Dr. Sachs and former Vice President Al Gore be silenced.

      Dr. Sachs is not an earth or atmospheric scientist, yet he purports to speak for some mythical scientific consensus. The following passage from his article is so misleading as to constitute a bald faced lie…

      “In response to these growing political pressures, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences conducted a major independent scientific review and updating of the hockey stick data and analysis. While acknowledging a range of uncertainties, that report came down squarely on the side of the Mann study. The NRC noted that “presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.’ It went on to say “the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.’ They noted significant uncertainties that remain for global temperatures before 1600, but emphasized ‘surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.’

      The Wall Street Journal editorial page completely ignored this report. Instead, it cited a report commissioned by Congressman Barton from three statisticians with no background in climate science, who quibbled with aspects of Mann’s methodology…”

      This is from the June 23, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal…

      “Panel Study Fails To Settle Debate On Past Climates
      By ANTONIO REGALADO
      June 23, 2006; Page B2

      An expert panel called on to resolve a politically charged scientific debate said that the key conclusion of a widely cited study of past temperatures is “plausible” but not proved.

      The report by the 12-member committee of the National Research Council was prepared after a political fight broke out over the “hockey stick,” a reconstruction of past temperatures from tree rings, buried ice and other records…

      Citing the work of Dr. Mann and others, the U.N. concluded there was a 60% to 90% chance that temperatures in the 1990s had been the warmest since 1000, and that 1998 was the warmest single year.

      Panel chairman Gerald R. North, a climatologist at Texas A&M University, said his committee’s findings couldn’t support that claim. Dr. North said the limited data available on ancient climate means that scientists can say with high confidence only that the “last few decades” of the 20th century were the warmest period in the past 400 years, and with “less confidence” that they were the warmest in the past 900 years.”

      Dr. Sachs and his enviro-marxist brethren continue to ignore the vast scientific evidence for the Medieval Warm Period; preferring to simply ignore paleoclimatological history in their campaign against capitalism. In 1996, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute clearly demonstrated evidence for a much warmer period 1000 years ago in their Sargasso Sea study (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/…le.do?id=3842). In their November 2000 PNAS publication, “Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change”, Charles A. Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu clearly demonstrated global evidence for the Medieval Warm Period and related it primarily to solar output (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433).

      As an earth scientist, I realize that climate change is a serious issue and that man’s potential impact needs to be studied and ameliorated where practical. However I am outraged that people like Dr. Sachs are allowed to call for the silencing of opposing voices; claim that they represent a majority or consensus of earth and atmospheric scientists; and are allowed to portray themselves as earth and atmospheric scientists, when often they are not.

      David H. Middleton
      Mesquite, TX

      • It is clear AGW has nothing to do with science. Jeffrey Sachs let’s it all hang out. What it has to do with will bring more out of the woodwork. Note Sachs’ economics – Hayek, Friedman, shock therapy. Just watch when Trump gets his infrastructure program going. At least he will help agriculture when tariffs hit. The Hayek crowd will go berserk!

        • Sachs believes in government intervention in the economy. In no way is he an Austrian. And his Poverty programs in Africa was abject failures. For some unknown reason he gets credit with the modest liberalization of Russia post-collapse.

      • Michael Mann’s expertise in statistics and atmospheric physics is accepted by the Left without question, despite being a geophysicist. He bases his conclusions on statistics. However, when statisticians find fault with his secondary expertise, statistics, they are criticized for not being climatologists. What’s wrong with this picture?

        • I know Mann got his PhD from the Yale University Department of Geology & Geophysics… But, I don’t think he’s either a geologist or a geophysicist.

          The Graduate Program in Yale’s Department of Geology & Geophysics offers students the opportunity to study and do research in a wide range of cutting-edge and cross-disciplinary areas. The department accepts applications for our Ph.D. program (note that we have no Masters program) from various fields and majors. In addition to geoscience majors, we are interested in students from various disciplines including physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy and engineering. Generally speaking, successful applicants have very strong academic records with respect to course grades, scores on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) and letters of recommendation.

          […]

          Available Graduate Research Programs

          Atmosphere, Oceans, Climate Dynamics

          Biogeochemistry, Paleoceanography, Paleoclimate

          Geochemistry

          Lithosphere and Surface Processes

          Paleontology, Evolution

          Solid Earth Geophysics

          Program in Solar and Terrestrial Physics (STP)

          https://earth.yale.edu/academics/graduate-program

          I’d venture a guess that Mann went one of these routes (or something similar)…

          Atmosphere, Oceans, Climate Dynamics
          Biogeochemistry, Paleoceanography, Paleoclimate

  16. The WSJ does of course publish skeptical pieces as you say. However, it was very fair to MIT after having run a scathing editorial on the Paris Agreement after Trump’s withdrawal speech. They published a letter from the co-directors of MIT’s Joint Program on Global Change. That was the department which had unwittingly furnished the infamous 0.2°C data for the Administration to cite. Their letter to WSJ was crammed full of misinformation and WSJ was in effect duped into allowing crazed alarmist propaganda into their letters column.

    Here’s a breakdown of what happened. The WSJ should demand an apology or do an article on how they were fooled:

    https://investigativeanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/3-trump-and-mits-on-the-order-of-1-degree-celsius/?preview=true&iframe=true

    The following excerpt from this analysis shows how the co-directors were trying to have their cake and eat it.

    “What should be attributed to the UN Framework (capital “F” because it’s in the name) has been usurped by the Paris Agreement ‘framework’ in the WSJ letter. This wouldn’t matter very much if it were a simple case of talking about this post-2030 framework and attributing it temporarily, rather loosely, and in passing, to the Paris Agreement. The problem arises when you take it literally and start attributing 2100 SAT reductions to the Paris Agreement when those SAT reduction figures include as-yet unagreed commitments from the distant future well beyond 2030.

    “This isn’t just a technical point, it allows MIT to augment the real 0.65°C figure for Paris-plus-Copenhagen to 1°C. The 0.65°C was a major finding from their own research, and it’s been hiked by 54% to 1°C as a result of allowing the Paris Agreement to take over the running of the post-2030 framework.”

  17. Additionally, Obama tacitly acknowledged that it wasn’t in his job description to issue some of his executive orders, but rationalized doing so because those whose responsibility it was, were not making the progress, or going in the direction, that he desired. That is, he usurped the role of Congress because he was displeased with the separation of powers and thought that he could do better than Congress. That strikes me as the actions of a would-be dictator.

    • These are the same people who believe it is the job of the judiciary to write the laws that they wish congress would have written.

    • Exactly.
      But Obama was clever enough to coordinate with Soros, corrupt the media through strategic nepotistic hiring, and to avoid any sort of actual critical reviews.

    • “That strikes me as the actions of a would-be dictator.”

      That’s exactly what they are.

      And then Obama decided to use the power of the government to try to destroy the Trump campaign, and failing that, to undermine President Trump’s ability to govern. More actions of a would-be dictator.

  18. The war of independence was born out of a desire to exploit lands held by Indians in treaty with Britain.

    Ever wondered why the Boston tea party dressed up as natives? Tax went up after independence and the US tried to make Washington a king.

    So much for being anti monarchy, so much for being anti tax!

    LOL!

    • MattS,
      Your thesis has a certain ring of plausibility to it. However, the alternative thesis, that the tax resisters wanted a reasonable disguise, to give them plausible deniability, does have historical precedent. I wonder if you have anything to support your creative interpretation of history, besides your imagination? After all, there was still a frontier in the late-1700s and immigration was low, so there didn’t seem to be any great pressure to move inland. Then there is that urban legend that Amerindians didn’t have the concept of owning real estate and gladly accepted a handful of beads for Manhattan, which they didn’t lay claim to. It is so easy to speculate about the past when there is no one left to ask how things really were.

    • “Dressing as Native Americans, specifically Mohawks, was a symbol of liberty in the new land, of belonging to this land not Europe. It was not really a disguise at all, as all the main leaders were well known.

      They were trying to show they were not British but American and they were free. The Sons of Liberty and the Freemasons used the image of Mohawks as a symbol of American liberty. To them it showed that they identified with America not Britain. The event itself was largely organized by members of the Masonic order, who were very deliberate about the symbols they chose. The Native American was a symbol of complete Liberty, free to do anything and go anywhere. To them, an Indian was born free and lived a life of natural freedom. ”

      Erik Painter

    • So much for answering the question,
      “what would a cherry picked history of the Revolution and early days look like if one wanted to deceive?”

    • Matt, wrt throwing the tea overboard …

      It was just a conniving plot by the ship owner to free up his ship from essential impound. Those who participated, for altruistic and freedom loving ideals, were duped by the greedy capitalist ship owner and were unwittingly/inadvertently the impetus for our new country.

      This is fun … now its your turn again.

      • DonM – How about this.

        It really WAS the Mohawk Indians who threw the tea overboard. The Colonials only claimed responsibility because they didn’t want to get dragged by the British into another French & Indian war.

        ~¿~

    • I see that either MattS flunked history class or else his history teachers in school were too busy teaching gender studies and social justice to actually bother teaching actual history.

    • Note Trump’s remark to Trudeau who whined tariffs were national security :
      Did’nt you guys burn down the white house in 1814?
      Now I wonder why the remaining red-coats would do that?
      Note Trump not bowing to the British Queen, unlike Obama’s abject groveling.
      To this day that Monarch has no constitution. True Trump took tea, but don’t push it.

    • “the US tried to make Washington a king”

      Are you suggesting the people tried to make GW king? I think you are confusing the people with a few disgruntled generals.

      SR

  19. It sounds strangely like a masked threat – “If you don’t willingly accept the Paris climate agreement, we’ll have to put a tyrant in as President and force you.”

    • Sachs is projecting an Orwellian understanding of language.
      “Tyranny” is anything resisting the imposition of climatocrat rule in Sachs’ nonsensical world.
      Since the voters, the Constitution, the rule of law and President Trump are impeding his climatocrat vision, they are therefor tyrannical.

    • Brennan’s death threat of treason is exactly the same, but coming from the IC more serious. The Donald sure has them dancing!

      • Brennan is going to be getting a lot of Congressional questions in the near future, along with all the other Obama officials who are trying to overthrow the U.S. government.

  20. I’ve posted the following post previously so I’ll excerpt it below.

    The Left’s new mantra is “Trump is the New Hitler”. When the left spouts this nonsense, no sensible person will listen. They have lost all credibility.

    Donald Trump’s policies are eminently sensible and beneficial for the USA and the World – he is reversing destructive Marxist nonsense that is harming the economy and putting excessive control over everyone’s life into the hands of unelected leftist bureaucrats.

    My expertise is energy. Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple!

    Most politicians are so ignorant about energy that they should not even opine on the subject, let alone set energy policy. Trump is reversing the many leftist energy debacles, and restoring reliability and economy to US energy.

    The example that America will set for the World will ultimately cause other governments to return to energy sanity. If they fail to do so, they will be unable to compete with the USA.

    The left hates Trump because he is undoing decades of Marxist sabotage of the American economy and system of government.

    I despise the left because their policies are designed to damage the economy and destroy individual freedoms.

    The Left want full control over everyone’s lives, and yet there are about 200 countries in the world where the left has control and those countries, with rare exceptions, are failures with poor economies, lack of human rights and absence of democracy.

    Regards, Allan
    ___________________________________________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/100-renewables-by-2035-surprise-new-york-primary-winner-takes-on-democrat-climate-moderates/#comment-2389539

    [excerpt]

    There are about 220 countries in the world, and about 200 of them are failed or failing, with poor economies, no human rights and no Rule of Law. Do you think this is an accident? This is the Marxist agenda – tear countries down so they can ride in to the rescue and take command. Witness Zimbabwe in Africa and Venezuela in South America – and there are many other countries falling into the same cesspool.

    These self-styled Progressives, the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals and NDP, and the Socialist and Green Parties worldwide are pawns of the extreme left.

    Many of these imbeciles don’t even know it, but they are following a covert Marxist agenda which is deliberately intended to damage our economies and destroy democracy.

    • I don’t know if “imbecile” is an accurate description of these individuals. However, they certainly seem to be logic impaired, lack wisdom, and probably are gullible individuals. Other than that, they are just normal human beings.

      • Hi Clyde.

        Marxism made simple! For examples, consider current political cesspools Zimbabwe and Venezuela – and there are almost 200 similar failing leftist states.

        The fearless leaders are Groucho Marxists – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of the 20th Century, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.

        The followers are Harpo Marxists – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”, and politicians’ promises of “lots of free stuff”.

        One can easily identify members of these two groups in the global warming debacle – and none of them are ”climate skeptics”.

        Almost 200 countries are now descending into the Marxist cesspool. Apparently, the untimely deaths of over 200 million innocents in the 20th Century were not enough.

        The great American statistician George Carlin explained the appeal of leftist politics as follows:

        Carlin said: “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

        • Lots of free stuff. Like free spots in the breadline, free rats under the bed, free cells in the gulag…

          • Dred:

            At my Kazakstan oil project near Kyzl-Orda, there was endemic bubonic plague!

            We shipped in suitable antibiotics for our camp and gave them to the local hospital every 6 months or so, well before the due date. That was all the antibiotics that the locals had. So much for Socialism!

            Beware the dancing rats!

  21. You can bet anyone promoting the word “sustainable” is a card-carrying cultural marxist-loon. Just like other code-words — racist, sexist, supremacist, misogynist, “stick in any word”- justice, etc, etc, etc.

  22. Same reason I’m cancelling SA. The Paris Climate Agreement is NOT a treaty, it was never ratified by the Senate. The only person that agreed to it was Obama. The irony is that AGW thinks that it is and is published as such. Does SA have editors that review this garbage? Has SA become a political mouthpiece for communists? People that actively twist and distort the US Constitution are also twisting and distorting science as well to fit an agenda.
    It not that I disagree with SA, I strongly Disagree. Both the column and the science behind global warming is flat out wrong.
    SA can sell their garbage to their communist friends. It probably won’t go out of business, but I don’t have to support it either.

      • I dropped my Scentific American subscription in the early 1980’s because they were presenting climate change speculation as fact.

        I read their “Global Cooling” speculation for years and at first I thought they might have a case to make, but as time went along, it became obvious that they couldn’t prove their speculations, but that didn’t stop them from pretending they were true.

        And then in the late 1970’s the temperature trend turned around and started getting warmer and so Scientific American started pushing the “Global Warming” meme just like they did for Global Cooling.

        So they didn’t prove Global Cooling was caused by humans and then they make a 180 degree turn and start claiming humans are causing the warming with no more evidence than they had for human-caused Global Cooling, and so after a few years of realizing they were going to stick with the unproven meme, I decided they weren’t worth the trouble. I would get mad at the speculation with no accompanying proof, and decided I wasn’t going to let a magazine make me mad anymore.

        And I quit subscribing to National Geographic and Science News about the same time for the same reason.

        So yes, Scientfic American was corrupted long before the German company bought the magazine.

  23. Apparently Dr. Sachs has allowed the ethical compromises required to be an environmental extremist to also degrade his ability to have a factual discussion of how American government actually works.

  24. There seems to be a creeping madness amongst Progressives everywhere. They no longer recognise their own opinions as opinions, which come with all the usual biases and emotions, but sincerely believe they are reasoned and logical positions that are self-evidently true – because they hold them.

    That produces arguments that are so obviously one-sided or so obviously false that I just don’t udnerstand how intelligent people keep making them. This seems to be one of those, where Trump is doing nothing that other Presidents have not done before. Then we have the simple truth that doing away with regulations is a clear and obvious reduction in state power, and so cannot possibly be authoritarian.

    One side of so many debates just doesn’t seem to think they need to make sense any more.

  25. Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was the proximal reason we cancelled our subscription to Scientific American.

    Bingo!
    SciAm had an issue wherein the future (50 years out ?) was described by ‘experts’ such as Jeffrey Sachs.
    It was stinky carp.
    I have that issue; where I don’t know — but I do have it.
    The paper it was printed on had more value before it went through the press than it does now.

  26. If Obama had actually worked to get a senate-ratified treaty signed, it would have made withdrawal harder for Trump. But He didn’t. He was either lazy, or did not have the political talent required to get it accomplished.

    If He believed that a majority of voters were against it, and He would be unable to get it through Senate despite His incredible work habits and His unfathomable political talent, then that just means that the American people didn’t want it in the first place.

  27. The immediate reason that I cancelled my SA subscription was the 1986 Belle Glade, Florida and HTLV-III in mosquitoes article.

    • Slim’s Disease in Africa was transmitted by both mosquitoes and bedbugs according to WHO and the Merck manual. It was only after the public panic in discovering that slims disease was AIDS that science took a back seat to politics.

  28. It looks more to me like President Trump is taking the USA away an agreement that would mandate the position of supporting the rest of the world to the detriment of the USA and toward a path where the rest of the world must share an equal financial responsibility. Is this a tyrannical act or a Patriotic act?

    • I consider it a patriotic act because he is preventing the taxpayers of the USA from wasting their money.

  29. There’s an expert on an area I’m very interested in. His books are close to the definitive analysis of the topic and I respect his work greatly. He’s on Twitter, unfortunately, and all his tweets are now unhinged, bat-poop-loony anti-Trump diatribes. TDS has taken away his reasoning powers. It’s pathetic.

  30. “Trump used executive authority without Congressional mandate to… to announce the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound US obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change…”

    Mr Sachs, Hate to break it to you but the Paris Climate Agreement was not a treaty ratified by Congress. It was accepted by the pen of a President (Obama) and could be (and was) just as easily rejected by the pen of a President (Trump). As it was not a treaty (those have to be ratified by Congress) there was No “treaty-bound US obligation”. Next time do the hard work of getting it past Congress if you don’t want to risk a future president simply doing away with it with the stroke of a pen as is within their constitution authority.

    • “It was accepted by the pen of a President (Obama) and could be (and was) just as easily rejected by the pen of a President (Trump).”

      Which is why much of what Trump has done will simply be undone by someone down the road. Might not even be a Democrat.

      • As most of what he’s done is undo the Executive orders that Obama made, you are correct. Another President with Obama’s views on certain issues can easily redo them. And another president after that can undo them again. The Mexico City policy aka the abortion global gag rule is a prime example, Reagan initiated it, Clinton removed it, GW Bush reactivated it, Obama removed it, Trump reactivated it again, and likely a future president will remove it again and on it goes.

  31. The Paris Climate Agreement was never a treaty. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The Paris Climate Agreement is a big waste of money that will have no effect on climate. The USA is currently a debtor nation with a huge federal debt, huge annual federal deficits and huge annual trade deficits. We should not waste money of stuff like this until we have paid off all of our outstanding debts.

  32. I still remember when I was approached by a guy outside my calculus class who was handing out leaflets about ‘socialism, the unfinished revolution’. I quipped to him that it wasn’t finished only because it hadn’t killed everyone off with starvation or put them in a gulag yet. He proceeded to call me a Nazi. I asked him if he thought I was a national socialist party member or would ever vote for one, he said ” probably not”, I then asked him “Then why did you call me a ‘Nazi’?”
    He just stood there looking perplexed by my question.

    I weep for the future.

    • I remember the days when African students pointed to Mugabe and Zimbabwe as the shining example of success in Africa, and the Yugoslav Fulbright student that thought they were superior, and the Arab students that looked to the Soviet Union as their counterweight to the U.S. and Israel. Time is cruel to the shallow minded.

      …and the univ prof from Greece who thought Greek socialism was the greatest.

  33. When I studied astronomy some decades ago I had a course based entirely on Scientific American Xeroxes. Now it is little more than a popular science magazine.

    • David,
      And the American Geological Institute has morphed into the American Geosciences Institute, and the original journal, Geotimes, has likewise morphed into a younger sibling of SciAm. I actually enjoyed reading Geotimes. I can’t say the same about Earth Magazine. The are all turning into popular pablum.

      • Geosciences probably makes sense because many of the affiliated societies are geophysics-oriented (SEG, AGU, SSA) or from other branches of earth science (AMS, ASLO, AAG)…

        https://www.americangeosciences.org/member-societies

        That said, even the AAPG has been infected to some extent. The Explorer has become way too focused on STEM and trying to appeal to college students and the under-30 crowd. On the other hand, SEG’s Leading Edge has transformed from a pulp magazine that even had a crossword puzzle in the 1980’s to a pretty decent journal loaded with relevant case studies of exploration geophysics. Although, the more technical journal, Geophysics, has become unreadable for anyone other than computer programmers and Chinese mathematicians.

  34. The was not written for none leftists, thats why the sophistry flows seamlessly,……..they lie, and then they lie some more.

    Its fake news because it is either contrived or fake by omitting facts that would lead to the opposite conclusion they are led to.
    Left in A Quasi reality that progressives thrive in.

  35. I stumbled across some YouTube clips about SJW’s and their anti-Trump positions and they are absolutely hilarious. Their fails are monumentally funny! Presenters like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro absolutely shred their arguments.

    • I remember a clip where various college students were asked their opinion of Trumps SC nominee. (This was a week before the nominee was even announced.)
      They regaled the reporter on how they had read in the paper and seen on the news that they guy was an avowed racist, sexist, and all kinds of other forms of evil.

      These guys are definitely connected to a form of reality unknown to science have have lost the key for getting back.

  36. Sachs has in the past advocated for the developed countries to dedicate a percentage of their GDPs — 2 or 3% — to subsidize third world nations. He called it a Development Fund or something like that. Sachs at one time imagined that he would be at the apex of an organization that collected and distributed $300B-$500B a year. He said it was a moral obligation of the U.S. and other “rich” nations to transfer wealth to poorer nations. When Sachs saw climate change, I think he simply decided that it presented an expedient way for him and like-minded progressives to impose a regimen of annual wealth transfers. Of course, this is exactly what the Paris accords were, with the U.S. expected to pay something like $100B/yr for climate “adaptations” which were really bribes and bogus “reparations.” The conclusion I have drawn is that Sachs is just another “other people’s money” guy, always looking for ways to redistribute YOUR income and wealth to HIS pet projects, causes, pockets, cronies, and so on. In other words, he’s a complete fraud, despite his impressive academic record.

  37. Liars sure love to project their own pathology. Here’s the real ‘path to tyranny’…
    “UN Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.  INVENTORY AND CONTROL.” – Rosa Koire
    http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

  38. Sachs is some economist. His answer to every issue is more taxes and more government. Lots and lots of both. His last name should be Tax.

Comments are closed.