by Josh Siegel
Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said Friday he intends to introduce a resolution declaring climate change a national emergency.
Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.
Blumenauer’s resolution would swipe President Trump for declaring a national emergency Friday to build a border wall and address what the congressman called a “manufactured crisis.”
“What our country should be doing right now is focusing on addressing a real national emergency and one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis,” Blumenauer said in his letter. “If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
Full story here
It’s a national education emergency maybe. More critical thinking courses needed.
This link is a well worth read and an excellent analysis of the workings of the CO2 Dragon and shines a light on the dark forces inherent in current Climate Science.
Thank you sir
Please do not interfere with the opponent while he is busily committing suicide.
(attributed to Napoleon, or something). 😉
Suicide would solve all our problems. If only Retardlicans would try it.
Trouble with Earl is that he is in the most safe district possible. There is ZERO chance he will ever lose an election regardless of how lunatic his proposals.
In my 21 years of reading climate science,
as a hobby, I have yet to identify anyone
actually hurt by the very mild global warming
from 1975 to 2003.
In fact, if you consider
the ‘greening’ of our planet,
and faster C3 plant growth,
adding CO2 to the atmosphere
is net beneficial.
The only problem, mainly in Asia,
is adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels
without modern pollution controls.
A Chinese family burning soft coal
to heat their home, for example,
is not doing the world any favors,
especially their own neighborhood.
My view is the climate of our planet
has been improving for the past
20,000 years, staring with Chicago
and Detroit under thick ice glaciers.
The average temperature has not changed
since 20003, per weather satellite data,
considering the measurement margins
of error … so no one could benefit
from mild global warming.
That’s disappointing for those of us
living in the Detroit suburbs,
hoping for much warmer winters
for the past 15 years, and not
getting them !
It was 10 degrees F. this morning
— we consider THAT
a national emergency !
My climate science blog:
Well, what happens if in the end of the judicial process this would entail, that the SCOUTUS declare there is no climate emergency? Would that put a permanent end to the climate change drumming? If so, then let’s get this climate change business into court ASAP and allow the ‘climate national emergency’ appeals to fully investigate every matter of this entire subject and declare what is in on the rails, and what has gone off the rails with this ‘science’ under oath.
The House Democrats specifically formed their Select Committee on Climate Change to address Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s concerns. His resolution needs to be shuffled-off to committee and then voted out of committee or simply forgotten in all the other political posturing. Either way, it has zero chance of success in the Senate. And even with the climate hustlers’ wildest fantasies if it somehow got passed by the Senate, it has zero chance with a certain Presidential veto.
As for the President’s authority to declare a national emergency (NE) along the Southern Land Border, he has clear constitutional and legislative authority to do so. The Constitution puts him in charge of defending the nation from threats via his role as Commander in Chief. The States have no say in this regard. Even if the Blue states AG’s forum shop for a sympathetic Federal judge to seek their injunction against the NE declaration, the judge risks reputational harm in getting a strong rebuke from a certain Supreme Court slap down, because any legal opinion he/she could write would have to disregard clear Presidential authority in this area.
Nanny Pelosi’s trying to make the case the guns could be seized in a National Emergency declaration is total BS as the 2nd Amendment cannot be overridden with a simple executive order. As far as executive authority on a climate change NE declaration goes, Obama in effect has already tried this with his executive action-only on the Clean Power Plan (CPP). His CPP, had it not been withdrawn by Trump, was going to get slapped down by the rational SCOTUS majority (a majority which is now firmed up with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) as unconstitutional action by the executive against The States’ rights.
Specifically, the National Emergencies Act of 1976, signed by President Ford and used by every president since. Over 50 National emergencies have been declared, over 20 are still in force.
“Over 50 National emergencies have been declared, over 20 are still in force.”
Yes, and how many of those declarations of a national emergency were challenged by the Democrats or the Republicans?
I don’t recall ANY of them being challenged. I believe Trump’s declaration is the first.
Trump is perfectly within his legal rights. His challengers are the ones who are trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution and the security of the United States.
The Real National Emergency is the National Debt
Look at all those unfunded liabilities.
As always, the state destroys rather than creates. Would you trust your neighbor with your finances? Exactly. Well that’s how it is with government. Believing is legitimate is the first mistake
I believe there were 58 emergencies since 1976,
with 31 still in force before Trump added #32 recently.
Here is my list of the 31:
Be very glad Hillary didn’t win, as instead of the rational majority being firmed up with Trump’s appointees, we’d now have an irrational leftist majority with Hillary’s.
We would be screwed if Hillary had been elected.
We will be equally screwed if any other radical socialists wins the presidency. The Deep State is still in place, all they need is s new leader to start things going back in the socialist direction, never to return to real democracy, as Barack and Hillary were planning on doing. They were wanting to lock in the future for their ideology
It’s gone, Jim!
Americans have seen the Deep State red in tooth and claw. Once you’ve see it, it can’t be un-seen.
If someone like AoC becomes President, they’re going to find a lot of people saying ‘no way’ when the President makes her pronouncements about the destruction of America.
“As for the President’s authority to declare a national emergency (NE) along the Southern Land Border, he has clear constitutional and legislative authority to do so. The Constitution puts him in charge of defending the nation from threats via his role as Commander in Chief.”
Not only does the U.S. Constitution give the president this authority, the U.S. Congress has also specifically given the president the authority to declare a national emergency in the legislation passed in 1976.
Now, this 1976 legislation was actually written as a liberal effort to restrict presidential power after the Vietnam war, and it has never been challenged in court and is probably unconstitutional in its restrictions on the president, but nonetheless, this legislation does give the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take the steps the president considers necessary to fix the situation.
The president also has other laws specifically giving authority to the prsident to interdict drug trafficking and lots of other things.
The president will prevail in the Supreme Court.
Indeed. And the act give Congress a path towards revoking the emergency. While the original provision for “Congressional termination” was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983), it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution – which requires the president’s signature (which means he can veto) – which like all veto’s can be overridden by a 2/3rds majority in both houses. Good luck with that Dems.
These Republicans and many democrats like Pelosi have very poor short term memory.
Obama declared 13 “State of Emergency” orders, 11 of which are still in force and operative.
“These Republicans and many democrats like Pelosi have very poor short term memory.”
No doubt. And if they think the dems weren’t already thinking about it, they’re pretty out of touch.
Their memories are shorter than you think,
President Obama set the precedent when he sent two $500 Million payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.
Congress never appropriated this money President Obama simply carved it out of the State Department’s budget.
These RINOs need to stop making up stories and get behind the President.
“Even if the Blue states AG’s forum shop for a sympathetic Federal judge”
And the first thing the US AG should do when ever one of these liberal attempts to block Trump with the 9th circuit comes up is to request a change of venue to the DC district court on the grounds that that is the appropriate venue (DC is where the Federal Government is based and where all the Federal Government people whose testimony would be required are located).
A change to DC won’t guarantee the administration will get a fair hearing (there are plenty of liberal judges to be found in all the districts) it does increase the odds over going to the far-left loony liberal 9th.
Hasn’t Mark Steyn called the DC District Court a “cesspool”. Isn’t that the Court in which Mann v Steyn and Steyn v Mann have been locked up for years?
Can the Executive Branch, as defendants in the case(s), request immediate review of the cases by the Supreme Court?
All the circuit courts are cesspools. The trick in lawsuits is to pick the cesspool most favorable to the outcome you want.
There are four or five Republican-selected
judges awaiting confirmation for the 9th circuit.
Republicans in the Senate should end the
30 hours of debate Democrats demand for each
appointee, change the rules to reduce debate
to 3 hours, and get these judges approved.
I wouldn’t put anything of lasting importance in front of the Supreme Court.
We saw what they did to the institution of marriage that has transcended cultures, ages, races and creeds since the dawn of human history. They chose to claim ownership of that which was never theirs to claim and promptly destroyed it due to arrogant political vanity and a complete lack of perspective.
murriage is combination of church and state
crush the cat is a also combination of state and church.
That was a SCOTUS of a very different complexion from the current Court.
They must do something to protect their phony baloney jobs. Can I get an harrump?
Rump Trumps harrump!
I didn’t get a harrumph out of that guy.
Because the atmosphere and its associated albedo reflect away 30% of the incoming solar energy (like the reflective panel behind a car’s windshield) the earth is cooler with an atmosphere and not warmer per greenhouse theory.
Because of the major (>60%) non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules the surface of the earth cannot radiate as a black body and there is no “extra” energy for the greenhouse gasses to “trap”/absorb/radiate/“warm” the earth.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change.
Now, c’mon. Math is hard! We’re talking about AOC and fellow progs here . . .
The specific heat of air has yet to be changed. Until the value is updated there is no heating by CO2 in the atmosphere.
See Anthony’s CO2 glass jar experiment.
Can Congress legislate a new specific heat of air? How about the European Commission? How about the UN General Assembly?
The moon disproves your hypothesis. Where the sun shines it is very hot, 260f. Where the sun doesn’t shine it’s extremely cold, -280f. The average would be about -10f (which shows how useless some averages are). Neither extreme is habitable by humans without extreme protection. The presence of an atmosphere on earth means the average is hotter. This is regardless of any effect of CO2.
What atmospheric measurements are you talking about as the average temperature of the Moon? The temperatures you have mentioned are at the VERY SURFACE of the Moon and are therefore meaningless. What’s the temperature(s) of the Moon where you would place Stevenson screens?
You need these to compare with the Earth’s temperature. The trouble with you “greenhouse” adherents is that you’re off on some hypothetical, unreal , imaginary modelling…. 1) Earth with no atmosphere. 2) The Earth with an atmosphere. Sorry , that’s just non- thinking crap. Temperatures on this Earth are only WITH an atmosphere, that’s reality… and the temperatures of this atmosphere is largely determined by SEA temperatures. So you cannot separate the OCEANS from the atmosphere when considering temperature. Sorry, the oceans are part of the “atmosphere” , you can’t just hypothetically separate them out.
Look, here’s reality, the atmosphere COOLS the surface. When I have a hot cup of tea, I might blow on it … add more atmosphere … to cool it down. When I’m hot , will turn up the fan a notch …. add more atmosphere… to cool me down. When I’m outside on a still cold day… the wind might blow a bit … add more atmosphere.. and I will suffer some wind CHILL.
“When I have a hot cup of tea, I might blow on it … add more atmosphere … to cool it down. When I’m hot , will turn up the fan a notch …. add more atmosphere… to cool me down. When I’m outside on a still cold day… the wind might blow a bit … add more atmosphere.. and I will suffer some wind CHILL.”
None of those things “add atmosphere”, they merely move air around.
The rest of your post is garbage.
But, but, but … you are describing convective cooling. Radiative heating is so much more powerful,
Do I need a \sarc for the second sentence?
We need some respected scientists in the USA who don’t buy in to the theory of the world ending in 12 years or other extreme climate change predictions to contact politicians of both parties and start making the case against these nonsensical projections. The hard “progressives” are using this as a political wedge and they are getting traction and they will win – simply because they are advertising and people believe advertising if it’s repeated enough.
The more rational minds of the climate debate need to step in and advertise to the politicians and the general public that:
– the “world will end in 12 years” prediction is so wild even Michael Mann said it was too extreme
– the past predictions of climate disaster (e.g. ice-free arctic, no more snow, high average temps) have been consistently wrong
– the archeological record has indicated the world has had higher temps in the past than are being experienced now.
These are examples I remember off the top of my head from reading WUWT over the past years. I am sure there are more facts out there that counter the extreme positions. There needs to be a concerted campaign to get this information to politicians so they don’t feel like they have to jump on the Green New Deal bandwagon to keep their seat in Congress.
Scientists can not change the direction of a religion. There is no point of connection, and AGW is a religion. If you don’t believe, you’re a denier, and there is no point in listening to you. You are faithless.
I’m from Oregon and I can tell you Earl Blumenauer is about as bad as it gets.
This does not surprise me at all.
Thanks for the heads up…..I guess.
The guy in an idiot. I got gerrymandered into his district a few years ago. Strictly a Portland super lib. Hey Earl, perhaps you could provide a list of all the CAGW emergencies here in Oregon and all the mitigation that has been needed…..which is absolutely zero.
Not that I want to “ad hom” him but he seems to be the Earle of Blumenidiots.
I’m going to pass that one on locally.
Earl Blumenauer is not the president. His declaration of an emergency is a stunt with no force behind it. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is the real deal.
From the article: “Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.”
I think this is a great idea! Let’s get everyone in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate on record as to where they stand on this issue. We might be able to smoke out some weak Republicans with this method! We’ll know who to vote against next election.
Of course, a “sense of Congress” is just an opinion. Producing veto-proof legislation is the only thing that will work for the alarmist Democrats, and I don’t think they have the votes for that. So they ae just blowing smoke with their national emergency declaration.
I hope you aren’t from his district. I have to misfortune to be from his district, no one from Multnomah County (his district) gets elected to any office unless a Democrat (state legislator, city council, or dog catcher) The Republican Party has nearly given up.
Well, Oregon Rep. Earl may have a valid point, just look at the advisory of the California Highway Patrol: Stay away from the ski resorts in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there’s too much snow, you can’t get there and even if you could the deep snow presents a dangerous avalanche risk. I hope he can save us from this climate menace. Sarc X 100.
I hear there’s copycat resolutions introduced in India and China…..
My local council have already copy-catted this idea and have passed resolutions using the ‘climate change emergency’ concept’.
When I stop fuming I will write to them to try to get our roads fixed and garbage collected, the ’emergencies’ my rates are paying them to control.
I bet one of those emergencies is an all expenses trip to your local councils’ twined town somewhere in Europe.
I say, Bring It On. The only “emergency” solution for the supposed CO2 “problem” that can be implemented quickly is nuclear energy. Clear those regulations that slow down the building of nuclear plants.
They can declare what they want, but they don’t have the power to enforce it without the Senatae and President.
And Trump’s National Emergency is only one of about thirty at the moment, so anyone claiming he should lose now because otherwise he might lose later is simply trying to prevent him building a wall.
So, is Blumenauer using la-la-land standard of proof to support such a claim? And by “la-la-land standard of proof”, I mean computer climate models.
Has Trump used computer models for his take on the border situation? I think not.
I guess when everybody and everything are equal, one standard equals another. Therein lies the huge problem — lack of rational discrimination taken to the extreme is anarchy.
Blumenauer has no evidence that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s atmosphere or that there is a national emergency because of CO2.
Trump has plenty of evidence there is an emergency on the U.S. southern border.
It’s a difference between fantasy and reality. One you can’t see, and one you can.
I think its an emergency with the green dems. Their lies are falling apart fast, and they know it.
I do hope so, for the sake of the country and the mostly-free world.
AOC’s GND would be disaster for not only the US but the whole world. The US has been the #1 economy for over 150 years. The GND would take us down to at least #30 taking the rest of the economies with it We have been guaranteeing free trade for 70 years that would go out the window. Iran and Saudi Arabia would be at each other’s throats cutting off the supply of the Gulf oil. China, Japan, and everyone else will be at each other’s throats trying to save their economies. The number of people in poverty would jump astronomically. Can you say New Dark Ages?
Its a sharp fight and all Republican office holders will be needed to hold and win.
Controlling illegal immigration has been an issue in the USA for decades. President Trump is the first leader unwilling to accept the false promises of ideologically motivated Leftists and their all to often Chamber of Commerce compliant allies. We are fighting our own allies on this one.
The false issue of global warming doesn’t require government action. Republicans who can’t understand this should be given a primary and booted out. If they survive that let a Democrat take the seat.
“Controlling illegal immigration has been an issue in the USA for decades.”
Yes, I remember writing in Usenet’s alt.politics, back in 2004, about how President George W. Bush was on the wrong side of the immigration issue, when it became clear he was not going to do anything serious about stopping illegal aliens from entering the country.
Bush *was* on the wrong side of the issue. That’s one reason we now have Trump instead of George’s brother, Jeb, as our president. And thank God for that because Jeb is just as bad as George when it comes to illegal aliens.
They are loving men. They don’t mind giving billions and billions of our tax dollars away to people who don’t belong here, and feel really good about themselves for doing so. It ain’t their money, I guess!
What a bunch of losers these wobbly Republicans are. They have been infected with a desire to please the Leftwing media because they think that is the route to political power for not only Democrats but for Republicans, too.
They don’t want to antagonize the press, so they shut themselves up and don’t complain much when the MSM trashes them. Of course, you can understand why, after seeing what happens to a guy like Trump who does take the press on. He gets trashed relentlessly. Most of our wimpy Republicans can’t stand that kind of pressure and avoid it like the plague, but not Trump. Trump takes it and dishes it back out to them, every time.
I’ve been hoping for a conservative politician to take on the leftwing lies, all my life, and now here hs is!!!
Trump pays a price because the Leftwing Media can’t stand the truth, but Trump tells them the truth anyway. The most hurtful truth he tells them is their political ideology is a path to death and destruction for anyone foolish enough to follow that path. And Trump shows everyone a better way to live than under the thumb of socialism. Trump actually gets results.
True, but the Republicans need to grow spines and say true things, like “more CO2 in the air is good for living things” and “CO2 is NOT the controller of climate change.” and “renewable energy is unreliable and expensive” and “wind and solar power cannot scale and is not ready to replace fossil fuels without great costs”.
All that may be condensed to one catch phrase for thinking Republicans. “To restrict fossil fuels based on predictions of humanity’s impending catastrophic doom by misanthropic Maltusians is effin’ crazy.”
This is comment is reposted and slightly edited from a comment I made over on Judith Curry’s blog last week:
Near the end of one of Scott Adams’ daily Periscope podcasts, he mentions his desire to moderate a debate between mainstream climate scientists and the climate science skeptics concerning the existence and dangers of climate change.
As Scott Adams would manage it, the debaters would not be facing each other in the same venue. Rather, they would be asked in a Periscope interview to present their five most persuasive arguments for their position.
As I myself view Adam’s proposal, his podcasted debate might serve as a dry run for a larger public debate over today’s mainstream climate science, a debate which might go critical mass if America’s voters are ever asked to make serious personal and economic sacrifices in the name of fighting climate change.
Among his other pursuits, Scott Adams is an expert in the art and science of persuasion. He is looking for a short list of arguments from each side of the AGW question that would be persuasive to those people who are not climate scientists themselves but who have an interest in hearing summaries of the opposing arguments.
It is clear from listening to Adam’s thoughts on his proposed debate that he does not have a grasp of the most basic fundamentals of each side of the question. Nor does he understand how those basic fundamentals influence the content and rhetoric of the science debate. Anyone who participated in this debate would have to educate Scott Adams on the basics in a way that is comprehensible to the layman.
The other problem for those representing the skeptical position is that Adams views the question as having only two very distinct sides. He does not understand that a middle position exists which covers the many uncertainties of today’s climate science.
In his look at how the scientific debate is being pursued by both sides, Scott Adams frames the science question in a stark terms. Is the earth warming, or is not warming? If it is warming, is CO2 the cause, or is it not the cause? Is warming dangerous, or is it not dangerous? If it is dangerous, then how dangerous is it?
Judith Curry’s name was mentioned as a climate scientist who might be a good representative for the skeptic side of the debate.
Presumably, in addition to presenting their side of the question, each representative would be asked to refute the five most persuasive arguments offered by the opposition. I would suggest that these arguments might cover some or all of these topics:
— The fundamental basis of today’s mainstream climate science including the postulated water vapor feedback mechanism.
— Ocean warming versus atmospheric warming as the true measure of the presence and the rate of increase of climate change.
— The accuracy, validity, and uncertainties of the modern temperature record and of the paleoclimate temperature record.
— The accuracy, validity, and uncertainties of the general circulation models, the sea level rise projections, and the projections of AGW-related environmental, human, and economic impacts.
— The costs and benefits of alternative public policy responses to climate change including the practicality of relying on wind and solar for our energy needs, and the future role of nuclear power.
— The costs and benefits of massive government spending on Green New Deal programs versus the use of government-mandated carbon pricing mechanisms combined with an aggressive application of the Clean Air Act and with an invocation of Executive Branch emergency powers .
If Scott Adams goes forward with his podcasted debate, will anyone show up to defend the mainstream climate science side of the question?
If no one does, then someone from the skeptic side must present the mainstream’s side in a way that is both true to the mainstream position but which also drastically condenses the raw science into something the layman can understand.
Here is an example of just how condensed a basic description of today’s mainstream climate science might have to be in order to be comprehensible to the laymen — and also to Scott Adams himself — as a description of today’s mainstream theory:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Mainstream Climate Science Theory: CO2 as the Earth’s Temperature Control Knob
Over time periods covering the last 10,000 years of the earth’s temperature history, carbon dioxide has been the earth’s primary temperature control knob.
Although water vapor is the earth’s primary greenhouse gas, adding carbon dioxide further warms the atmosphere thus allowing it to hold more water vapor than it otherwise could. The additional carbon dioxide amplifies the total warming effect of both gases, CO2 and water vapor, through a feedback mechanism operating between CO2’s warming effects and water vapor’s warming effects.
For example, if carbon dioxide’s pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm is doubled to 560 ppm by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2’s basic effect of a 1C to 1.5C warming per CO2 doubling is amplified by the water vapor feedback mechanism into a much larger 2.5C to 4C range of total warming.
Atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms affect the rate and extent of atmospheric and ocean warming. These mechanisms transport heat within the atmosphere and the oceans, and move heat between the atmosphere and the oceans. These circulation mechanisms also affect how much of the additional trapped heat is being stored in the oceans, how much heat is being stored in the atmosphere, and how much heat is being lost to outer space.
Uncertainties in our basic knowledge of atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms make it difficult to predict with exact precision how much warming will occur if CO2 concentration is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
These uncertainties also limit our ability to predict exactly how fast the warming will occur and to predict with exact certainty where and how much of the additional trapped heat will be stored in the oceans versus in the atmosphere. Thus a range of warming predictions can be expected and must be studied further.
Depending upon which assumptions are being made concerning how atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms work, and depending upon how much CO2 will be added to the atmosphere over the next one-hundred years, climate modeling exercises now indicate that a range of from 2.5C to 4C of total global warming over and above pre-industrial temperatures is likely to occur before the year 2100.
(End of Summarized Theory, CO2 as Control Knob)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
As a layman in trying to understand climate science topics, you have to crawl before you can walk.
If the skeptic’s arguments are to be persuasive to the non-scientist layman, then explaining the basics of today’s mainstream climate science is a necessary step prior to explaining the uncertainties of the science and its predictions. It’s even a necessary prior step if one completely rejects the basic tenants of today’s mainstream climate science. An informed debate has to start somewhere.
As someone who is not a climate scientist myself, the description I’ve written above is my own highly-condensed summary of what I understand to be the mainstream climate scientist’s basic theory. The description is presented in terms that might be understandable to the non-scientist layman while also being true to the basic tenants of the mainstream climate science narrative.
Is my example of a highly summarized description actually understandable to the non-scientist layman? Is it actually true to the scientific position mainstream climate scientists now hold? Is it useful as a starting point for understanding the overall context of the debate?
Here is a most important point concerning what Scott Adams is trying to accomplish.
Adams is not asking the opposing sides to prove scientifically that their side of the climate change question is the scientific truth. He is asking them to offer a defense of their side of the question that is understandable to the non-scientist and is persuasive as debating arguments go.
In his look at how the scientific debate is being pursued by both sides, Scott Adams frames the science question in stark terms. Is the earth warming, or is not warming? If it is warming, is the cause CO2, or is it not CO2? Is the warming dangerous, or is it not dangerous? If it is dangerous, how dangerous is it?
Logically, any level of warming regardless of its rate of increase could become dangerous if the warming continues indefinitely into the future. A 0.2C per decade rate of warming will produce a 2C increase in a hundred years time, 4C in two-hundred years time. If we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and if CO2 will indeed be the earth’s temperature control knob for the next several thousand years, then when will the warming stop?
What is left out of the current debate over climate change is the question of certainty versus uncertainty.
If America’s voting public is ever asked to make serious personal and economic sacrifices in the name of fighting climate change, and if the debate over today’s mainstream climate science then goes critical mass, the question of certainty versus uncertainty will become a deciding factor as to who wins and who loses that debate.
As long as you remember that when you are playing in Adams’ world, you are playing in persuasion, which has been entirely on the side of the glo-warmers for the last couple decades. Facts in that world don’t matter nearly as much as the ability to persuade. Take a look at his Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter for a primer on what we need to learn, practice and use.
A moderated debate would be a useful exercise and very likely a useful exercise as long as we approach it as an exercise in persuasion rather than an exercise in figuring out whose facts are better (which is what engineers and scientists usually do). If we do the latter, we will get our back sides handed to us by the glo-warmers.
To be effective, we MUST learn the tools and techniques of persuasion. It is the only way to turn our propagandized and terrorized young, products of the public schools and colleges over the last couple decades who really do believe this stuff. Cheers –
All that would be lovely, if the “arguments” were in fact rational. But they are not–they are emotional, belief rather than evidence-based, and the alarmist side habitually wins by shouting down, de-platforming or employing scurrilous ad-hominem attacks in lieu of debate. Which is why we’ll never see that much-to-be-desired showdown.
95% of all human decisions are based on emotion
Dittos to what Goldrider said. This isn’t a rational discussion it is faith based.
The difficulty that lies ahead is does one stick to their principles, that is argue facts, reason and logic, or does one realize that facts, reason and logic may score rhetorical points, but that smug look doesn’t do one any good when the Green Leap Forward starts piling up the causalities.
So is it a matter of persuasion? The Warmunists want material wins, that is they want power and control so that facts, reason and logic have little to no role in the winning of hearts and minds when lies, propaganda and words that trigger emotions are far more effective in achieving the goal.
That is the reality of The Ends Justify The Means. The Ends here, is do we have human flourishing or do we give way to the failed Totalitarian State? The former has no chance with a population that only marches to emotions but tunes out to reason.
To paraphrase former president ‘W’, We need to give up our values in order to save them.
Just from watching the twitter back-and-forth, Scott Adams, IMO, is not the person for this. Let him stick to cartoons.
I completely agree!
btw, it’s not about persuasion, but about telling the truth. Truth itself is the persuasion. Scott is a trained hypnotist, and for some reason is enamored with being able to persuade people whether with truth, or not.
There is a segment of society that will not believe the truth, no matter how persuasive the arguments, because their identities are built upon rejecting truth. They are lost.
And there is another segment that simply wants to know the truth; you’ll never reach these people with persuasive techniques.
That is so true. I have seen Q&A sessions of the audience with a lecturer and the lecturer asked “If I could prove to you that [x] is true would you change your mind?” and the questioner said. “No.”
Scott also said (who knows how seriously) that Trump SHOULD declare a National Emergency on the climate. Then use his powers to eliminate all the regulations stifling Nuclear Power, and provide money to start building out third/forth gen nucs.
From a rational constitutional interpretation, that is BS. That was the route Obama was heading down. The federal regulations “stifling” Nuclear Power arise strongly out of Congressionally-enacted legislation, i.e. law and statute, both enviromental and nuclear-industrial. The NRC was formed from the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Much of what regulates civilian nuclear power today in the US comes out of the requirements of that legislation.
Obama was becoming an Imperial President (the path to Despotism), where his use of self-derived, self-proclaimed “pen and phone” powers clearly violated Separation of Powers on domestic matters (energy production, immigration laws, private land rights) where Congress and the States have power and clear authority. Whereas securing the nation’s border integrity from uncontrolled invasion by foreigners is a fundamental national security duty of the Commander-in-Chief.
Not only were Obama’s pen-and-phone legacy agenda items easily wiped away in less than 18 months by President Trump, historians will likely be very harsh on Obama for trampling on separation of powers. And it was precisely becasue Obama trampled on Separation of Powers, that his most of his legacy was so easily undone.
‘historians will likely be very harsh on Obama for trampling on separation of powers’
That depends on who’s writing – or rewriting – history.
Any president who wants to declare a national emergency over CAGW (human-caused, global warming/climate change) and wants to enact a Green New Deal-type program to address the emergency, would necessarily have to nationalize most U.S. industries to get this done.
President Harry Truman declared a national emergency and tried to nationalize just the steel industry and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court. The same thing would happen today.
The only way a president could implement a New Green Deal would be to declare martial law.
Anyone who thinks there is enough evidence for CO2 to be that much of a danger to the Earth to have to declare martial law or even a national emergency, has been smoking too much of something.
I would like to see you try to make such a case to the public or the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the biggest problems is there is no such thing as a skeptic position. There are literally dozens of them and skeptics disagree with each other on many issues.
Dr. Curry is probably as good as anyone to argue the uncertainty angle which is one thing that most skeptics agree on. However, I’m not sure that plays well in a debate.
Richard M, that is very true. However, the dynamics of the debate over today’s climate science will change if the majority of the people listening to the debate find themselves under direct pressure from climate activists to make serious sacrifices in their personal lifestyles and in their personal financial circumstances.
If the average Joe and Jane voter find themselves under that kind of pressure from the greens, then they have an incentive to bring the uncertainties of the science into the discussion as to how far public policy should go in fighting climate change.
Because the climate activists have studiously avoided making any demands for real sacrifice up to this point, then the debate over the science has not yet gone critical mass in the way it will go if, for example, America’s green activists put a stiff price on carbon and if they begin using the Clean Air Act to its fullest possible effectiveness in forcing a quick reduction in our carbon emissions.
Driving up the cost of energy, electricity and gas and gasoline/diesel, is the surest way to bring the religion of Human Ccaused Globall Warmining to a screeching halt. Electric providers in western PA have told customers the rise in cost is due to environmental groups’ interference, gas providers have let it be known the cost remaining level or dropping is because they are fighting environmental groups’ interference.
“energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.” – Barack Obama.
Blumenauer represents the environazi part of Oregon. He attended Lewis and Clark College, which is as PC, SJW, AGW as they come. His bio says he’s devoted his entire life to public service. In other words, he’s a poorly educated imbecile who hasn’t done a single worthwhile thing in his miserable, phony life. Why are virtually all the Governors, Senators and Representatives from the big population parts of coastal CA, OR, and WA such total nitwits. Not one of them should even be local dog catcher. Only those dumb enough to vote them into office are lower on the IQ scale. The main national emergency this nation faces are the boneheads who run things.
100+ (from one of his constituents)
He is from Portland. That should tell you all you need to know.
Not content with wrecking Oregon, he wants to drag down the rest of the country too.
Obama declared a dozen national emergencies. All we heard from Democrats was . . . crickets.
Is there a list somewhere? The MSM is not going to remind anyone even now.
Here’s the first link I found on the subject
the Obama section lists:
I saw the list with a loc.gov address yesterday, trying to dig it back out now.
Here’s a link to a 2017 CNN articles that contains the same list from the previous posted link
Hmm… Sounds like the type of thing that Trump is doing (Nationa Security)
Clinton declared 18, the silence on that score is telling
Yeah, Clinton’s the leader in declaring National Emergencies followed by Obama and then G.W. Bush (who had as many as Carter, Reagan and his daddy combined). The very first National Emergency (declared by Carter) Under the National Emergency Act is still in effect, while all the ones declared by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush have since expired.
“Obama declared a dozen national emergencies. All we heard from Democrats was . . . crickets.”
That’s all we heard from Republicans, too. Hypocrits!
One good thing about all this: We are going to smoke out the weak Republicans over some of these issues. And once we identify them, we need to vote them out of office at the next opportunity.
They are holding up progress, and giving the Democrats a chance to get back in presidentail power which might just be the end of all our hopes and dreams. I know that sounds a little out there, but think about the consequences had Barack and Hillary been successful in their undermining of the US election. If they do one successfully, they will do them all after that, and when you consider how close we came (and the coup is still ongoing) then maybe it’s not so out there at all.
If you are a socialist, you don’t care. If you don’t want socialists telling you how to run your life, you care very much.
Once again the shock lessons on just how fragile democracy and the Constitution are come from the left.
What exactly constitutes “A National Emergency”?
Let’s see, a century from now we just might see some negative side-effects from climate change, which progressive science tenuously links to increased atmospheric CO2.
On the other hand, there is presently a hoard of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border at will, containing both people fleeing their dictators and people wishing to infiltrate and destroy our way of life as soon as they can.
Pick ’em like you see ’em…
I don’t get the sense that things have improved since 2013-2014.
“What exactly constitutes “A National Emergency”?”
The president is not restricted from declaring a national emergency. It is up to the president to decide what is a national emergency. No consultations necessary.
On top of the 1976 National Emergncyy act, the president also has the constitutional authority to deny access to any illegal alien or group of aliens to the United States at any time he deems it to be necessary for any reason he deems necessary. Trump hasn’t exercised that authority yet.
The president has lots of laws giving him lots of authority because they are necessary to protect the United States and that is his primary job, above all else, and the U.S. Constitution backs the president up.
There is only one Commander-in-Chief.
Correct, he can declare a national emergency. However he still cannot spend unappropriated money as a result of this “emergency.” Congress has already said “NO” to his request for wall money, subverting the will of Congress with this “emergency” is where he is making a major blunder.
Once again, crickets when Obama did the same thing.
No MarkW, Obama did not declare an “emergency” and spend unappropriated funds.
Let’s see – how many trillions just evaporated under Obama’s ‘stimulus’, resulting in nothing but ‘continuing resolutions’, where we haven’t even got back to working under an actual budget?
Isn’t it great when you can screw your country within technical boundaries?
That was Obama’s specialty. And destruction is always easier than creation.
Joel, under the “stimulus” and the continuing resolutions, the money spent was appropriated. Please tell all of us here when did Obama spend money that was not appropriated by Congress?
Didn’t SAY that, did I?
What Keith here is demonstrating is the myopic method of rationalizing by focusing on one aspect – see? It’s all on the up-and-up because it’s appropriated.
So Trump’s finding money by working through the system too.
Notice how he also completely ducked that whole ‘evaporated trillions’ thing.
You are dead wrong Joel, Trump is not “finding” any money, he’s diverting previously appropriated money to fund his vanity project.
ROTFLMAO @ Joel.
“Trillions” don’t evaporate.
For example, have you seen the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve lately?
Got a citation for your “evaporated” trillions?
Keith, where did the money Obama gave to the IPCC for the so called relief fund come from?
Congress never authorized that expenditure.
Like all leftists, you are utterly blind to the sins of anyone you like.
Funding for the IPCC was in the appropriation bill for the State Department and Treasury Department.
‘In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, the administration asked for $500 million – $350 million for the State Department and $150 million for the Treasury Department – as a first step towards meeting that $3 billion objective.” </b?
Get educated MarkW, so you don’t look stupid: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/19/president-obamas-last-minute-500-million-donation-green-climate-fund/
“Congress has already said “NO” to his request for wall money”
Actually, Congress said yes and gave Trump $1.375 billion for the wall. Another point the Supreme Court will take into consideration. Congress has already authorized Trump to build more wall in the latest legislation. They can’t come back and whine to the Surpreme Court that he can’t do that. Well, they can, but they will be laughed out of court if they do.
The president has a lot of authority when it comes to national security. It’s his primary duty and the U.S. Constitution gives him the authority to carry out this duty, partisan, political Democrats notwithstanding.
“Please tell all of us here when did Obama spend money that was not appropriated by Congress?”
What about that approximately $1.4 billion in cash Obama gave to the Mad Mullahs of Iran to finalize Obama’s nuclear deal with them? Was that ever appropriated by Congress? I have never seen any mention that Congress had anything to do with this payment. Got anything?
As I understand it, during Obama’s administration, the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] accepted the “State of Palestine” as a signatory, which should have triggered a U.S. funding prohibition.
U.S. law forbids any taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations that recognize “Palestine” as a sovereign state.
Nonetheless, Obama prioritized the U.N. Green Climate Fund over other, more pressing crises, proceeded to give 1 Billion dollars to this organization, blatantly violating the US law, in doing so. Sadly, congress was irresponsible in allowing him to get away with it.
He asked for $5.7 billion for his wall and Congress said NO.
The money appropriated is for “fencing” and repair of existing barriers, not for a new wall.
On his declaration of an “emergency” he said, “I didn’t need to do this”
He couldn’t get funding when the GOP controlled both houses of congress in the past two years, and now losing the House to the Democrats makes his effort to circumvent Congress’s power of the purse a bad decision.
Abbott, Obama did not “give” Iran any money. The payment you reference was a court ordered settlement for a long running dispute that involved military equipment purchased by Iran but not delivered.
I should have posted this link here: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/index.html
Once again, Keith demonstrates that his principles are infinitely flexible.
The courts can’t force the executive to spend money that congress hasn’t authorized.
I apologize to you Mr. MarkW, because you don’t seem to understand the facts in this matter. First of all, Iran paid the United States for the purchase of military equipment. Now, the United States did not deliver the purchased equipment, so right off the bat, the United States has a boatload of money in the Treasury.
So, the court ordered the United States to return this money with interest back to Iran.
Now, tell me what you don’t understand about this matter.
Keith, Keith, Keith, for someone who likes to quote the constitution, you sure don’t know it.
The Judiciary, Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal. None can force the others to do anything.
That’s how the thing is written.
The courts simply do not have to power to “order” the executive to do anything.
It’s in their, perhaps if you read it and educated yourself, you’d stop looking like such an idiot.
‘Abbott, Obama did not “give” Iran any money.’
A perfect example of rationalization/justification all for the aid and comfort of a long-standing enemy.
You know damn well that’s what he did. Because he sure didn’t have to – but sure tried to sneak it by, didn’t he?
Now, the United States did not deliver the purchased equipment, so right off the bat, the United States has a boatload of money in the Treasury.
Keith, it doesn’t matter how the money got into the Treasury. Obama could have personally cut a check to the treasury and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference because once the money is in the Treasure *ONLY* an act of congress has the power to appropriate it. Not the Courts and not the president. By diverting funds to give to Iran *without* an act of Congress Obama did what you are accusing Trump of doing, only Trump is actually doing it *with* an act of Congress – the National Emergencies Act which does allow him to divert funds to deal with the declared emergency. Thank the congress of 1976 for that.
LOL @ Endicott……..if you overpay your federal income taxes, an act of Congress is not necessary for the IRS to cut you a refund check. The funds are in the Treasury you know.
You really don’t get it do you?…….Think of the Iran payment in the same manner.
So, the court ordered the United States to return this money with interest back to Iran.
What part of the constitutional separation of powers that leaves the appropriation of money to congress don’t you understand? The court can order what ever the hell it wants but it can’t make the president violate the constitution. And, constitutionally, the courts don’t have the power to appropriate money. Constitutionally, the president also does not have that power regardless of what the courts try to tell him to do. It’s up to congress to act to authorize the spending. The president can’t spend the money on whatever he wants *without* an act of congress authorizing the spending. Per the constitution, power of the purse rests with congress (specifically the house) and no one else.
Endicott, it doesn’t take an act of Congress to permit the IRS to cut a check from the US Treasury to pay your refund on your taxes. Same thing applies to the payment to Iran, they didn’t get the military gear, so the court ordered refund didn’t need an act of Congress.
if you overpay your federal income taxes, an act of Congress is not necessary for the IRS to cut you a refund check
You ignorance is showing. It was an Act of Congress that authorized the IRS to collect and refund tax money in the first place. Congress doesn’t need to authorize each individual tax refund as it already made the authorization in the creation of the IRS
Endicott, it doesn’t take an act of Congress to permit the IRS to cut a check from the US Treasury to pay your refund on your taxes
Keith, the IRS had nothing to do with the money sent to Iran. Iran is not a US taxpayer so the IRS is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but Congress alone has the authority to approve *any* payments to foreign entities.
And then there’s the money Obama spent on the UN Green Climate Fund. Putting aside the US law that prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used to fund any U.N. agency that recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a state (thus making the payments *ILLEGAL*) the GOP congress said no to paying the Green Climate fund. Even before paris GOP lawmakers repeatedly pledged to block any funds and specifically did not appropriate any money for the Green Climate Fund in that years omnibus spending bill (as you said about the current congress saying no to Trump on the wall, the GOP congress back then said no to Obama on the Green Climate Fund), yet Obama made two $500 Million payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund anyway.
LOL @ Endicott…….
“Sorry to break it to you but Congress alone has the authority to approve *any* payments to foreign entities.” </b.
You are correct.
However, the REFUND to Iran was not a “payment” it was a REFUND
Do you know what the definition of REFUND is?
Really? In your special dictionary ransom is spelled r e f u n d? Okey dokey, then.
Endicott says: “the money Obama spent on the UN Green Climate Fund.”
I hate to break it to you but the money that went to the UN Climate fund was appropriated by Congress.
So your complaint that Obama spent unappropriated funds is trash.
Next argument please………………………..
Endicott, your head is stuck so far up the butt of the right wing echo chamber, you’ve lost touch with reality.
However, the REFUND to Iran was not a “payment” it was a REFUND
It came out of the US treasury, only Congress has the authority to authorize how such money is appropriated. Denying that fact doesn’t change it. Besides which, what Obama illegally gave to Iran in a pallet of cash under the cover of night is DWARFED by the amount of money courts have ruled Iran owes the US for Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Rather than “refund” them in the form of cash, he could have deducted it from the billions from court rulings that Iran Owes the US (which he would not have needed congressional approval for).
I hate to break it to you but the money that went to the UN Climate fund was appropriated by Congress.
Not for the purpose Obama used it for. Congress specifically said NO to appropriating money for the Green Climate fund – You know just like congress said NO to Trump’s wall. Stop being such a blatant hypocrite.
Endicott, your head is stuck so far up the butt of the right wing echo chamber, you’ve lost touch with reality.
Bwahahahahaha. Coming from you, who doesn’t know what reality is, that’s rich.
The funniest thing about this “emergency” is that when Trump announced it, he said: “I didn’t need to do this”
His own words show this isn’t an “emergency.”
The courts will take note of what he said.
Sketchy Keith just demonstrated classic progressive misrepresentation – what THAT statement meant is that he should have been able to rely on congress to do their jobs. He shouldn’t have HAD to do this.
Joel, Congress did do their job, they told him NO to his request for funding for his wall.
No, Keith – that’s congress pointedly NOT doing their job.
That’s congress abusing their power to screw the country.
I.E. the progressive agenda.
Joel, you need to realize that elections have consequences. The recent mid term 2018 elections has divided the power in Congress, and given the Democrats control of the House. Now, the House (via Pelosi) has told Trump NO WALL FUNDING. It’s not an abuse of power it’s the consequence of elections. Funny how when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for the two years prior, they still couldn’t fund Trump’s wall.
“Funny how when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for the two years prior, they still couldn’t fund Trump’s wall.”
No, that’s not funny, it’s pathetic. I blame Paul Ryan. He lied to Trump. Trump thought he could trust Paul Ryan. Turns out, he couldn’t.
Republicans are their own worst enemies sometimes. In this era of authoritarianism, Republicans can’t afford to stumble if they value our freedoms.
Yes, Keith – I’ve heard that catch-phrase. I also understand all the rationalizing progressives do to justify themselves.
Just to be clear. I’m not trying to convince you of anything – you’re not here to do anything but push messaging – I’m just illustrating how people like you do it.
It’s called a ‘red-herring’, a ‘straw-man’ – and what you do is hijack an argument and turn it into something else.
In this case, the issue is boarder security, and and an end-run around congress – and you’ve tried to turn it into an appropriations issue, because that’s the progressive talking point.
You used this same talking point to dodge the fact that Obama constantly (and braggadociosly) made end-runs around congress – the Dreamer’s Act is STILL in place.
Either way, it’s still bullshit. And bottom line – progressive Democrats (and yes, many Republicans) are flat refusing to perform one of the primary duties – one of the ONLY duties – of government, and that is to defend its country’s citizens and borders.
A government that won’t defend it’s own borders – Hell, YES, that’s a damned emergency.
Yep, had Congress done its primary duty, securing America’s borders, Trump would not have had to declare a National Emergency over it. Glad Keith pointed that out!
The courts will take note of what he said
I’m sure the 9th circuit will. It won’t be the first time they’ve taken his words out of context.
Joel, Congress did do their job, they told him NO to his request for funding for his wall.
No, Keith, Congress actually said yes by giving Trump $1.375 billion which is less than required to get the job done, hence the need to invoke an “emergency” to cover the difference.
I see my eggcorn, there… should have been “horde”.🤔
THis was tried in, I believe, 2010 and they got soundly smacked down over it. Individual events, such as massive flooding along Mississippi River valley, fall into the category of issues which can trigger a National Emergency. And their attempt to use same for “gun control” will twirl round the toilet, too. The massive amount of illegal narcotics and illegal aliens do fall into the category of issues which can trigger a National Emergency, as they have.
The Dimocrats going full retard on climate and energy is the real national emergency.
And then what? Ban cars, stop the sale of gas, force everyone to be vegans? Oregon will be a lot of fun.
Automobile transportation is a national emergency.
Coal fired power plants are a national emergency.
Raising cattle is a national emergency.
Hey, why just limit it to one — climate change — when you can break it down into MANY emergencies ? Many emergencies, thus, make doom look even gloomier.
Internet child porn is a national emergency.
I could go on.
This sounds logical. Trump declares an emergency. The Dems declare an emergency. Meh. How is this a story.
If I was in charge of a social division and disrupt campaign against America from Moscow, I would promote this guy after pulling back from Facebook operations. In an earlier era the Soviet labs and teams looked at ways to disrupt the American food supply and energy grid. Today they have complicit local resistance groups to do that work.
“If I was in charge of a social division and disrupt campaign against America from Moscow, I would promote . . .”
I would promote radical Democrat and Leftwing Media in their spreading of hate, anger and division in the United States. The American Left is doing the work of the Russian propagandists for them.
Democrats and Russian propaganda, spreading division everywhere we turn. Two peas in a pod.
Obviously if Trump can create a phony emergency the Democrats will too.
Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate duties of any government. So claiming that building a wall to protect those borders is a ‘phony emergency’ is simply ludicrous.
The Democrats promised Reagan funding for a wall decades ago, in return for an amnesty on Undocumented Democrat Voters. They got their amnesty, and Americans didn’t get their wall because the Democrats never provided the promised funding.
All Democrats care about is more votes from foreigners, to do the votes Americans won’t do. They don’t care about protecting Americans, because Americans don’t vote for them any more.
Regardless of your (wrong) opinion about the emergency being phony, Democrats can and will do so when given the chance and would have even had Trump never declared this emergency.
“Obviously if Trump can create a phony emergency the Democrats will too.”
That’s the argument. Let’s see how successful they are at promoting their CAGW emergency.
They will be successful possibly at getting everyone to vote on the record, but they won’t be able to pass any legislation that would address the emergency. It won’t pass in the U.S. Senate, and the president would veto it if it did.
Well if Congress wants the authority to declare a National Emergency, then they need to change the law. Currently only the President has that authority, as given to the Executive by Congress in the National Emergencies Act.
This really isn’t that complicated, but our “betters” are intent on sowing as much confusion and doubt as possible.
They’re not gonna like it when the bullets start flying.
Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!
If you had a clue, you’d know that pretty much every President since they were given the power to do so has declared a national emergency at some time in their administration. Obama declared several.
And it’s not even the first national emergency that Trump has declared.
The Democrats just know most of their voters are dumb enough not to understand this. They don’t care about ‘national emergencies’, they care about blocking construction of a wall that will stop them importing new voters.
If he knew that he would be someone else
He can be whoever, whenever, but his ignorant opinions always identify him.
If you had a clue, you’d know that pretty much every President since they were given the power to do so has declared a national emergency at some time in their administration.
All of them from Carter thru Trump have. The only president who didn’t, was the president (Ford) who signed the act in 1976. Carter was the first to declare a national emergency (with regards to Iran).
The Democrats just know most of their voters are dumb enough not to understand this.
Case in point: Griff.
Actually John, the 1976 Act was created to put a check and balance on the USE of National Emergency claims. FDR had used it several times decades earlier.
It started with President Wilson
The post was specifically in reference to the 1976 national emergencies act. what FDR did was long before the 1976 act was put in place, and thus irrelevant to what presidents have done under an act that didn’t exist when he was president.
good ol’ glo-ball gov Wisons…1913 voter rights given to those who didn’t have to fight…next thing you know WW1…then WW2…then….
List for us all the US presidents who have not declared a National Emergency. Should be easy, since they have only had the ability for a relatively short time, historically speaking.
Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!
Griff, every President since Carter has declared multiple National Emergencies (Carter, the least amount at 2, one of which is still in effect, Clinton the most at 17, six of which are still in effect). I hate to break it to you, but that box was opened a long, long time ago.
Griff, you lose ALL credibility, even from newbies on this site, when you post such an ignorant, unresearched statement.
I think there should be a new definition: ‘Griff’ – noun; def., 1. an opinion based on ignorance; 2. a false fact, a lie. 3. an incredibly stupid comment.
Griff, you lose ALL credibility
That assumes he had any credibility to begin with. It’s rather hard to lose what he never had.
That’s why I call him ‘Grift’.
“Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!”
Griff, you should ask yourself why Obama didn’t declare CAGW to be a national emergency while he was in Office. There must be some reason, otherwise he would have done what you propose, and then he could have fixed CAGW all by himself, according to your formula.
The truth is declaring CAGW a national emergency would never have passed the laugh test, and would not have been approved by the Supreme Court who shot down similar attempts by a president to nationalize American industry.
Way too funny.
What if President Trump took this idiot up on the matter?
For the creeping socialism that lies at the heart of the Cult of Catastrophic Climate is becoming a national emergency.
Far too many fools and bandits with their hands on power.
Blind,scientifically speaking,worms gnawing at the foundations of society, because they FEEL!
Idiots in command is amusing when they are few,catastrophic when they become many.
So the civic institutions are all failing to produce scientifically literate,well educated citizens..
This could be called a real national emergency.
“What if President Trump took this idiot up on the matter?
For the creeping socialism that lies at the heart of the Cult of Catastrophic Climate is becoming a national emergency.”
That might qualify as a CAGW national emergency, and President Trump wouldn’t even have to nationalize American industry to deal with it, just activate the Justice Department.
“So the civic institutions are all failing to produce scientifically literate,well educated citizens..
This could be called a real national emergency.”
I fully agree!
The entire alarmist community has campaigned very strongly over the last year and the result is that many more people have been persuaded that global warming is a major problem. The growth in worried believers has been quite marked in the UK. Unfortunately that includes politicians and policymakers. We are going to get pushed into even more crazy and expensive green schemes.
This site and a few others continue to do a fantastic job, but it is a case of preaching to the converted. That is not a criticism but a frustrated cry for help. Perhaps someone could write a post proposing a few ways in which we could get more of a public debate or put some technical challenges into the public domain. Perhaps we could identify things that all of us can do as citizens.
This site has countless readers, a great many of them keen to fight the alarmist propaganda. There is a great opportunity to tap such a resource by harnessing the collective brain power. They could suggest what things we could do, select the best ideas and discuss how to implement them. There are many people who contribute to this site who could do a great job getting such a project off to a good start. Obviously it would have to meet Anthony’s approval and he may see some unwelcome downsides.
With the public and political sphere inundated daily by hysterical headlines, the narrative has now moved into the very heart of government. The only hope of reversing the tide is a serious hearing within government, one which, as in a court of law, hears arguments from both sides. The trier of fact would then be not only elected representatives but the target of orchestrated hysteria: the public – those who elect those representatives. If the sides are properly represented, the hearing would, as was skillfully observed by the late Michael Crichton, quickly expose the truth of the matter through sharply contrasting support of the two sides: ambiguous or unsupported opinion on one side vs hard science and empirical fact on the other.
With the public serving as trier of fact, the media hype that is embraced by political opportunists would then disintegrate.
Unfortunately, Republicans are unlikely to react until the threat to their re-election is imminent. By then, it will be too late.
So now, “climate change” is a political ploy? Who knew?
Actually, half of us have been saying that all along.
If the Dim-o-crats REALLY believe we are facing an existential climate crisis … then they should BAN all fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY!!! Anything short of this is willingly marching all of humanity into the gas chamber!!! (Pun intended).
So come on now, Orey-gone Rep. … be specific with your looney resolution … Make Fossil Fuels ILLEGAL!!! After all … if only ONE life is saved …
Not just Fossil Fuels, but also all the items that come from Fossil Fuels, all the plastics, Electronics etc.
AOC and other like-minded Dems propose the Green New Deal as the solution to climate change. However, one perspecacious observer said the Green New Deal was the longest suicide note ever written!
“According to the Brennan Center for Justice, presidents have declared national emergencies 60 times” since 1976 when this power was codified into law -This from a Left leaning source
Nothing new here. President Trump is not letting the open border racists off easy. He’s willing to fight it out. The people who voted for him voted for this.
Trump approval rating about where it was when he was elected. Slightly positive. To paraphrase “you have to break a few Progressives to make a revolution”
TO SUMMARIZE, there is NO credible evidence that dangerous runaway global warming will occur due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It has never happened in Earth’s past, despite CO2 being many times higher than present. There is NO full-Earth-scale evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 driving Earth’s temperature; the only such evidence is that temperature changes LEAD changes in CO2, not the reverse (MacRae 2008, Humlum et al 2013). Every global warming activist’s scary prediction of runaway global warming and wilder weather has FAILED to materialize – a perfectly NEGATIVE predictive track record. The Climategate emails and warming adjustments of the temperature record are evidence of scientific fraud by warming activists.
The scientific evidence is that global warming alarmism is not just false, it is also probably fraudulent. The scientists who lead the global warming alarmist movement are, in all probability, fully aware of this fraud. The politicians who promote global warming alarmism may not understand the science, but are certainly aware of the existence of strong opposition by highly credible scientists.
To date, trillions of dollars of scarce global resources and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? One possibility is suggested in the following quotations from “The Sociopath Next Door”, by Dr. Martha Stout (2006):
Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “antisocial personality disorder,” a noncorrectable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.
According to the (then) current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
( 1) failure to conform to social norms;
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability; aggressiveness;
( 5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
( 6) consistent irresponsibility;
(7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.
The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.
“TO SUMMARIZE, there is NO credible evidence that dangerous runaway global warming will occur due to increasing atmospheric CO2.
So what’s causing the warming at the moment? There is no other plausible cause that has been presented. Coming out of the little ice age is not a reason. We should be cooling but we are not.
“It has never happened in Earth’s past, despite CO2 being many times higher than present. ”
Umm yes it has. The earth has been much warmer at various times.
There is NO full-Earth-scale evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 driving Earth’s temperature”
Yes there is. You can read about it in the IPCC reports and on numerous quality websites…
“the only such evidence is that temperature changes LEAD changes in CO2”
Yes that happens too. It’s why it is a double edged sword.
“The Climategate emails and warming adjustments of the temperature record are evidence of scientific fraud by warming activists.”
Really where is your evidence that the records are fraudulently adjusted? Seriously, forget the BS and bluster, please be specific where there has been fraud. The GWPF tried to gather information on this a few years ago and failed. They came up with nothing. The NZ Climate Science Education Trust were slaughtered in court in New Zealand when they alleged NIWA did this ….. then ran for the hills when they were ordered to pay 80K. So bring on the evidence. I don’t mean mistakes I mean deliberate fraud to change the historical records. Good luck with that. Many here use it as a throw away line, but few actually try to present any real evidence. I suspect because there is none.
Simon, I have no time for your nonsense.
I have posted ample evidence to support my claims on wattsup – go look it up.
“I have posted ample evidence to support my claims on wattsup – go look it up.”
Ha ha. In other words you have nothing.
So what’s causing the warming at the moment?
The same thing that caused it all the previous times in history that it warmed – Mother Nature.
There is no other plausible cause that has been presented
The null hypothesis still stands. There’s been no plausible refutation of the null hypothesis, as such your “it must be man because I’m too stupid to consider anything else” excuse fall flat.
Coming out of the little ice age is not a reason. We should be cooling but we are not.
Of all the idiotic things you’ve said, that certainly stands right up there as one of the most idiotic. If “we should be cooling”, then we wouldn’t be “coming out of” the little ice age we’d be going deeper into it.
Messed up the html tags on the last section. Last paragraph should not be in italics.
“The same thing that caused it all the previous times in history that it warmed – Mother Nature.”
Huh… mother nature is not an answer. You may need to dig a little deeper.
“If “we should be cooling”, then we wouldn’t be “coming out of” the little ice age we’d be going deeper into it”
Ummm… I think you are more than a couple of steps behind. I’ll dial it back a bit for you. When all is considered, at this point in time, we should be cooling. Because we are warming, there must be a reason. The trick is to find it and if we can do something about it.
Huh… mother nature is not an answer.
Yes, it is. “It’s natural, same as it always was” just isn’t the answer you want to hear because you wish to blame man for political purposes.
When all is considered, at this point in time, we should be cooling.
That’s an assertion without evidence. We’ve been warming since the little ice age, not cooling, so your claim that we should be cooling requires something more than your baseless assertions.
Because we are warming, there must be a reason
And that reason is the same as for every other time we have warmed throughout history. If you think otherwise the burden is on *you* to prove otherwise (models are not proof) not assert it.
The trick is to find it and if we can do something about it.
If it’s natural (and thus far there’s no proof that it isn’t – remember models are not proof), there’s nothing that can be or needs to be done about it other than adapt as needed (which is how species have dealt with the naturally changing climate since life began).
I give up. Enjoy your little bubble.
I give up. Enjoy your little bubble.
Ha ha. In other words you have nothing.
Simon once again demonstrates how the alarmists twist and abuse logic.
He declares that unless someone can prove that the current warming isn’t being caused by CO2, we must assume that it is being caused by CO2.
To add to the absurdity, he declares that we should be cooling now.
OK Simon, since you are so convinced that CO2 is causing the current warming, what caused the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods? Since it couldn’t have been CO2, it must have been something else. What was it?
There is ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Hey and well done not calling me a troll just because I disagree with you. Progress.
The planet is viable. It’s the Democrats that are wicked.
POTUS wants xx billions for the wall
Dems want xx billions to stop CAGW
Not to worry, it’s only couple of clicks on the US Treasury’s red keyboard
The difference is, the xx billions Trump wants is well within the current budget, so moving money around to accomplish it would be doable (once the inevitable court battles are resolved). the xx billions the Dems want (the Green New Deal) is actually in the *trillions* to the tune of double the size of the current budget (at the very least). There’s not enough money that can be moved around in the budget to accomplish their “stop CAGW” goals.
Besides, the Wall would put a big dent in the roughly $280 billion illegal immigrants now cost the US every year! I’ve seen studies that show the payback period for the Wall could be measured in mere months! Other benefits include drastic reductions in illegal invasion, drug running, human trafficking, and the economic suffering of citizens living along the border! The way the Democrats are fighting the issue makes me wonder if they’re getting kickbacks from Mexican drug kingpins!!
Only reason to oppose securing the border is because they are personally gaining from it being unsecured.
The senator is confused. His ‘climate emergency’ is the ‘manufactored crisis’ , not the president’s wall.
Actually his problem he dutifully reads his “bible” the [Portland] Oregonian which weekly has a large ‘religion’ article about climate change/global warming. The Oregonian never allows any contrary opinion except for a once a month letter to the editor. (out of hundreds of contrary opinions on their OregonLive opinion boards)
Earl Bowtie is a clown. He has never offered a real bill, never had a bill passed, never done anything of note except pander to the radical Left. Earl has no influence and is not a player. He is superfluous and unworthy of real concern.
A “Resolution” is non-binding, and it cannot become law. Who cares?
We care, because nothing good can come from it. A resolution is a tool of persuasion. It will convince more people there is a need for action to save us from “climate change”.
Perhaps Republicans should propose a resolution countering forcing the US to destroy its energy infrastructure.
James: A “Resolution” is non-binding, and it cannot become law. Who cares?
A resolution need to pass both houses. If the Republicans can keep their RINOs in check, it won’t make it pass the Senate.
Steve: Perhaps Republicans should propose a resolution countering forcing the US to destroy its energy infrastructure.
I like your idea, however same thing applies, only in reverse. While you might get that passed the Senate (again, depending on keeping the RINOs in check) it will require some sane Dems to cross party lines in the house. I’m not sure there’s enough of those left anymore. But it would be good to get them on the record nonetheless.
“Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.”
1) President Trump provided data on illegal immigrants’ crime to validate the need for declaring a national emergency over border security.
What data could a future president present to justify declaring a national emergency over climate change?
2) President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is in line with his duty to protect the US from external dangers (such as terrorism, invasion, smuggling,Etc.)
A future president declaring a national emergency to enable gun control measures would be acting contrary to his/her sworn duty to uphold the US constitution.
…. AND …. we conservatives totally support them doing so! The thing is, what ever they foolishly declare will be dragged in front of the courts ….. just like the Dims are doing with Trump. THE DIFFERENCE:
Trump will win. The LAW specifically gives him authority in these matters, and the Boder Patrol will back him up in his claim.
The DIMS, otoh, will lose, because gun control is ruled by the 2nd Amendment so there is no chance any declaration will be successful, … and CAGW is too abstract. The key is the word “catastrophic”. They can say CO2 causes warming till the cows come home, but there is no indication that it has been or will be catastrophic. …. and it actually runs the chance of blowing up in their faces, by discrediting the whole issue.
I saw one meme about Pelosi’s threat to issue restrictions on guns that basically said the government could have our guns, bullet first!!
What data could a future president present to justify declaring a national emergency over climate change?
The endangerment finding. Trump’s EPA needs to get that removed before he leaves office.
““Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.”
Trump is not setting a precedent and he is not enabling a future Democrat president. No matter which way Trump went, to declare an emergency at the border or not, that would not prevent a future Democrat president from declaring a national emergency for anything he chose.
This is a ridiculous argument on it’s face.
Obama did not declare CAGW to be a national emergency. He could have. Ask yourself why he didn’t do it.
If a future Democrat president called gun ownership a natioal emergency, it would make no difference because he can’t change the Second Amendment, so a president would be wasting their time doing such a thing.
And Republican who opposes Trump is just helping the radical Democrats and their radical agenda. There will be a political cost.
exactly. Trump is using the same powers as previous presidents, there is nothing “unprecedented” about it and future presidents will chose or not to use those same powers as they see fit regardless of what Trump does or does not do.
Exactly. This is information Trump will have to present, repeatedly, to the American people because our “media” refuses to do their actual job, instead spewing lies and fantastical conspiracy theories. He has to get ahead of this, give weekly “fireside chats” and post the documentation online. They keep lying? Take it to the next level. A good start would be having it come up anytime anyone accesses any USG webpage, then use the NSA to blanket it over top of twitter, snapchat, farcebook, instagram, etc etc. Social media needs to start serving the people, not distracting them and lying to them. Then do the same to all TV, cable and satellite “news” programing in 12 hour blocks, randomly chosen. Start putting the actual facts out where everyone will see them. National Emergency, don’t ya know!
I don’t think the dems realize how limited national emergency powers are. It doesn’t allow the president to draft and sign his own legislation (which is what would be required for climate change), nor does it allow him to ignore the constitution (gun control). I mean, look at what trump can actually do. Grab a few billion from here and there to fund existing military resources.
What exactly is the dems plan upon assuming the presidency and declaring these ridiculous emergencies?
They are fantasizing about nationalizing the oil industry, banning cars, etc, etc. Basically, turning the presidency into a dictatorship. I’m not kidding. I can provide some twitter quotes if desired.
The LA Times hypes a “Potential” MegaStorm but fails to mention that this happened in 1861-2.
The magic molecule, CO2, is now to blame for all changes in weather, even if they happened before.
I see this as a coordinated effort to hype all actual and potential weather events in advance of a Congressional push to claim weather events a national emergency before they happen. I can only see this backfiring on the Dems as reality shows that their claims are baseless. Much like the claims they can provide 100% of all the US energy needs from renewables in 11 years are baseless.
Link for the LA Times article
Didn’t Barack Hussien Obama declare a National Emergency re: climate change when he and his EPA went after the fossil fuel industry?
No. You are thinking of the Endangerment finding.
We have a similar nutcase here in the UEA’s home city – one “Dr” Rupert Read:
“Mr Read said: “The climate crisis has become ever more urgent – the general secretary of the United Nations has said we have to put fundamental changes in place in the next 18 months or we are heading for catastrophe”
“Mr Read has been at the forefront of a campaign to persuade the BBC to stop featuring climate change deniers on its news reports and is also a leading figure in the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement, a growing organisation that advocates non-violent direct action and public disobedience to force politicians to meaningfully address the problem of climate change”
And being interviewed on the Beeb after disrupting a local council meeting:
“If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Let’s see, life expectancy in the USA is LITERALLY decreasing due to heroin and fentanyl being smuggled across the southern border, nearly the entire human trafficking problem in this nation is due to the southern border, and our social programs which are funded by US tax dollars are being severely strained due to illegal immigration on the southern border – this is just a “fake crisis.”
Obviously the real emergency is the fast approaching idiocracy.
On AO-C’s GND, her paragraph (J) on page 9. is laughably and scientifically ignorant. And it is morally repugnant.
“(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation;”
She and her staff must be scientifically ignorant in the extreme to write about “removing GHGs from the atmosphere.” The depth of sheer dumb in that statement is un-ending.
And then she is proposing “Afforestation” — which is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was no previous tree cover. And by previous, AO-C’s definition would certainly be the time before European colonials settled and cleared North American lands beginning almost 400 years ago.
Afforestation is clearly different from re-forestation, both in terms of ecology and the role of humans n shaping the land. Re-forestation in the US is what has been occurring through-out the 20th century in New England and the Great Lakes/NorthWest regions after the severe logging of hard wood forest for both timber and farm land needs during the 18th-19th centuries. Countless hundreds of thousands of thousands of acres in New England that were cleared for farms in colonial times and long since returned to forest ecosystem (see note). The farms were abandon beginning in the 19th century as farmers left the poor rocky soils to head west to the plains and to Oregon and California. Great forests around the Great Lakes were cut for timber.
To undertake “afforestation” in place of farms where there had never been forests would be insane. Sever depletion of ground water levels would also be likely. Furthermore, forest encroachment to towns and local communities would be a set-up for the same kind of disasters seen in the CampFire of last November.
AO-C appears so stupid and ignorant of science, society and history that her positions in the GND are immoral if she and her staff takes them knowingly. But then when have moral boundaries ever stopped a true socialist?
The policy emphasis of the climate activists, as embodied in their Green New Deal, is now focused on massive new government and private sector spending for a combination of green energy projects and climate-justified infrastructure projects.
What climate activists refuse to acknowledge is that it is impossible to compress a hundred year’s worth of technological and economic transition away from carbon fuels into a thirty-year time span without experiencing major collateral impacts. Little or nothing has been said by climate activists concerning what these impacts might be.
As its advocates see their plan, the Green New Deal is all upside; it has little or no downside. That’s their story, and they are sticking to it.
If the policy objective is a recommitment to Barack Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050, then spending unlimited amounts of money on wind, solar, hydro, energy storage, and perhaps even on nuclear won’t get us there.
The only possible means of greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions in the short span of time climate activists are now seeking is to put a stiff price on all carbon fuels and to use the Clean Air Act to its maximum legal effectiveness in directly regulating all major sources of our carbon emissions, not just coal.
And even this kind of forceful approach won’t be enough to get the job done. If America is to achieve an 80% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2050, a program of government-mandated carbon fuel rationing combined with strictly enforced energy conservation measures covering all sectors of the American economy must eventually be adopted.
More likely than not, Donald Trump will be defeated in the 2020 election. It is also likely that control of the Senate will pass into the hands of the Democrats.
If past history is any guide, it is unlikely the Democrats in Congress will enact a stiff tax on carbon. It is just as unlikely the Congress will acknowledge the need for a carbon fuel rationing program beginning in the mid to late 2030’s if their Green New Deal spending isn’t achieving their carbon reduction targets.
So the question arises, is new legislation from the Congress needed to pursue a highly aggressive, nationally-enforced anti-carbon policy based on strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act?
The answer is no, not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress to begin the process of greatly reducing America’s GHG emissions as far and as fast as climate change activists claim is necessary.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has full authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources of America’s carbon emissions. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that the process used by the EPA in 2009 to determine that CO2 is a pollutant was properly followed.
The Executive Branch and the EPA now have all the independent authority needed to pursue a highly aggressive anti-carbon policy, if they choose to do so.
Here is a plan to reduce America’s GHG emissions 80% by 2050 using the existing legal authorities of the President as enabled by the Clean Air Act and by existing national security legislation. This plan is similar to the one that was being pushed a decade ago in 2009 by 350.org and by other environmental groups.
In this updated version, the original 350.org plan is augmented by a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
Moreover, if carbon pricing combined with massive new spending on green energy projects doesn’t prove to be fully effective, the updated plan adds a provisional system for imposing direct government control over the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants. (2007-2012)
— File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
— Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s.
— Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts.
Phase II: Expand and extend EPA regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (2021-2022)
— Issue a presidential executive order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
— Publish a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
— Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
— Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
— Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding and the NAAQS in the courts.
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive EPA-managed regulatory framework for carbon. (2023-2025)
— Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
— Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
— Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
— Research and publish a provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing as a backup to the carbon fine system.
— Defend the EPA’s comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
Phase IV: Implement the EPA’s carbon pollution regulatory framework. (2026-2050)
— Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
— Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
— Assess the possible need for invoking the provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing.
— Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations against emerging lawsuits.
Phase V: Implement the provisional system for direct carbon fuel rationing. (Start and End dates contingent upon Phase IV progress.)
— Issue a presidential proclamation declaring that Phase IV anti-carbon measures cannot meet the 80% by 2050 target.
— Initiate the provisionally established system for imposing direct government control over production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
— Apply the Phase IV system of carbon pollution fines in escalating steps as needed to incentivize Phase V compliance.
— Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.
Phase VI: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or earlier.)
— Assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program beyond 2050.
— Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures continue beyond 2050.
Phase I of this plan was complete in 2012. The legal foundation needed to impose aggressive across-the-board regulation of all major sources of America’s carbon emissions remains in place awaiting the appearance of a president willing to use it.
When Barack Obama was Chief Executive, his Clean Power Plan and his other anti-carbon measures might have achieved possibly one-third of his Year 2050 GHG reduction goal. But the remainder depended upon a highly uncertain combination of accelerated technological advancements and raw unvarnished hope.
And yet, when President Obama had the opportunity and the means to move forward with the 350.org plan, he refused to go through with it. Nor were 350.org itself and the other climate activist groups willing to push hard for adoption of their 2009 plan after their initial victories in the courts.
From 2012 onward, climate activists could have worked closely with the EPA using the ‘sue and settle’ process to put their 2009 plan into effect. If the dangers of climate change are as severe as they claim, then why didn’t the activists go forward with it?
Could it be that in 2012, President Obama, 350.org, and all the other anti-carbon environmental groups were afraid of massive political blowback if they had pushed for a program which can be highly effective in quickly reducing America’s carbon emissions — but at the expense of imposing great personal and economic sacrifice on most Americans?
To be fair, the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has numerous, and perhaps a democratic, appeal. Why wouldn’t a political party exploit its leverage.
Hmm. Perhaps some cc legislation could be proposed by Trump.
Ban the exportation of fossil-fuel drived electricity to any state that has banned the in-state production of electricity by the use of fossil fuels. Call it, ‘Protection of State Clean Energy Policies’. Constitutionally, it is justified under the Interstate Commerce clause.
The argument would be that power companies could avoid state mandates to provide ‘clean energy’ by buying power produced by ‘dirty’ power companies in other states.
As far as I know, California is the only state that would currently be affected. Ban them from importing power, and they will go dark occasionally, and then, ironically, maybe see the light.
And get the popcorn ready as the Dems tie themselves into pretzels trying to defend their opposition such Climate change initiatives from the president.
Blumenauer for Kindergarten-President.
Congress cannot declare an emergency. In 1976, they legally provided the Executive with those powers, albeit powers narrowly drawn.
They already intended to, and have done so, wherever possible. Obama wore out his pen with the number of executive orders signed. Blaming Trump or using him as some kind of a “well-you-did-it-first” excuse simply doesn’t wash.
Well, Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, made the most fundamental error in his call for “a resolution that would declare the ‘sense of Congress’ that climate change is a national emergency.” The, ahem, consensus of 97% of all US citizens is that Congress has no sense whatsoever.
The real emergency is in clear cutting American forests for wood pellets than can only be shipped to the UK to burn in their “greenish” boilers.
Aren’t they already redirecting military funds to deal with global warming?
Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
libdems are known for their fixation on “gun control”.
near pathological fixation. On gun control.
They’re just marginalizing themselves at this point.
Does anyone think McCabe discussed his plans with Mueller?
If so would that be enough to bring down the edifice?
OBAMA DECLARED NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. Not a peep from these morons. Fine, they can go to court, be protested and treated like garbage.
SHUT DOWN ALL FOSSIL FUELS NOW. Give the idiots what they want and give it to them IMMEDIATELY. Do we or do we not want this stopped? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical questions. Humans are stupid and will work against their best interests every time, so we’re toast. Have a nice day.)
Get the vehicle ration cards ready and distribute them and then cut off the fuel supplies.
Those who advocate for shutting down the use of fossil fuels should be called out on this issue.
So what if the Dems declare gun control a National emergency? Would that be OK. A whole lot more people die because of the liberal gun laws in the US, so if Trump can do it for a wall the Dems can for gun control. Them we are in to a spiral. This is gonna come back to haunt the Trumpster, make my words.
“So what if the Dems declare gun control a National emergency? Would that be OK. A whole lot more people die because of the liberal gun laws in the US, so if Trump can do it for a wall the Dems can for gun control. Them we are in to a spiral. This is gonna come back to haunt the Trumpster, make my words.”
If the Democrats declare gun control a national emergency it would not change a thing. Guns would still be legal because of the Second Amendment which says gun rights shall not be infringed. The Democrats would have to change the U.S. Constitution in order to radically change gun control laws.
Liberal gun laws are not the cause of excess deaths. Liberal gun laws save lives. We had a gun incident last week where a disgruntled employee shot and killed five of his fellow workers right after he was fired from his job. The shooter was not legally allowed to have a gun because he was a former felon, yet he had no trouble getting a gun. Criminal don’t obey gun laws. The solution to a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun. The workplace where the shooting took place was a so-called “gun-free zone”. That means that only criminals will have a gun in there.
I’m happy to announce that it looks like Oklahoma is going to pass a “Constitutional Carry” law in the near future which will allow all law-abiding citizens of Oklahoma to carry guns legally. The law passed last legislative session but Governor Fallon vetoed it. The new governor, Stitt, says he will sign it. I believe there are several other States that are also passing similar laws. I would expect this to become a trend in Red States.
The Demorats aren’t going to touch the Second Amendment. If they try, they will get their fingers burned.
“The Demorats aren’t going to touch the Second Amendment. If they try, they will get their fingers burned.”
You mean like Trump is now with his wall announcement? Thank you for endorsing my point.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how it shakes out in the courts. Since Congress gave the president the National Emergencies Act without clearly definition of what a valid national emergency under that act is, coupled with the fact courts tend to defer to the president on national security issues (which is the constitutional purview of the president) there’s a good chance Trump will ultimately prevail by the time the Supreme Court weighs in. Unlike your proposed scrapping of the 2nd amendment “emergency” which the Supreme Court would undoubtably strike down on clear constitutional grounds should it ever make it that far (lower courts would also likely strike it down on the same grounds).
“I’m happy to announce that it looks like Oklahoma is going to pass a “Constitutional Carry” law in the near future which will allow all law-abiding citizens of Oklahoma to carry guns legally.”
To quote myself, and to add to that:
In the near future criminals are going to be under a lot more stress in Oklahoma because, if they are smart, they are going to have to assume that everyone they see in Oklahoma is packing heat (a gun). It’s a good thng when you can put doubt in the minds of the Bad Guys and make them feel vulnerable. They may decide to move on rather than put themselves in possible danger by messing with someone who may be armed.
“They may decide to move on rather than put themselves in possible danger by messing with someone who may be armed.”
Will certainly be interesting to see what the outcome is. Let’s hope it is not more innocent lives.
You realize that a majority of states already have similar laws. And one side (pro-gun) of the debate claims the data shows a decrease in violent crimes such as murder whereas the other side (anti-gun) claims the data shows no discernable difference. If the results had been more innocent lives lost, you can bet that the anti-gun side would be shouting those statistics from the rooftops instead of trying to claim the results are “no discernable difference”. No reason to suspect Oklahoma will be the one time where the results are completely different.
They can try Simon, but there’s this little thing called the constitution that stands in their way. While the president can declare a national emergency, he can’t rewrite the constitution, and any attempt to do so will be slapped down by the Supreme Court (if not sooner by the lower courts).
The pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is the cause of very low temperatures in North America.
Thanks for the links, ren.