Boebert bill to block Paris climate agreement reignites Senate ratification debate

From The Washington Times

Valerie Richardson writes in the The Washington Times:

Rep. Lauren Boebert, Colorado Republican, has introduced a bill to block the Biden administration from reentering the Paris agreement until it receives Senate confirmation, a nod to the longstanding debate over the accord’s legitimacy.

Her bill, which has 11 GOP cosponsors, bars Congress from appropriating funds to implement the international climate accord until it receives Senate ratification, a step that former President Obama skipped when he used his executive authority to enter the agreement in 2016.

It’s an ambitious statement of principles, but probably less than zero chance of passing.

“My bill prohibits Congress from spending a single penny on the Paris Agreement until this treaty is ratified by the United States Senate,” said Ms. Boebert in a Thursday press release. “Joe Biden took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If he wants to keep it, he must transmit the job-killing Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate for ratification.”

Calling out the original flawed legal basis of the agreement seems to be the goal.

The bill has little chance of passing the Democrat-controlled House, but the legislation has drawn attention to the debate over whether the Paris accord is an executive agreement, as the Obama administration maintained, or a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate under the Constitution.


“Unilaterally entering the Paris Agreement was wrong in 2016 and it’s wrong now,” Ms. Boebert said. “Responsible energy production supports more than 230,000 Colorado jobs. The Paris Agreement puts these jobs at risk and will increase energy costs. $4 per gallon gasoline, here we go again!”

Ratifying a treaty requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which Mr. Biden would be unlikely to secure in the 50-50 Senate. 

Opponents had urged Trump administration officials to transmit the agreement to the Senate before Mr. Trump left office in an effort to create a roadblock for the Biden team, but the document was never sent, said Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment.

Read the full article here.

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 23, 2021 10:15 pm


Coach Springer
Reply to  rd50
January 24, 2021 8:45 am

It might not have a chance of passing in a Democrat House, but it shows a possible future.

January 23, 2021 10:18 pm

Why can’t Republicans be more pro-active like the Democrats and find Republican judges to tie up Biden’s executive order.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 23, 2021 11:13 pm

The judges allowed Trump’s EOs when they had been properly legally rewritten . Even so under Trump the Paris Accord – not treaty- was basically followed with. Reduction in CO2 ahead of requirements.

Reply to  Duker
January 24, 2021 6:57 am

It depends on the definition of treaty.

A written contract between the U.S. and other countries may comprise a treaty, especially if it involves transfer of funds and is a binding agreement toward some force of action. If it’s nonbinding and involves no transfer of funds, then perhaps it’s not a treaty.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scissor
January 24, 2021 9:47 am

A Treaty is a binding international agreement between states, often with penalties for noncompliance. An accord is only concurrence of opinion .. basically high level virtue signalling. It has no teeth. However, in the present context it would give the Biden administration a blank cheque to spend money on “climate”.

Paul S.
Reply to  Scissor
January 24, 2021 9:48 am

Exactly, the president cannot unilaterally spend the taxpayers funds without permission from the legislature, therefor it must be a treaty if it involves spending the country’s money

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duker
January 24, 2021 10:27 am

“Paris Accord – not treaty”

“A rose is just as sweet by any other name.” It is the functionality and obligations it entails that defines whether it is a treaty.

“The key distinguishing feature of a treaty is that it is binding.”

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 24, 2021 9:39 pm

Technically it is called the Paris Agreement.

Kelvin Duncan
January 23, 2021 10:35 pm

He’s not Biden his time, is he. Reminds me of other historic accords: The Munich agreement, the Soviet-German Pact, my signing the pledge as a youngster not to consume alcohol, my first wife’s pledge to honor and obey……..

January 23, 2021 10:49 pm

“What climate activists fail to comprehend and President Trump understood — is that a policy that promotes a massive expansion of U.S. domestic energy production is one of the best safeguards against engaging in “an endless parade” of wars and interventions over energy supplies” Remarkably, the country that did most to reduce its emissions is one that never signed the Paris pact. Thanks to a remarkable oil and natural gas fracking revolution, in 2019 America led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions” So the left is trying to force us to pay for a carbon footprint we DON’T HAVE! 

Reply to  marlene
January 23, 2021 11:03 pm

Exactly. China is the CO2 problem, if anyone believes CO2 is a problem.

Reply to  marlene
January 23, 2021 11:07 pm

Exactly. They should look at the CO2 footprint from China. And the most actually involved in INCREASING their CO2 output.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  rd50
January 24, 2021 9:34 am

I find it difficult to praise the Chinese government, but they seem to be the only ones who understand. A warmer, wetter, CO2 rich atmosphere is a good thing. I doubt there is any thing man can actually fi tgst matters – but we should try.

Reply to  rd50
January 24, 2021 10:50 am

And at the same time we are being skewered by Xiden.
How appropriate and Machiavellian.
The mind reels.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  yirgach
January 26, 2021 11:55 am

He’s getting close to being “Xiden” isn’t he. Next thing you know, Biden will be implementing “Social Scores” here in the United States like they do in China.

If your social score in China isn’t up to the expectations of the communist regime, then they take privilieges away from you like restricting your ability to travel. If it’s bad enough, you just disappear from Chinese society.

Uncle Joe may be heading that way. The Leftists in Academia and Industry are already assigning social scores to former Trump administration officials and have found them wanting, which means no hiring of these people for new jobs and discouraging anyone from hiring them in the future.

The Leftists won’t stop in this kind of intimidation until someone makes them stop, because they want a One-Party, Groupthink Nation and this is one way to get it.

Reply to  marlene
January 24, 2021 1:41 am

“So the left is trying to force us to pay for a carbon footprint we DON’T HAVE!”
Ya…..and your point is?

Reply to  Ron
January 24, 2021 10:04 am

The first 10 words of your sentence sufficiently describe this.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  marlene
January 26, 2021 11:46 am

“What climate activists fail to comprehend and President Trump understood — is that a policy that promotes a massive expansion of U.S. domestic energy production is one of the best safeguards against engaging in “an endless parade” of wars and interventions over energy supplies”

I agree that producing all our own oil is a safeguard, but would quarrel with the claim that the U.S. has gone to war over energy supplies for selfish reasons, which is the implication.

The U.S. has gone to war to secure the “world’s” energy supplies (the First Gulf war, where keeping oil flowing to the world was one objective), but has never gone to war for the selfish reason of stealing oil from other nations to supply ourselves. Iraq still has its oil supplies. The U.S. didn’t take them away after winning against Saddam Insane.

That’s the claim of the Left, that the U.S. goes to war over oil, and it is not true. Another false reality created by the Leftwing propaganda machine.

January 23, 2021 11:07 pm

Let the Gretaheads have another one of their last chance gabfests as they really look stupid coming away with platitudes of no real import and the kneesup largesse pisses people off. Greta has to be there railing at them all to really drive home the message what infantiles they all are. In show biz you shouldn’t work with kids and animals but they’re too stupid to get it.

Coeur de Lion
January 24, 2021 12:36 am

What happened to Obama’s billion dollars? I mean, what was is actually spent on? Salaries? Why hasn’t a question been asked in either House?

George Tetley
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 24, 2021 2:51 am

When I was younger I worked after school pumping gas at”SottGas ” in Wilmington Delaware a gallon of gas was $0.9 yep nine cents remember that Joe. Oh I forgot Joe cannot remember.

4 Eyes
Reply to  George Tetley
January 24, 2021 3:35 am

$0.9 is 90 cents, 9 cents. FFS get the numbers right, WUWT looks stupid if you make such basic errors and want to be sarcastic

4 Eyes
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 24, 2021 3:36 am

Not 9 cents

Reply to  4 Eyes
January 24, 2021 4:01 am

When I was young and all, I remember the price of 14.9 cents/gallon during a gas war. A gas war was when the major producers drove the small independents out of business by selling at a loss. That was in 1947-48.

Steve Case
Reply to  Old.George
January 24, 2021 4:34 am

Here in Milwaukee I saw 25¢ in 1970

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Old.George
January 24, 2021 9:43 pm

I am not all old and I paid 27 cents a gallon to fill up my motorcycle on the I-90.

The highest I have paid in Canada is $5.13 a US gallon (3.8 litres).

Jackie Pratt
Reply to  Old.George
January 25, 2021 7:40 pm

When i was young i remember old guys talking about when they were young. It never seems to end though.

Reply to  4 Eyes
January 24, 2021 5:09 am

I remember The Horror and the headlines when gas at the pump went to $0.50/gal! Terrifying! We were all going to have to WALK to work, from New Jersey over into Philadelphia! 1974 was an interesting year.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 24, 2021 5:22 am

Maybe you shouldn’t be so rude when someone makes an obvious typo. I remember 12 cents in 1969.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 24, 2021 12:18 pm

Trying – You must not have lived in California. Working at my uncle’s Chevron station in Santa Clara, gas prices ranged from about 29.9 for regular to 39.9 for custom gas. When gas wars came along he would drop regular down to about 23.9, but he could not compete with the Stars and Bars up the street where the price for regular would drop as low as 18.9. And don’t forget the gas price had 8 or 9 cents/gal. of taxes built in.

January 24, 2021 1:12 am

Biden called Boris Johnson yesterday, and Johnson released a picture to the media. The Great Green Reset was the highlight of the call

In the middle of one of the coldest snaps in years, Boris is wearing a thin shirt with the sleeves rolled up, in exactly the way he would only consider appropriate to being seen outside during a summer heatwave.

I’m guessing he has Downing St’s heating cranked right up to the maximum, I’ll also wager it is not the most efficient building to heat, and three for three that the system is donkey’s years old and about as inefficient as you can find.

Still it’s other people that have to pay for their own, and suffer the consequences.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ScotsForClimateWarming
January 26, 2021 12:01 pm

“Biden called Boris Johnson yesterday, and Johnson released a picture to the media. The Great Green Reset was the highlight of the call”

I wonder if Boris asked Joe about Joe removing Churchhill’s statue from the Oval Office on his first day as president?

I bet Obama had something to do with that decision.

I saw Obama’s chief flunky, Susan Rice giving a news conference at the White House about an hour ago.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 24, 2021 1:50 am

I’m afraid that with or without ratification by congress the presidential gesture will be abused by activists and their shysters to harass energy producers. The potential victims better come up with a rock solid and coordinated strategy to defeat the luddites in court.

Rod Evans
January 24, 2021 1:51 am

As ratification of a treaty requires two thirds majority in the senate. Is that two thirds of those present in the chamber or two thirds of elected senators?
The difference might be moot…..

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 24, 2021 6:14 am

“provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” is what the Constitution says. You need only a simple majority of Senators (51) as a quorum to do business. Could the Democrats inhibit Republicans from attending a ratification vote? I would have never in my life thought they could but now all bets are off.

Ron Long
January 24, 2021 2:13 am

Under Article 11, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, a Treaty is any binding International Agreement, and is proposed by the President and must then be ratified by a 2/3 vote of a legally assembled Senate session. So, any US President that wants any “binding” elements in the Paris Accord must engage in the process of a treaty, otherwise it is an Executive Order. The problem is that a President has a lot of access to “discretionary” funds and can throw billions of dollars around as they see fit. China can sign the Paris Accords and then lie, cheat, and steal all they want, even without a sympathetic President. John Ketchup Kerry will play any game for the fame and money involved, so here we go.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 3:44 am

Wait, Ron, these are DemoKKKrats we’re talking about! Do you think they care one wit about what the Constitution says?
“Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!
“We’re gonna raise your taxes while we force energy prices thru the roof and drive small businesses into bankruptcy with lockdowns that don’t work! And if you don’t like it and protest we’ll investigate you as a potential terrorist, or send our peaceful Antifa and BLM demonstrators to re-edumacate you!”
Man! Comedians and late night TV could have so much fun if they weren’t infected with terminal leftism!

Ron Long
Reply to  Abolition Man
January 24, 2021 6:14 am

Abolition Man, it pains me to agree with you but you are right. The first clear sign of that will be the Senate trial of a non-President, scheduled to start Feb. 6.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Ron Long
January 25, 2021 8:07 am

If the House impeachment was any predictor, it will be a show-trial, devoid of evidence or due process of law.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 5:39 am

Harris will have already earmarked those discretionary funds for Green New Deal spending so probably less available now.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 10:37 am

Perhaps the legality revolves around the meaning of “binding.” While there may not be any requirements that enforce emissions reductions, if the US is obligated for paying money, then I’d say it is binding. That means, if Congress doesn’t appropriate money, Biden shouldn’t be free to take money appropriated for other purposes and send it to Paris, as Obama did.

Abolition Man
January 24, 2021 3:26 am

Why are female Republicans smarter, tougher and braver than most of their male counterparts? Rep. Boebert has more sand than Mittens Romney and Mitch “Turtle” McConnell combined; plus she’s well armed and much better looking to boot!
Bet on the RINOs sitting around wincing and moaning while the radical lefties behind Puppet Xiden send the US economy off the rails! If only there was someone in DC who cared about American workers and small businesses! They’d never make the US dependent on foreign oil if they did! Oh,wait! Never mind!

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Abolition Man
January 24, 2021 4:14 am

smarter, tougher and braver than most of their male counterparts?

Because men and women are different beasts.

Men, genetically, are tribal animals that at a base level understand the need for hierarchical order if they want to function in a group. Other men are rivals for ‘the best’ but being physical creatures we understand that physically fighting normally leads to serious injury.

So in social situations men will either assume dominance, submit or leave the group. Fighting is rare except in situations where groups are compressed beyond normal social sizes – schools, prisons, dense urban areas. The risk/reward is normally too low to fully challenge and men who remain in a group tend to fall into a degree of mutual compromise on how far we will push issues.

Women, however, don’t really like each other. Men accept the group dynamic because big groups are better than small groups when it comes to hunting mammoths. Men also, to be pragmatically blunt here, have a different mind set towards reproduction which I will bluntly describe as ‘That was great, what was your name again?’ We are genetically programmed to spread our DNA and the hierarchical system is designed that the strongest most successful man in a group gets to spread his nominally superior genes as much as possible.

Women, again to be pragmatically blunt here, have a much longer investment in reproduction. The genetically programmed solution to this is to not only select a breeding partner who is not going to give them ugly children, but also one who is big and useful enough to ensure a bit of useful assistance while they are dealing with the process of raising the little bundles of joy.

Women therefore, while expressing perhaps a stronger degree of empathy with each other, are also actively aware that other women are also rivals likely to steal their partner away from helping them and their baby.

So what do we have? Men, who compromise because at the end of the day SOMETHING needs to be done, vs Women who are fiercely protective of their children and secretly regard their peers as rivals.

So while not all woman actively desire positions of power, when you do find one who gets into that sort of role, they don’t tend to take shit from rivals. Threaten what they regard as theirs to protect – child, family, state, nation – and they will crush you.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Craig from Oz
January 24, 2021 11:52 am

Craig, this is interesting theory — biologically-driven behavior. In general some of what you write might be true, but when you get down to cases there is plenty of deviation.

One feature you missed was the tendency of men to protect their mates and offspring. Other male animals may neglect these, but humans require much care during long gestation and juvenile stages. The male must provide this care or he will fail at procreation/survival and the species will not succeed.

We are at a point in history where this role of the male is needed more than ever. Our women and children are under attack. They are not safe from abortion, subjugation, and eradication by cultural/political forces. We males must stand tall and protect our own families.

We are not lions or bears. We are a pair-bonding species. The nuclear family is not a cultural artifact so much as it is a biological adaptation/necessity. Women do not stand alone as the guardians of population survival. Quite the contrary.

lee riffee
Reply to  Craig from Oz
January 24, 2021 3:28 pm

While some of what you say is probably true at least in some cases, I would also like to add a different explanation (from a female point of view) as to why some women tend to become assertive and aggressive in such circumstances. Having been a woman working in a male dominated industry I can attest to feeling the need to work twice as hard to simply be seen as competent and capable. In these situations, men don’t like having a woman “horn in” on their little work club and they can make things pretty hard. So in order to “keep up” in these male dominated work places (which congress is) women either work really hard or become aggressive, or both…

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Craig from Oz
January 24, 2021 9:54 pm

To build on the genetics angle, women avoid men who smell like them – which is a genetic inheritance. The more distant the families, the more attractive the man is.

The “beautiful” children idea is off. Virility in many cultures is associated with the western notion of ugliness. The virile bull is the hulking ugly one. Western nearly is socially determined. The common thread is a face that is physically balanced, not asymmetric.

January 24, 2021 4:50 am

Rule of law in the US has been replaced with Rule of What-You-Can-Get-Away-With.

Richard Page
Reply to  BallBounces
January 24, 2021 5:42 am

Might makes right. Where have you been for the last 10 or 12 years?

Reply to  Richard Page
January 25, 2021 9:11 am

12? more like 20+

January 24, 2021 5:12 am

Are these those interesting times in that old curse?

Richard Page
Reply to  Sara
January 24, 2021 5:45 am

You mean that hackneyed phrase that was made by some british ambassador about a hundred or so years ago and keeps being attributed to someone else? We have always lived in interesting times – they become far less so when viewed with a degree of hindsight especially by schoolkids in history lessons.

Harry Davidson
January 24, 2021 5:33 am

Whenever there is a political article on this site, it goes all Breitbart BTL. And not good Breitbart come to that.

It is no wonder the Alarmists are winning.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Harry Davidson
January 24, 2021 7:46 pm

I too think it goes too far at times

But at what point was man made climate change not a political story?

It’s is all politics, created and maintained by political means.

It is true we have to speak out and fight back

January 24, 2021 6:45 am

Governments and industries who oppose the extreme-left globalist agenda of the Marxist-Democrats (and their fellow-travelers in the Western world) continue to adopt a failed strategy. Strategically, we cannot succeed by continuing to acquiesce to the blatant falsehoods of Climate-and-Covid fraudsters – every time we retreat to accommodate them, the fraudsters move forward and increase their demands. (See Chamberlain – WW2)

To succeed, we have to cease our acquiescence to their blatant falsehoods and call out the fraudsters on all their climate, green energy and Covid-19 lies.

As I wrote to our Premier recently:

I am appalled by the policy incompetence of successive Alberta governments over the past decade and more …

By attempting to appease extreme leftists who seek to destroy the Alberta economy, successive Alberta governments have adopted a failed strategy that makes us weaker and poorer.

Situation Assessment – first published many months ago:

It’s ALL a Marxist-Democrat scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, the specious linking of these frauds (“to solve one we have to solve the other”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot US election scam – it’s all false.
We published that the Climate-and-Green-Energy scare was a false narrative in 2002, and by 2009 I wrote that there was a covert agenda, Now the radical greens are admitting that “Global Warming aka Climate Change and Green Energy” was false propaganda, a smokescreen for their neo-Marxist objectives – see recent statements from environmentalist Michael Schellenberger, from Saikat Chakrabarti, former chief of staff for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the latest movie trashing green energy scams from Michael Moore, “Planet of the Humans”.

I called Covid-19 correctly on 21March2020 – NO LOCKDOWN! Covid-19 was a relatively mild flu except for the very elderly and infirm. Covid-19 is less dangerous than seasonal flu’s of recent decades that nobody remembers – the lockdown was not just a huge over-reaction, it was a global scam.

The UN, the WHO, the IMF and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are using the Covid-19 false crisis to reshape the global economy into their neo-Marxist model – the Great Reset.

In October 2019, Event 201, sponsored by the WEF, the Bill Gates Fdn, etc. simulated a global coronavirus pandemic.

Just months later a relatively mild Wuhan-lab-manufactured coronavirus flu was overblown into a false global pandemic, promoted by the WHO into an economy-destroying global lockdown.

The Covid-19 lockdown enabled the huge mail-in vote – the Dems produced millions of false ballots.
The radical green objective is to destroy prosperity and move the USA to a planned economy – with a few rich at the top looking down on the peasants – that describes most countries, and the USA is next if Biden wins.

We stand at the abyss. If Biden wins, it will be the end of freedom. Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”. If America falls, there will be nowhere left to run to.

January 24, 2021 9:22 am

Really, the Democrats aren’t Marxists… they aren’t even Socialists… I’m not sure they even make Social Democrat. They would be to slightly to the right of any European centrist party and are headed by a President of traditional conservative views.

Why hype this on the left/right spectrum? Just argue the policies on cost and practicability.

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2021 12:55 pm

The Dems used to be much more moderate – but starting with Obama they have swerved to the far left.

I’ve done business on six continents, entered East Berlin via Checkpoint Charlie in 1989 a few months before the Wall fell, and also traveled to Fidel’s Cuba when he was still in power. I’ve seen such countries myself and it’s not pretty.

Marxists dictatorships typically start with the “soft sell” – take money from the rich and give it to the poor. etc. It soon transcends to a vicious dictator who lives like a rich feudal prince, supported by a corrupted military that destroys everyone who speaks out against his failures.

“I am compelled to reject Bolshevism for two reasons: First, because the price mankind must pay to achieve Communism by Bolshevik methods is too terrible; and secondly because, even after paying the price, I do not believe the result would be what the Bolsheviks profess to desire.”
– “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism” by Bertrand Russel, 1920

Bertrand Russel was directionally correct, but he underestimated the evils of Bolshevism – for example, the ~130 million of their own citizens murdered by Stalin and Mao, and more killed by Pol Pot and all the other Marxist Tin Pots of Asia, Africa and South America.

Haven’t these leftist lunatics killed enough people? – about 200 million souls just in the 20th Century!

Leftists (aka Socialists aka Progressives) say it will be different this time – believe me, it won’t!

Do we really have to do this again? Apparently yes.

I fear for our children and grandchildren.

Those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.
– George Santayana

Regards, Allan

January 25, 2021 12:09 pm

More Marxist Mania for Canada – Can the USA be far behind?

Trudeau and Biden are both following the globalist Marxist Great Reset agenda.

“Coming soon – to a country near you!”



The USA (and other countries) have more immediate problems. The corruption and treason of leftist politicians and their “bought” mainstream media is blatantly obvious to anyone with observational and deductive skills – that apparently excludes Democrat voters and their idiot clones in other countries.
The leftist leaders don’t really believe in their Climate-and-Covid scams – these are scary tactics used by wolves to stampede the sheep. This is the classic Zimbabwe / Venezuela strategy – destroy the economy, end democracy, and rule like a feudal dictator with absolute power – looking down on all the poor peasants. Your children and grandchildren will live like a Chinese serfs..
The gullibility of the sheep is truly remarkable – the latest scam was the Antifa-led invasion of the US Capital building, an obvious false-flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.- and even many idiot Republicans believed it and blamed Trump.
The Big Picture:
The global warming / climate change scam, the Covid-19 full-Gulag lockdown scam, the specious linkage of these two huge frauds, the many-million vote fraud, the stolen election, and the leftists’ “Final Solution”, the Marxist “Great Reset” – aka “Live like a Chinese peasant, under the boot of a dictator”.
Trump won by a landslide – Biden‘s rallies could not even fill a minivan.

Sky News Australia exposes the “GREAT RESET”, the wild Marxist “Final Solution” from the World Economic Forum (WEF), as espoused by its founder Klaus Schwab (aka “Doctor Evil”) and a host of bizarre villains out of an Austin Powers movie. (Schwab starts at 5:05)
Here is another video exposing the GREAT RESET – the ultimate scam.

Seriously good people, wake up – you are being conned by traitors and sleep-walked into slavery for your children and your grandchildren.

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2021 2:25 pm

Why don’t you argue their policies on costs, and show us how they make sense. What is the reason to join the Paris Agreement?

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Lrp
January 24, 2021 10:21 pm

The one merit of the Paris Agreement is it stands as a demonstration that all the countries of the world can identify a problem and agree on a plan to solve it, without having to have one country or small cabal of countries force it on them.

This is no small achievement in world history. The recognition of humanity as a single mass of people living diverse lives, and recognizing their ability to identify, discuss and resolve to commit coordinated action is a signal achievement.

The fact that there is no climate crisis caused by human CO2 and that there is essentially no chance there will ever be one, is beside the point (save for the tremendous waste of money).

However it is fair to consider that the countries dragged many diverse issues to the same table such as housing, decent water, chronic diseases, border insecurity and so forth means these are being recognized as problems in common, requiring global solutions if we are to live in a conflict-free world.

Don’t lose the bigger picture. See things in historical context. Isolationism is a fool’s gambit. It hasn’t worked for a hundred years. That doesn’t mean we have to become communists with all its dire controls and suffocation of the human spirit. Appealing to the past is no solution either.

Consider for a moment that the Paris Agreement had been about universal clean water, secondary education and basic sanitation instead of fear-mongering about the climate. What a wonderful achievement that would be. All nations sitting down with commitment and resources addressing a common goal without having to find a President of the World. – an elected king. As it were.

A voluntary distribution of knowledge, assistance and resources managed by a voluntary Association of nations committed to uplifting the whole population of the planet is quite possible without having to adopt one or another dystopian management method of our ignorant past.

It boils down to this: we don’t need YOUR money, we the rest can get by. We need a agreeable framework within which to work that validates and empowers all its members. If one or two superpowers want either isolation or dominance, they can be left aside until they grow up. This is the age of maturity. Just get “er done.

Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
January 24, 2021 11:00 pm

Hi Crispin,
We generally agree – but the Paris Accord misallocates scarce global resources that could be used to solve real global problems (like clean water) and squanders these resources on global warming and intermittent green energy nonsense – “tilting at windmills”, aka “Crimes against humanity”.
Best, Allan

Posted in 2016, “originally posted in 2002”:


Here is our predictive track record, from an article that Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I published in 2002 in our debate with the Pembina Institute on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord.

Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then was wise enough to ignore it.
[Our 2002 article is in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.

2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SOx, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.”
Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.

3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water, and trillions of dollars have been squandered on global warming nonsense.

4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.”
Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes, drove up energy costs, and drove out manufacturing jobs.

5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in industrial regions of China.

6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.”
Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.

7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.”
If one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must cease using fossil fuels.

8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and many of these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.

All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.

Jackie Pratt
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
January 25, 2021 7:49 pm

But it wasn’t ALL the countries. China’s part was to ensure they did not have to suffer from the idiocy.

However an earlier post was right. More CO2 please!

Jackie Pratt
Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 7:44 pm

So they are to the right of victor orban? And Biden is a traditional conservative? What traditions might he be conserving? Maybe i misunderstood your post.

Lurker Pete
January 25, 2021 3:26 am

It’s not a left/right paradigm, it’s up/down, the endgame cannot be characterised as marxist/fascist, the endgame is Technocracy. Your ‘digital passport’ will be linked to the World Banks (global) Digital Currency, and your ‘social credit’ score, if you score too low, your access to currency will be withdrawn.

Reply to  Lurker Pete
January 25, 2021 5:57 am

Labels tend to confuse the issue Pete. The end result is a few rich at the top, ruling like Medieval kings with absolute power of live-or-death over the poor masses below.

Call it an Absolute Monarchy or a Dictatorship, it characterizes over half the countries in the world today and their long-suffering citizens – aka “Live like a Chinese slave”.

Under the Biden crime family, the USA is now lurching down that “Poverty Road to Venezuela”.

Energy and Climate are my core areas of expertise.

Anyone who promotes grid-connected green energy frauds like intermittent wind and solar power is engaged in a Jonestown mass-suicide strategy – for the economy and the people.

Grid-connected green energy is not green and produces little useful (“dispatchable”) energy. I published that conclusion in 2002 and it has not changed.

Lurker Pete
January 25, 2021 5:40 pm

it’s a fair point, so why dress the OP up in marxist/leftist terms when it’s clearly way beyond that.

Reply to  Lurker Pete
January 25, 2021 10:51 pm

Pete asked: “why dress the OP up in marxist/leftist terms?

Because that’s the way it’s being sold – the extremist politicians are portraying themselves as kind, benign little “progressives” like Uncle Bernie – but they are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

Lurker Pete
January 26, 2021 3:02 am

And as you’ve said those labels just confuse the issue (which I guess is their whole intention) why not call a spade a spade?

The only way to stop the impending global slavery is to remove the right of private banks to issue the means of exchange, conjured out of thin air, bearing interest to the private banks. Nothing will change until we change the way money works.

If this is a new concept to you, I can highly recomend “The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money, The Story of Power” by Stephen A. Zarlenga, you can download a free copy from here:

January 24, 2021 9:15 am

The founding philosophy was so that taxpayers money and government resources would be applied to issues only when there was a high degree of acceptance by elected representatives. Seems like Paris meets the requirement for Senate review,

Just Jenn
January 24, 2021 9:19 am

I don’t agree with the Paris Agreement in any way shape or form, not just because it’s boogey man is not a problem, but because of the underlying (and sometimes blatantly stated) real goals–to redistribute wealth of nations. As a US citizen and one that enjoys the wealth her ancestors struggled to create, there is no free ride. You want wealth, well get your own house in order first. You want to be on the center stage: you don’t do it by demanding it, you do it by doing it yourself. Now that is a very ethnocentric response and I don’t care. Don’t know how? by all means, learn by our mistakes but do it your dang self.

However I do believe in rejoining the Paris Agreement because the best way to kill an international treaty is through bureaucracy and you can’t do that if you don’t have a seat at the table. Ignoring this will not make it go away. We are in a global economy, that is just the way it is and it has always been that way, from the earliest trade routes to the earliest wars–we are global, it’s not new. Sticking our head in the sand or standing on our shores with b&tch wings doesn’t change any of that. We have to know what our neighbors are doing and if they want to travel the world and talk about how breathing contaminates it, so be it, but we must be there to do it.

Now having said that: This has to go through the Congress for any money, period. Handing over a blank check is not right and I agree with the bill, any money goes through Congress.

Reply to  Just Jenn
January 24, 2021 3:55 pm

We should ask why civilizations like ours, only hundreds of years old, are sending basic aid to civilizations that are thousands of years old – civilizations that are so dysfunctional that if we gave them ALL our wealth, they would be poor again in a few generations. Typically, you cannot pull people up – they have to pull themselves up.

Richard Page
January 25, 2021 11:58 am

Your civilization is thousands of years old. Your society may only be a couple of hundred or so years old.

Reply to  Richard Page
January 25, 2021 3:53 pm

Word-smithing – read “country” instead of “civilization”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Just Jenn
January 25, 2021 10:09 am

I’d have to disagree; joining the mass delusion is just legitimizing it.

Richard Page
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 25, 2021 12:01 pm

Agreed. The time to strangle it with bureaucracy has passed – should’ve been done when it was being written.

Richard Page
Reply to  Just Jenn
January 25, 2021 12:08 pm

Look at where a lot of your specialist food comes from – quite large amounts of the food we like comes from many of those countries. I agree with some of what you say but we have also done a lot of exploiting of those countries. My take on this is that we should not throw money at these countries but we should send expertise and materials to help them build the infrastructure that they need. As to the treaty – being inside the tent peeing out may be better than being outside peeing in but if you want to burn it to the ground you don’t want to be in It.

January 24, 2021 9:41 am

My wonderful representative Lauren Boebert and all of her neighbors lived through the 2007 depression caused by Governor Bill Ritter. Mr. Ritter had his eviro contributors wrote ownerous rules for the Oil and Gas Commission that shut down the gas drilling in western Colorado over night. All of those rigs packed up and went to Pennsylvania. Foreclosures skyrocket and businesses closed. We have never recovered from that event. Elections have consequenses.

January 24, 2021 9:43 am

As an aside, Ms. Boebert owns a resteraunt in Rifle Colorado called Shooters and all of the waitresses pack heat.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pathway
January 25, 2021 8:16 am

I have been stuck with Ed Pearlnutter the Democrat Dishrag as my congress representative from the Colorado 7th district for many years now, there no hope of ever electing a non-Democrat here again.

Smart Rock
January 24, 2021 10:14 am

Keep your eyes open for something called an Enabling Act. This was a strategy devised by a small guy with a moustache who managed to gain total control of a major industrial country in 1933. The Act basically allowed the chancellor and his ministers to do absolutely anything they felt like, without having to consult the elected parliament. It permitted dictatorial government while preserving the outward appearance of democracy, at least for long enough for the electorate to accept the reality of the “Third Empire” and get accustomed to the “Leader”.

The 1933 Enabling Act followed closely on a carefully orchestrated attack on the parliament building which was set on fire. The fire was successfully attributed to what we would now call “domestic terrorists”, but it is still widely believed to have been the work of <i>agents provocateurs</i>. That event was highly publicized and was used as the “emergency” that “justified” the Enabling Act. It was the final step in making the way for one-party, one-man rule and all the unpleasantness that followed.

A year ago, I would have sworn that the American republic was strong enough to resist any attempt to steal control in such an obviously contrived way. Now, I just HOPE that it’s strong enough. Honestly, it’s not looking so good right now.

Reply to  Smart Rock
January 24, 2021 1:32 pm

It’s tempting for people ignorant of history to accept authoritarian regimes as a means to achieving some idealised goal. They “feel” that the sacrifices by all, those who agree with them and those who don’t, are justified. That’s how many German people felt in 1933.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Smart Rock
January 26, 2021 12:14 pm

The Democrats are trying to create their own “Enabling Act” by forming a new organization to go after “domestic terrorism”. What they are really going after are conservatives.

W Browning
January 24, 2021 11:48 am

This should have happened when it might have actually gotten passed. Its sort of like the Republicans voting to rescind Obamacare 35 times when they knew it wouldn’t get passed Democrat control, then balking when they actually had the majority and it could have become law.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  W Browning
January 26, 2021 12:19 pm

In the end only one person balked, John McCain. His vote would have stopped Obamacare, but he voted no just to spite Trump. That’s how petty and vindictive John McCain turned out to be. He cheated the American people and cost them greatly all for a selfish act of revenge.

I guess when Trump said he preferred troops that *didn’t* get captured, he must have made McCain angry. John got so angry he threw the American people under the bus in order to get back at Trump. Petty, John. The attitude of a spoiled brat.

Jackie Pratt
January 25, 2021 7:35 pm

Congress sucks. They haven’t taken any steps to address unconstitutional
executive branch ‘legislation’ that they are responsible for in the first place. For decades.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights