Obama Rushes to Implement Climate Treaty Without Congress and Before Trump Can Cancel ItBy Eric Blair Put another way, US will be under global governance without input from the peoples elected representatives. Those protesting the prospect of fascism might want to pay attention to this story. According to The Independent: The US Secretary of State John Kerry says he will continue his efforts to implement the Paris Agreement on global warming, until the day President Barack Obama leaves office. President-elect Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax and said he would cancel US involvement in the landmark Paris deal. According to the Associated Press, the Paris climate agreement has already officially become international law: The Paris Agreement to combat climate change becomes international law on Friday (Nov 4th) a landmark demonstrating that countries are serious about tackling global warming amid growing fears that the world is becoming hotter faster than scientists expected. So far, 96 countries, accounting for just over two-thirds of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions, have formally joined the accord, which seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. In September, US and China ratified the Paris climate agreement. The United States has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions, the worlds two biggest economies said on Saturday, which could help put the pact into force before the end of the year. The White House defends bypassing Congress on the Paris climate deal because it claims it is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement. White House said the president has the legal authority to ratify the accord without the two-thirds Senate vote required for international treaties. The Administration said the pact is merely an executive agreement, not a treaty. Except that The Independent refers to it as a treaty in the article above, and Reuters just called it the most complex global treaty in over 20 years The 2015 Paris Agreement was agreed last December by almost 200 countries and has been described as the most complex global treaty since the Marrakesh (trade) Agreement, signed in 1994. Ratification was swift compared to other international treaties, showing strong international support, but around 100 countries have yet to ratify it. John Kerry is giving a major speech this week at the climate conference in Morocco where hell likely double down on Americas commitment to the treaty. Imagine a global tax on the air we breathe imposed without a democratic process. Sounds like fascism to me. Eric Blair writes for selfnews Post. This article is free to repost in full with attribution. Obama is not a dictator and needs approval from Congress. All Trump has to say is just that. The UN does not control the USA, and any agreement without Congressional approval is Null and Void. Treaties require approval; agreements do not. Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international agreements through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: You may not like it but that is existing law. Its happening and those who lie and oppose addressing it are criminals. Really? Wiki? You should know better! It has its own agenda, FCS. Bill,no offense but a source is as good as its primary sources. Wiki is highly rated, with some articles having hundreds of sources. It is up near the top in medicine and many fields. I have background in scholarship but you apparently are one of thepoorly educated that Trump (who called you morons in a 1999 interview) that Trump has conned. To criticize the article, you have to show that the sources are fraudulent. Since you are too lazy or uneducated to check sources, I will provide the sources for the comment quoted: A Dartmouth study found: we find that registered participants, motivated by reputation and commitment to the Wikipedia community, make many contributions with high reliability. Surprisingly, however, we find the highest reliability from the vast numbers of anonymous `Good Samaritans who contribute only once. Our findings of high reliability in the contributions of both Good Samaritans and committed `zealots suggest that open source production succeeds by altering the scope of production such that a critical mass of contributors can participate. Other peer-reviewed studies have found it nearly as accurate as the gold standard Britannica, and it is used by experts in all fields: Studies have found that 70% of junior physicians use Wikipedia in a given week, while nearly 50% to 70% of practicing physicians use it as an information source in providing medical care [34-36]. See those numbers, 34-36: those are the primary sources, and so this article is as good as its sources. I understand you have no background in scholarship, but you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know the Constitution and SC rulings are rock solid sources, with the other sources being also valid. I have heard other uneducated people mock me (I have a world class education at the best public and private universities in the worldsources on request) and so it is second nature for me to check primary sources to assess reliability. I hope you have learned something. You can Google studies of Wiki reliability and check their sources, if you care. As you give no source for your mocking of me for quoting Wiki, which is quoting the Constitution and Supreme Court, I could dismiss you as an ignoramus, but I always take the opportunity to pay back as an obligation of my world-class education, which aint too bad considering my parents both only finished the 8th grade. It is good to be skeptical, and that is why good sources give their sources. One of the merits of Wiki is that when an article is written without sources, they headline that this the case to put you on alert. And some articles have hundreds of primary sourcesand if you can pick holes in the primary sources, you have a case. I suspect you didnt even know how Wiki works and why it is respected by doctors, engineers, and scholars who, when they see an error, can correct it. This is massive peer review by tens of thousands of experts, leading to an excellent place to begin research (but not to end it). I assume you read the quote and saw the Constitution quotedor did you just think you could take a cheap shot with no effort? That is why you are driving a bus rather than designing them. Your are both uneducated AND lazy. My son also only finished the 8th grade but his educated parents taught him early how to learn on his own and he is now a very successful business man with expertise in electronics, marketing, management, and IT. There are many ways to get an education..and I hope I have helped. dale is a troll with no job And you know this how? I am 75, retired 4 years ago. I present fact-based information. My job is exposing lies. Your effort to refute me with lies is sadly pathetic. you forgot president of the local NAMBLA chapter This is an admission of total defeat on your part. Sad. haha sucker sorry your queen lost and now its americas turn to shine Not my queen, clueless one: I hate the Clintons. Im still waiting for you to show us all with all your years of study the authority granted to anyone in the Constitution that grants the authority for an agreement.. When precisely will you produce this fact? Fine, then Trump can say forget it, we quit the UN, using his Executive Powers 1. American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20., a bill to end U.S. membership in the UN, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Republican Ron Paul in 2005. Such measures have failed to pass by large margins. How ironic that the Constitution Party should have the same platform as the Taliban and Sharia Law and deny the Law of the Land, per the Constitution, for in 1797, the President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty constitutionally recognized as the law of the land This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any The President cannot repeal laws. That is unconstitutional, and thats the legal situation. It is not the UN but NATO (designed to block the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 27 years) which the US should exit. The US has a defense budget of a trillion a year; Russia spends 50 million (cut 10% last year) or 5% of what the US spends. Trump even said that NATO was obsolete, before the generals had a talk with him and he came out and said I am a big fan of NATO. So his views are pliable, depending on who talks to him. He was right in the first instant: NATO is obsolete, since both Bush I and Reagan promised the Russians, in exchange for their disbanding the Warsaw Pact, that NATO (which the US controls) would not move one inch east and gobble up the former Warsaw Pact Nations. Since then, all 11 have joined NATO, and at this time, they are playing war games with tanks and nuclear missiles on the border of Russia. the aggressor. How would the US react if Russia had tanks and nukes on our Canadian and Mexican borders.would we then be the agresser if we sent our troops to those borders. Such saber rattling only serves to embolden the hardliners in Russia to demand more weapons, more force.and arms race, historically, according to a study of 2000 arms races over 2000 years, leads to war 98% of the time. Executive power, which has been growing since 9/11, cannot make laws or repeal them, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. A President who sought to violate the supreme law of the land would guilty of high crimes and impeached. We dont need no stinking tyrants, taking the law into their own hands. Oh well, Obama-style Executive Privilege has now been established. The WSJ reported: A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%. When people blame Obama for acting as all other Presidents have, it raises the suspicion of racism. Did you criticize Bush for his even more executive orders including those which destroyed basic rights to privacydid you speak out when he lied about iraq? Like I said, no biggie. Trump can erase what Obama signed. And yes, like many who voted for Trump, those that despise the Neocons, including Hillary, knew the Iraq war was bogus. Were called Libertarians, members of the Truth Movement and putting an end to corruption. When will the Left give up Tribalism for the Blue Team for whats best for themselves and the country. You totally missed the point: Trump can revoke the agreement but the consequences would be HUGE! Politifact reported: The deal aims to extend the time it would take for Iran to make a nuclear bomb. Without the deal, Iran might be two to three months away from getting a nuclear bomb. With the deal, Iran commits to not pursuing nuclear weapons overall and faces obstacles if it seeks to break its commitment and pursue a nuclear weapon. Under the deal, Iran will lose 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to a level unsuitable for weapons for 15 years. The deal also curbs Iranian production of plutonium, the other element that can be used to build a bomb. The deal bans plutonium reactors for 15 years and stipulates that Iran must dismantle its current one. Iran has totally fulfilled all those measures, and with the Deal nuked, they would begin to rebuild their lost nuclear stockpiles and equipment. Torching a successful deal will give a pretext for more war: I thought libertarians ( I am one) from Ron to Rand Paul to Gary Johnson wanted less military intervention, fewer wars. I dont think you are a libertarian, which opposes the failed neo-con war plans, but a neo-con hiding under the cloak of being a libertarian. There is no proof, actually there is complete absence of proof by our own government, that Iran is working on Nuclear Weapons, and does not have the ability to make Weapons Grade uranium. I find the Sunis of Saudi Arabi, Qatar, UAE to be the insane Wahabi side of the Arab world. Iran is going to do what its going to do, regardless. Trump is right that Saddam Hussein was a check on Iran, so the Middle East is wide open for alliances, which are obviously breaking down by Suni vs Shia. Taking out ISIS, which is flooding Europe and the US with Refugees is our personal, immediate problem. The CIA and Mossad both have stated that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons . They have no nukes; there never has been: its a lie. Trump has said he will tear up the deal, and he has on board Bolton, the neo-con who wrote a recent oped Bomb Iran and Nikki Haley want to tear up the agreement (which would put us in conflict with Russia, China, and the other signatories and hand over power to the Iran hardliners. Here are some articles which document US support for ISIS In this link, it reports Trump will withdraw support for ISIS and work with Assad and Putinthe problem is his chief adviser, Woolsey (CIA), Hadley (NSA), Bolton (UN/neo con: Bomb Iran1) It just doesnt make sense that a man who promises one thing would choose 5 advisers who totally disagree with his views and want to attack Iran. As for crushing ISIS, we owe that to the ME since we created them, starting under Carter in 1979. The problem with Trump is not the plan he declared but that when they revoke the Iran Deal, that will be the end of friendly relations with strong Iran allies Russia and China. The other problem is he is a pathological liar (like Clinton). I am surprised, after you attacked me, that you agree with me. The US resists working with Assad and Russia because it has armed and funded ISIS. Well it seems you dont even read the crap you cut and paste! Id say according to Thomas Jefferson that this global theft of remaining wealth scam accomplish treaty is a long term commitment! A commitment to steal from the people what remaining we have left where inflation couldnt get us, now just take the rest, with no benefit whatsoever! And place upon us a carbon control system again with no real world benefit, except to the controllers. When science is corrupted to the point where we dont do things because the science makes sense to do them, we just do them to give the controllers more control over us! When you realize that no matter the harsh carbon control measures they put in place, nothing will change in terms of temperature of the planet, what are we left with? Were left with the carbon control system and no benefit at all! So the goal isnt really to reduce global temperatures now is it? No the goal is merely the carbon control system and theft of remaining wealth! Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary WHEN there is NO LONG-TERM COMMITMENT So according to Jefferson, this would fall into the Article II treaty procedure seeing as it comes with a long term commitment! It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent.. Jefferson Thank you for bringing up this 200 yr old opinion: it clearly does not discuss sole-executive agreements but rather treaties, which require approval, and legislative acts by Congress. You have misread his opinion, which does not even refer to executive agreements. Treaties are legally binding while executive agreements are politically binding. The WSJ reported: A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%. The founding fathers designed the international agreement system with a lot of flexibility, or, depending on your perspective, ambiguity, because even they couldnt agree on which branch of government should have the dominant say in how the U.S. reached deals with foreign governments. In recent decades, presidents have entered into thousands of executive agreements with foreign governments, on a range of issues, both controversial and relatively basic. For instance, the Obama White Housed called the Iran Agreement a non-binding agreement. Trump has said he will overturn it and he has hired John Bolton, the most rabid Bush neo-con, who is comping at the bits to bomb iran (See his NYTimes oped Bomb Iran from last year. Newsweek summarizes the risks of a non-binding agreement: The point is that if the Trump repeals the agreement, it will destroy the moderates and put the hardline anti-Americans back and power and they will build up Iranian nuclear and military power..in preparation for the war Bolton has promised. Inspection and accountabiity will be replace by war, with the risk of broader war as Russia, Syria, and other Iranian allies weigh in, including China which imports a large amount of its oil from Iran, sees it as an important market, and has helped Iran militarily. So the Trump pro-Russian claims will be undermined by attacking Iran. The neo-cons Trump has hired (Woolsey, Hadley, Bolton) are all in the old anti-Russian camp. Trump may say he wants to make peace with Russia, but this is not on Boltons agenda. Vladimir Putins Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War, he writes. Trumps VP, Mike Pence, has similar thoughts on Russia. In other words, dont go by what Trump is sayingthat is negotiations, which may include lies, bluffs, etc. Look at who he is choosing to make foreign policy: war mongering anti-Russian neo-cons. Bolton claims Iran is making nukes right now, tho the CIA and MOssad both agreed that they have had no weapons program for decades. So this will be the Big Lie (to complete the PNAC plan for 7 wars in the MD) that Bolton uses to repeal the deal and start our. Why would Trump take on a group of rapid neo-cons, who want war on Iran and confrontations with Russia and China, if he is serious about improving relaitons with Russia, who will certainly break off friendly relations if the US attacks their ally iran. China will also. This is the kind of nightmare scenario dreamed up by Woolsey and the others in the plan for world domination, which starts in the ME but goes on to defeat Russia and China. Thiis is neo-con doctrine, openly admitted in their published plans. It is the kind of nightmare we are still trying to emerge from, created by the same neo-con team that worked for Bush and failed so miserably. I wish we could have intelligent exchange instead of vitriol. A problem lies in the difference between de jure and de facto. What is right is just fine and dandy, but what really happens isnt always right. Dont forget that even when approved by nine black robes, it isnt necessarily right, correct, OR legal, Constitutionally. Up until that foolish machine gun law of the early 30s, we had a Second Amendment. Its been virtually non-existent ever since. Not unlike the situation of legal tender and the Federal Reserve. It has been a different country ever since that A*s H**e Teddy Roosevelt slithered his way into public life; most likely had McKinley shot; and assumed the Progressive Presidency. There have been a handful of real presidents since, but mostly cut-outs and charlatans. I see Mt. Rushmore and I want to get up there with a jack-hammer. I think there should be a law that every househoLd should have a machine gun, as well as a tank and nuclear bomb. NO INFRINGEMENT The ban on machine guns was the ruin of America! The 2nd Amendment clearly was intended to give people the right to machine guns, which had been used in the Revolutionary war to defeat the Brits! Japan has almost no weapons and they have 11 gun murders a year, showing that when ordinary Bills dont have guns, only outlaws will have themthe US, with 300 million guns has only 9,000 gun murders, proof that guns make us safe. How do you think Obamacare got passed? Wasnt through Congress! They (Dem Senators) decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 212 vote. This time, no Republicans came on board, and 34 Democrats voted against. President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23. Obamacare is a watered down version of the Koch funded Heritage Plan from 1989: I quote from the Heritage plan at their website; A National Health System for America, the Heritage plan aims at achieving four related objectives: All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care. Note: the ACA does not go to far; it does not guarantee and it is not universal. More from the text of the plan, which Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans adopted as the alternative to Hillarycare. The key features are subsidies for the poor and a mandate that all households obtain insurance. This plan was pro-market, pro-corporate, delivering 40 million new captive and subsided customers for the private insurers: the transfer of taxpayer funds to private pockets: 15-20% to the insurance companies and 80-85% to private medicine. Medicare spends 2% on overhead and delivers 98% to private medicine. You can view the original publication here: Clearly, the ACA does not go this far, as 29 million are still uninsured. When the Democrats, despairing of even a public option (which was supported by 70-80% in polls), adopted the Republican plan, the Republicans disowned their own baby and voted 52 times to repeal it: infanticide. Then you woke up! @ComeOn1:disqus, He can do that and then revoke the charter of the U.N. dismantling the Rockefeller hold on the U.S., further then dismantle the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Affairs. Those too are Khazarian Mafia holdings the U.S. has no need to be beholden to. A lot of idiots agree with you but the President cannot revoke the UN charter signed by 200 nations and which stands as the supreme law of the land, per the constitution, which mandates that treaties (ie approved by Congress and signed by the President) are the supreme law of the land. A President who repealed a law would be betraying his oath to defend and protect the Constitution. As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, Article 103 of the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.[1][2] Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter. Are you advocating treason? Nope, the U.S. Constitution never gave the Federal government the power to sign away sovereignty. To the extent that membership does so the ratification is null and void. Its also invalid for one treaty to say it supercedes all other treaties, since in fact its on equal footing and the sovereign power (on behalf of the people) decides how to rectify any conflicting treaty obligations (but in no case may those obligations conflict with the constitution itself just as a law cannot conflict with the constitution itself.) It would be a diplomatic nightmare so its best just to gradually extricate us from its more onerous provisions with the assent of congress. There shouldnt be a tax on the air you breathe whatever political process you use. We pay a huge tax for our polluted air. The IMF study found that the transnational fossil fuel industry gets 5 trillion a year in subsidies, with the costs of damage to human health and the environment shifted to the public. We pay a huge tax in the form of taxes which are then given to oil companies and used to deal with the lethal effects of pollution. All nations which have had a carbon tax have had robust growth and no higher taxes on the citizens and more green energy and cleaner air. Look it up. You know, when you keep posting comments with Wiki, the UN and the IMF as your sources you lose all credibility. A source is only as good as its sources. My views are based on what scientists have learned. What are yours based on? Yours are based on politics, not science. I, on the other hand, prefer to get FACTS from REAL climate scientists. Name one. Like (from your source) Ennis Rancourt is a PH.d in physics with no credentials in climate science and whose work on climate are not research but a blog. Freeman Dyson is a 91 yr old with and advanced degree in physics and no peer-reviewed research on climate. Dr. Curry has a PH.d in geophysical sciences. She is indirectly a climate scientist. I will quote from a 2008 article she wrote: Ok, unlike you, I actually check out primary sources.the one climate scientist climate deniers claim asserts that AWG is real. Busted! What are your sources and what are your sources that show Wiki, the UN, and IMF information is fake? The carbon tax = ultimate level of control over humanity. BC carbon tax law states that the revenue collected goes to the consumer, with none spent on government projects. The right to pollute is denied and taxed and the right to clean air is affirmed. This laws was passed by the conservative party in BC, and has been in operation for 8 years, resulting in no new government powers and less pollution. Win win. Not only that we must stop this stupid denigration of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide neither are the slightest bit harmful only should CO2 fill an enclosure where breathing is required. Too little of the gas and plants will die. It regulates our breathing rate. Theres only less than a half of a percent in the atmosphere at present, and it has bee much higher throughout geologic history, when it was tropical more extensively. C02 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas which heats up the atmosphere and is causing 90% of the worlds glaciers to melt away, causing both flooding and food shortages (as when the ice is all gone as it is in many placesthe source of water just melts away. The big money is the fossil fuel industry which makes tens of billions a quarter and often pays low or no taxes and, according to a study by the IMF, gets 5 trillion a year in taxpayer/govt subsidies. This is a rather large tax! Not only do we get sick from foul air and water, but we have to pay for it! This is the jackboot on our faces. Ice is not increasing, except in a few places but overall it is melting fast. Where did you get your PH. d and do research on climate? You are completely delusional. AWG is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humans. The ice sheet is growing both north and south, Co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, instead it is the life source of all plant life on this planet which then converts the Co2 to O2. Go ahead and give those charlatans more of your money, but keep your hands off my wallet you totalitarian collectivist. Let me troll you with a few facts: 2. Here is the summary of findings of the project that the Koch brothers, who funded the study and have spent hundreds of millions to block legislation to curb pollution/emissions by creating confusion in the public: 3. Here is the oped by Dr. Muller, the climate skeptic (and climate scientist) who led the Berkeley Earth Project, intended to find fraud and distortion in government data on temperature: I encourage you to read these brief presentations. You dont know what you are talking about, you drank the kool aid and now your cognitive dissonance will not let you see the truth. You are forever condemned to remain an easily manipulated, immature sheep. Follow your leaders, give them your money and do exactly what they order you to do. You must do with less so they can have more. With dupes like you running around, it is no wonder we are in the shape we are in today. I am reporting on the findings of climate and atmospheric scientists, including those who worked for the fossil fuel industry. I dont think accepting empirical science is sheeplike, tho denying it is. I have no leaders other than scientific truth. Your insults mask your unwillingness to confront the evidence that scientists have presented. Willful ignorance is no crime but it is a form of voluntary stupidity. You are not, you are posting findings of political hacks who have admitted lying in order to push their far left soviet agenda for total control. I am amazed you give any of these liars any credibility. After the scandal at East Angola, the admission from Jim Hansen that he manipulated data, the long debunked Hockey Stick, the fact that there has been NO warmer for 20 years, the fact that the claim of 97% of the worlds scientists agree on AGW has long been debunked. I am afraid that it is you who cannot get out of your trance like following of people you think should rule over you. Again you are an easily manipulated sheep, just the kind of stupid the elite like to have around. You know, a useful idiot. The Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project found the hockey stick to be absolutely accurate. Only sheep deny science. The hockey stick has long been debunked as a lie. As has all of the BS spewed by these charlatans. You are the one denying science, yet you steadfastly hold to your belief that the government has all the answers. This hoax has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with control, but you are too brainwashed to see. What are you doing here? Shouldnt you be over at Salon or Slate or HuffPo? You know, with sheep more willing to listen to your nonsense. This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Berkeley Earth Project, which you clearly have not read, was funded by the Kochs to show that NASA. NOAA, etc had all falsified data. The climate skeptic, Dr. Muller found that the data was totally valid. See his oped at NYTimes. Its an empirical fact, supported by the scientists at Exxon and the Koch funded study. ALL climate scientists accept global warming as an empirical fact and 97% accept that the only logical explanation is human activity, 1 billion gas vehicles, etc. You can call the worlds scientists frauds but all attempts to show the data is fake have proved it is not. Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 19912011 matching the topics global climate change or global warming. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. I will stick with the science. Hockey that! I urge you to read the sources I provided and stop with the pathetic and fact free attempts to deny science. Keep posting propaganda, that will convince everyone you are a wack job. You have not read my sources so your calling it propaganda (this includes Exxon scientists, Koch hired climate skeptics, and 97% of peer-reviewed cliimate scientists) is not too convincing. Are the worlds scientists, including those hired by Exxon and Koch, wack jobs? You are a delusional wack job whos god is AGW. There are no facts, no arguments, nothing that can change your belief in imaginary nonsense. Why you insist you have the right to force your crazy ideas on the rest of us shall remain a mystery. Stop with the 97% BS, that has long been debunked. The only people who share your insanity are the ones making money from this scam. You fell for it, therefore you can foot the bill. Dr. Muller is not a hack,nor were the Exxon climate scientists who discovered AWG in 1981. Nor are the 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists who accept AWG as the only logical explanation, since volcanic and solar activity has been stable and cannot explain a sudden increase. Well, the source is emails from Exxon. C02 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas which heats up the atmosphere and is causing 90% of the worlds glaciers to melt away, utter BS. CO2 is a necessary ingredient for life to exist in a delicate balance of ingredients within our atmosphere. To declare or label it a greenhouse gas is not only reckless, it is wrong. CO2 is necessary for life.but in the atmosphere, where there are no plants, in allows in more solar heat than it allows to escape. The primary greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Too much C02 can kill plants. You cannot find one climate scientist who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I suggest: Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/ You are repeating junk science from non-scientists. Facts are facts, whether you call them bullshit or not. When you LABEL CO2 a greenhouse gas, it is your intent to EXCLUSIFY it as that such that the receiver of the information gets a dramatic and false impression that your label keeps it trapped in your description of it! Not at all: CO2 is necessary for life AND in the upper atmosphere, where there is no life, it acts as a greenhouse gas. There is no contradiction..who doesnt know that plant growth requires CO2? I learned that in the 4th grade. And who doesnt know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? There is no false impression: both are true. The lies are with that tiny fraction who deny that CO2 in the upper atmosphere is warming the earth; scientific studies of arctic cores, etc have shown that the current levels are higher than in the past 800,000 years, much higher than any time during which human life has existed. Can we agree with science that CO2, if not too great, benefits plants and that in the upper atmosphere traps heat? No scientist or anyone who has had 8th grade science denies these 2 facts. Heres the other thing. Even IF mankind IS causing a very slight warming, the effects (whatever, sea level changes, etc) will happen so incrementally vs ever expanding technologies that we can deal with them THEN, and we have no (a priori) need to start getting any kind of slush fund ready, just so globalists can start some kind of taxation plan that over-rides national sovereingty. It just isnt very important right now. I appreciate your open mind; I have been a free thinker for over 60 years. Please take a look at this: In May 2013, scientists reported measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as high as 400 ppm. Levels of CO2 havent been that high since the Pliocene Epoch, which was between 3 million and 5 million years ago, according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Here are the effects of small changes (increase of 40% in C02 is hardly small, or 90% of worlds glaciers melting.. Lets focus on the scientific facts, for no intelligent discussion can proceed until we agree on common facts. What even you have failed to mention is that the cumulative and all encompassing different aspects of consequences make for an exponential incremental escalation of the problems as each exacerbates and undermines another finely balanced but critical element of the problems this planet faces. If Larson C should break off there is more fresh water than is beneficial and less white to reflect the UVs. Without the el nino Britain and Europe freeze, without the cold water currents of the Agoula and Benguela fish will go to deep water and fishing collapses, without the primary jungles/forests the air pollutants become excessive(plants use CO3 for Photosynthesis) and natural flood barriers cease to exist, where trees are denuded there is nothing to hold soil and grazers cannot flourish and over thousands of years learn to migrate to pasture. Everything connects to the balance that is needed for sustainability mankind has yet to realize that we are the ones dependent on all things being equal. If humans were to have a massive die off tomorrow(ELE) the planet would recover Its a tax on the lethal pollution which fouls our air and kills millions each year. We have a right to clean air, and government which refuses to protect our health is a evil. Polluted air is not air but a chemical stew that will make you sick and kill you. There should be a tax (or ban) on polluters to force them to # all such nations have robust economies, have not raised taxes (the tax on carbon is used to refund to energy consumers, subsidize conversion to clean energy, and to offset other taxes) and have Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Finland introduced the worlds first carbon tax in 1990. All are among the most prosperous, stable, and free nations on earth. For instance, Norway per capita income is over $100,000, twice that of the US plus they have universal healthcare, free at point of consumption, and free college through medical school. Carbon taxes used to offset other taxes, provide dividends to consumers, and to subsidize private clean energy projects decreases the power of polluters and protects the right to clean air. It is about reducing pollution and giving people cheaper clean energy: how totalitarian is that? Solar energy equipment pays for itself in 5 years and provides another 20 in free, non-polluting energy. That is why the energy oligarchs hate it and are trying to sabotage it in Arizona, Florida, and other states by private taxes. For instance: APS in Arizona seeing the solar movement explode sought authorization to charge those with solar $100 a month in fees for connection to the grid. Well, 95% are already connected and the APS, by law, is required to provide a certain percent of renewable energy which solar homeowners provide cheap back thru the grid, without APS have to build expensive new facilities. $100 a month is far more than solar homes pay in energy, which ranges from getting refunds to zero to a few bucks in heavy energy usage situations. This was an obvious attempt to destroy the fast growing solar industry and the conservative Arizona regulators gave them only $5. Near Phoenix, another fossil fuel provider did get a $40 tax on solar homes. I would bet that obama and trump discussed this when they met the other day. Trump will say nothing about it. He will blame obama, and all will be fine once again as the UNgovernment steals more of our hard earned tax dollars. Make no mistake folks, Trump is a capitalist corporatist money monger like all the rest. His policies will place the middle class world in deeper check. Trump made no bones about how to create wealth. He sold videos and tapes to the public on how to do it. His main purpose in life is the same as soros but maybe not as extreme. Are you saying hes the lesser of two evils? Well, nobodys perfect. (Thank Billy Wilder and Some Like It Hot, for that one). When has our election for any politicians NOT been the lessor of two evils? It is just that their evil is getting much more obvious! What we the people fail to see is the left right paradigm. We only think of it in terms of liberal conservative, or republican democrat. Most dont look at the moral immoral aspect, which should be very obvious by now. When the democrats are in office they push the immoral issues, and they believe that they have freedom without morality. When the republicans are in office they backlash with moral legislation. This has been going on since the democratic party was invented in the early 19th century. We the people are now seeing the outcome of this plan by the oligarchs to undermine the freedom which the constitution has protected. The last few presidencies have made the moral immoral aspect of the left right most obvious, but too many fail to acknowledge this fact. The powers that be knew that eventually a two party system that worked toward the same goal from different aspects of society would become more and more obvious. Now the powers that be must move fast because many people are waking up to this reality. The right wing backlash from the immoral left push will be severe, and will eventually cause a church run state world. The dark ages are a sure example of what that will look like. When the church is in charge they tend to usurp Gods authority and this attitude causes all those who disagree with them to be put to death. Witch hunts, crusades, jihads. These ideologies have always dominated world leaders ambitions, and believe me this history will repeat itself. JFK was not evil and as a result the Deep State murdered him when he stood up to the Pentagon and CIA. JFK was one of the greatest presidents ever. In his day the immoral push of the left was only minimal. Now the immorality has overtaken USA and obama even went to germany to campaign for LBGT legislation there! What business does he have embarrassing USA in other countries like that? Komrad Klinton and Kohorts was not much better. The left immoral push has slowly been pushed to this limit, and this is the limit. Immorality cannot get any worse. The only thing left to do immorally is human sacrifices, BUT I hope and pray that the divine intervention happens before the world gets that far. Whether we believe it or not Jesus is coming soon, like sodom and gomorrah, LBGT was the last straw that destroyed them. As the left pushes the immoral lbgt agenda, and now Trump even supports it, Jesus will come and take HIS people home. Its not the UN but the oil companies and banks which are stealing your money. The UN didnt start the trillion dollar (all borrowed from banks) warsin fact, they refused to authorize the use of force in Iraq and the head of the UN said, as a result, it was an illegal war. The UN didnt gamble and lose and force the government/taxpayers to cough up trillions to bail out the banks. The Secy of Treasury was Paulson, head of Goldman Sachs, and Trumps first choice is Dimon of our largest bank JPMorgan,who is opposed to all regulation and wants to have the same laissez-faire that caused the the worst financial collapse/recession in 80 years, with Bush in his 8 budgets losing millions of private sector jobs and increasing debt by 117%, second only to Reagan who threw a great party on the credit card, tripling the debt and starting a decline in median wages since 1989 of 40%. Trump made money by 1) inheriting it 2) getting millions in loans from his KKK dad, and 3) finding a way to sucker other people into putting up the money and then profiting when casinos and others failed, causing 6 bankruptcies. I conclude that when he drives the US bankrupt and makes money, he will say: Im smart. You are morons. In a 1999 interview, he said people who were not rich were morons. Thats what he thinks of you, but you are too stupid to see it. Trump is right! troll Thats all youve got? Do trolls present evidence and sources or just witless insults? All of your posts are witless insults. Defending the vile, evil and corrupt UN is a clear give-away. Youve hit the nail on the head Dale some advice such morons are incapable of processing complex information when their brain cells(both of them) are not facing in the same direction and it will not be dissimilar fro m bashing your head against a brick wall, so your best course is to ignore them. They (the morons)will of course keep insulting you on the misunderstanding that everyone they disagree with is at the same level of intellect (in their case lack, thereof, is probably more appropriate) because they have to have the last word(insult) let them. Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACCuseful in detecting and judging conflict and errorand conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. Plato was the first to investigate the relationship of desire, emotion, and reason. Emotion and reason have a relationship whereby emotion is subordinate to reason and operates as a function of rationality. Similar to desire, emotion responds to the object of impulse without thought or a system of regard for the overall good of the person as a whole. That, of course, is why all criminal wars, etc use emotional propaganda, based on fear and revenge, to gain support. After 9/11 about which the government lied (according to the 9/11 Commission), Bush had 92% support, and when his lies were exposed and his military crimes and failed economic policies (based on borrowing for war, tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation of casino banks), his approval plunged into the 20s. Emotion can guide us (rational fear, say of global warming, will guide us to act and minimize the harm) or in the case of the blind and dogmatic (ie the conservatives). cripple reason and make those who use it appear as sheep and fools and tools. This is how disaster happen: those who warn are trashed; those who rule do nothing: disaster. That is where we are now tho 2/3 of Americans accept AWG as real and want the government to act. No one of the deniers has ever disputed or explained why 90 Thanks for helping me row our little boat thru this cesspool of ignorance and denial. People are waking up as they feel the effects.but not all. Im British and in essence, I adopt in part the ideology of Socialism(but not its doctrines) and believe that capitalism can be used as a means to an end as long as you know where to draw the line thus far and no farther. I am vehemently opposed to the corporatism which has taken control of my country, we now have more billionaires in the UK than anywhere else in the world, which is some indictment of our elitist Conservative governments recklessness in its fiscal and economic policies. Such is the situation around the world that I may even consider signing myself over to the Green Party, though Jeremy Corbyn, a centrist who leads the Labour Party is very keen to go green. I would like to say also, that your knowledge of the Global Warming issue is excellent and you have stamina(you needed it arguing with so many knuckleheads on this site)and please keep plugging away, as many who really dont know the facts, can learn from your comments and make informed decisions for themselves. Trump does NOT have a shell fish bone in his body. He only makes money to show people how corrupt the system is: to put out a fire, hire an arsonist. Just who do these clowns think they are? I mean this is frikin hilarious! It would be foolish to play into the language game. Very well said,MM59! Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international agreements through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: sounds like you like the language game. and BTW, I think the It is neither well said nor accurate but you agree with it. Bravo,sheep. Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international agreements through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: sounds like you like the language game. and BTW, I think the Paris Agreement was meant to be a long-term commitment, not a one-day love-fest of sorts. (Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: Global warming is not about word games but a dangerously heating earth and ocean. Everything else IS a word game. Meanwhile, we must walk the razors edge for ten weeks. I guess that ignorant knigger doesnt know, they have already received satellite information of the earth is cooling! obama and gore and the other lying glob all wurming a.h.s can now cry themselves to sleep ! I wonder how many at activist post will tolerate racial hatred and ugliness? How many will vote down raw racism? selfnews Post is attracting some grotesques like desert and his comment, we are seeing this kind of ugliness in the UK with the KKK(National Front Neanderthals)being led by the rings in their tatts and brain dead gormless, vacant expression losers are findings some other idiot friends to play with. The age of Darwins Theory of Evolution is being sorely tested as I witness, too often, devolution taking place before my very eyes. When you look in the mirror? I am not hampered with your myopic vision, thankfully. I know, you are completely blind. What are you doing on a freedom website when you are clearly a totalitarian collectivist? Trump isnt that stupid. He knows global warming is real. Just as he lied about Mexican rapists, dangerous border cities, opposing invasion of Iraq, he is lying for one reason: to pick up the 5% of idiots who deny what 99% of climate scientists accept as empirical reality. How many morons (as he called those not rich in a 1999 interview) will believe that he knows more than 10,000 scientists in 180 nations, working for private corporations, universities, and governments? His latest lie,, after saying he would deport 35 million undocs (there are 11 million, with 4 million US citizens in their households), he know says he will deport the 3 million Mexican criminals (you know, the rapists), while the Bureau of Prisons says that in federal, state, and local prisons and jails there are 173,000. But those who who vote for him even if he shot someone in broad daylight are the morons he has pandered to with his lies, and they will believe anything because I love the poorly educated because they are such sheep. Heres evidence he knows: he New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links Hotel Ireland, in County Clare. A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century as a chief justification for building the structure. Im beginning to think Troll when I see your name. I am presenting facts and sources; you are making baseless accusations: which describes a troll? dale arent you late for your NAMBLA meeting Ill continue with intelligent postsyou can show your lack of both morals and wit. How can you continue something you havent started? Facts? From Wiki, the UN and the IMF? Hahahahahahahahaha! you are catching on bill Is there not a way for the poor citizen to make a citizens arrest of this fool of a Secretary of State? He is guilty of Treason, for certain, as is his boss the phony Illegal immigrant from Indonesia, Barry Soetoro, alias Barrak (ptui) Hussein (gesundheit) Obama (with my banjo on my knee). kerry and ovomit can run their mouths all they like, they can sign anything they like but none of that will legally or lawfully apply to anyone other than the morons who signed it.. ie ovomit and kerry! All the climate change deniers can relax. The rate of climate change has accelerated and along with the MPS (Magnetic Pole Shift), will wipe the planet clean of the infestation which is the human race. We were warned that we needed to get the CO2 levels under control by 2015 beyond that, the carbon based entities, those destroying it and the bystanders trying to survive the human wrought destruction will have no way of saving the current lifeforms (except for about 5% of it) and will begin to die off from hunger mainly. It is possible I might live long enough to witness the day we all realise that we have destroyed humanitys future and the deniers will still be saying it aint really happening. Eyes wide shut have fun explaining it to the kids looking to the adults expecting a supposedly intelligent species to have anything other than their own self interests at heart and finding out they are surrounded by dead heads. chicken little is that you? Eyes wide shut(aka michael lawless)enjoy the ride! Another easily manipulated sheep heard from. Sheep are handled by the fossil fuel oligarchs who are both making you sick and making you pay for it. obviously dale you are the one who suffers from a bad case of liberalism Sheep provide both wool and meat and are therefore useful. What exactly do you think you can contribute to the greater good? That was a rhetorical question in case you hadnt caught on. There is no such thing as the ridiculous greater good. You are simply just another easily manipulated totalitarian, thinking you have all the answers and have the absolute right to force your insane ideas on the rest of us. Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for trying to play. The Constitution mandates that our government promote the greater good. The government shall promote.and provide for the general welfare. Do you reject this formulation? Clean air, an educated population, peaceall are the greater good, the common good, the general welfarefor, as Rousseau first explained, they benefit all. Why do you ridicule the Constitution and deny that clean air benefits all? Please explain. Just another collectivist term. People ultimately act in their own self interest. So, no there is no such thing as the greater good, it is communist. You cling to parental / authority figures, you cannot contemplate a life without someone running it for you. You are in constant need of supervision and buy into whatever the current control scheme of the day happens to be. Amazing! I see you are far more uneducated than I originally thought. Please read Lysander Spooner The Contract of No Authority. Darwin wrote that the highest stage of evolution is co-operation: selfishness lead to a life short, brutal, and ugly, a war of all against all. Co-operation has been the rule for 99% of our human existence, and only in the past 10,000 years has the moral perversity of selfishness (which all religious leaders condemned) created war, exploitation, mass poverty, and environmental degradation. lf your parents had behaved according to your Social Darwinist (a total perversion of Darwins work on sympathy and co-operation, they would have drowned you. I have a world class education, since you call me uneducated from the top public and to private universities in the world, both giving me fellowships. I have read libertarian Spooner: I agree that government depends on consent of the governed but note that this man who promoted the virtue so private enterprise failed at every business he tried. Since you find me far more uneducated than you thought, I think it fair for you to tell me where you studied? What is your degree in and where? My parents were uneducated (8th grade, then forced to work) but they allowed me to attend the top universities studying under top scholars. I await your response to why YOU are qualified to denigrate my world class education (PBK, scholarship to UCBerkeley, Fellowship to Harvard Graduate School of Government, MFA from Claremont Graduate School of Art. I studied under some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century and invite you to look them up at Wikipedia: I am proud that I rose out of poor uneducated parents to the highest level of academic achievement. I await your response of what qualifies you to call me uneducated. I suspect you will dodge this and make another personal insult.as is your style. Still beating this dead horse huh? There are several things wrong with your insistence on this asinine nonsense, let me point some out: So, once again I say to you; You are easily manipulated sheeple as proven by your total buy in to the AWG HOAX! So you with zero classes in climate science have the sheer stupidity to assert you know more than the worlds climate scientists, including those who work for the fossil fuel industry. Your post is, as always, fact free, so I cant refute your facts, because there are none. As far as giving up my car, I would have a hard time, being 75 and battling cancer, getting to the store, which is 7 miles away and even to take a bus would require walking over a mile to get it, and it only comes a few times a day. I just retired 4 yrs ago (and thank you for apologizing for telling me to get a job) and to get to work would have required getting up 4 hours early, walking to the bus stop, going into town, then waiting for another bus, then walking another mile. You are desperate to demean meso I will tell you what I do to protect the planet, which you will of course mock, since that is your style: What do you do for the earth, Bill? Your Projection is showing Dale. I have read the positions on both sides and drawn my own conclusion, as any rational, objective person would, that AGW is one ginormous HOAX! So you do very little and demand others sacrifice for you. 1) A vegan huh? 2) You own two single family homes and have the audacity to claim to be a watermelon? 3) You buy a Prius? And again you claim to be a watermelon! You dont even know that the dust to dust environmental impact of a hybrid is over twice that of a normal gas or diesel powered vehicle? You would have been more environmentally friendly by buying a diesel powered VW Jetta. 4) So you like to give more money to millionaires that exploit their workers? (Goodwill) 5) I agree, organic is the way to go. 6) I have no problem with this. I have practiced conservation my whole life. 7) I do not support any totalitarian collectivist politicians whatsoever. I believe in freedom and liberty, not authoritarianism 8) I recycle too. This is hysterical propaganda designed for one thing and one thing only, to subjugate and control the first world countries. 120 years ago, they were worried about the horse crap problem, filling the streets and no place to put it. That worked itself out and this will too. Just because we cant stop using carbon for fuel now doesnt mean that in 20, 50, 100 years we will have an alternative energy source. Everybody should relax, be patient and concentrate on keeping the control freaks grubby hands off of our collective wallets. Have you moved into a 300 square foot apartment with no A/C and heat to only 60 degrees? Are you willing to make the sacrifices that your masters ordering you to comply refuse to? I have not! I have moved into the 400 sq ft studio I built myself with no A/C and using about $8 of electricity a month. I have no masters. (Well, I have a Masters of Fine Arts). I know all this angers you, and I would ask you to reflect on why. And, by the way, yelling in CAPS doesnt make your absurd claim that AWG is a hoax true. It just makes you look like a lunatic. And everytime I give an honest, documented response, you scream at me and hurl insults. I take that as an admission of defeat, and so, I thank you for giving me the platform to expose the lies of the fossil fuel industry on the scientific illiterates who claim that they know that all the scientists are wrong. BTW, I am waiting for one actual climate scientist who denies global warming. She doesnt exist. Oh, and we are still waiting for one, just one of the fake computer models to get it right. The Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project by climate skeptic Dr. Muller, which was intended to expose flaws or fraud in the official temperature records, found they were absolutely accurate with no skewing or distortion. I gave you the linkbut you are terrified of knowledge. Global warming is not a model but an empirical fact; the melting of 90% of the worlds glaciers is not a model but a fact. How sad you, my friend (I treat all by the Golden Rule (including animals) of treating as I wish to be treated, so I treat all as friends.). The Exxon climate scientists (I provided the link but you are afraid to face the truth) also discovered AWG but Exxon buried it for profit reasons and funded the anti-science propaganda that people like you, with no background climate science, have swallowed. I urge you to check out the Berkeley Earth Project and read Richard Mullers oped in the NYTimesits a click or two away if you want to discuss the issue, you have to be familiar with the scientific literature. Do you know that flights into space, etc etc are all based on computer models since no one can go out and measure in space..computer models are sometimes off but through peer-review, they are corrected, and that is why Science has progressed for over 500 years (actually going back to Aristotle, and Aristarchus (who discovered the earth revolved around the sun)and that is why it works. While most of those who hold that the whole heaven is finite say that the earth lies at the center, the philosophers of Italy, the so-called Pythagoreans, assert the contrary. They say that in the middle there is fire, and that the earth is one of the stars, and by its circular motion round the center produces night and day. Aristotle, ((384 BC 322 BC) Everything we eat, even the fossilized plants we burn, were all created by solar energy. In ancient Rome, there was a law prohibiting construction of a building that blocked solar access as passive solar heated the homes. At first flash of Eden, We race down to the sea. I urge you to study the links I provided which are by climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies so we can have an intelligent conversation. Look Dale, I have read all of the positions on both sides, I know AGW is a hoax and I also know that all of the solutions if implemented today, would result in a decrease of maybe 1/100th of a degree in the next 100 years. So, you want to kill 100,000s of jobs, devastate the entire country and impoverish millions of people for a reduction of 1/100th of a degree in average temperature over the next 100 years? I am NOT going to pay carbon taxes, period, end of story. Why you feel you have the right to send men with guns to my home to enforce your junk science is simply breathtaking and completely alien to me. Again, you are a totalitarian. People who reject science and buy the oligarchs propaganda call those who accept science and facts sheep. Mirror effect. Denial/projection. Naomi Kline published a work called This Changes Everything a couple of years ago, it was extremely informative especially the extensive research she did. If you havent already read it you would enjoy it. Too much information for the Eyes Wide Shut brigade here, I doubt theyd get past the introduction and wouldnt be able to assimilate the information even if they did (not that their closed minds, unwilling to accept that which can be proven, evidenced and truth to fact based would) they would still spout their rubbish based on nothing at all. If sheep are those who accept evidence and science, it is a badge of honor. What are your sourcesyou have provided zero documentation, evidence, or sources.just cheap shots.you are both blind and lazy. Check out the sources I provided and argue with them. I have read all of the BS coming out of the crazy camp, yet you only read crap that confirms your bias. You are insane, you have presented nothing new, just the same old tired nonsense, long debunked. You are losing, more and more people have come to the same conclusion, you people are nuts, you want total control and you enjoy being a slave to those you think are better than you. You are nothing but a sad, pathetic follower. well ms little if the bs you spew form your pie hole was true the urban jungles will be the first to die off so i ask you whats the problem? If you have no rational response, blow up with racism and crude language. troll If you have no rational response, call the person who won the argument with superior evidence a troll. That is the first rule of trolling. well you certainly would know the trolls rules Yes, I have studied how you trolls operate, with fact free accusations and smears in a sentence or fragmentit takes a lot of work to assemble the kind of information I share with you; it takes nothing but kneejerk to troll. I also know the way fascism works, as result of 55 years of anti-fascist activity. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Sun Tzu, The Art of War Oncologists who study the rules of cancer are not causing it but learning now it operates in order to cure it. The Sun Tzu insight shows why you are such a loser that the only way you can participate is through serial trolling. I await your troll response.. Here is what I have learned: that when people troll (always in a fact free short burst), they have no facts to presentand so they throw insults, an admission of defeat. You are busted. Eyes Wide Shut my pie hole is probably located closer to my brain than my feet a You are of course lying The consensus of scientists was that it was not, and the few who made these speculations have admitted they were wrong. Wake up, chump. Wake up, chump. Exxon, which has spent millions to deny climate science, was one of the first to discover (through its own climate scientists) that global warming was real (in the 70s this was) and burning fossil fuels was the primary cause. Exxon buried the science and for profit motives funded propaganda denying what they knew to be true. Look it up. 90% of the worlds glaciers are melting or melted, causing both flooding and water shortages and sea level rising. Thats am empirical fact effecting hundreds of millions. Get out of the fossil fuel propaganda cesspool of lies and learn the science. The sky isnt falling; its just getting warmer and warmer. You actually buy into the ridiculous Consensus argument? Hahahahahaha, now that is FUNNY! Yes, I prefer the knowedge of actual scientists. TROLL Presenting evidence is trolling. Thank you. Let me guess .. stammering and stuttering all the way.. Congress can stop the President at any time. An executive agreement only has weight until the end of that executives term If other nations want anything more than a gentlemans agreement that the executive is powerless to actually enforce within the U.S. they need it ratified, otherwise its toilet paper at the end of Obamas term and they know it. GOP is in control.settle down. Nothing quick is going to happen. Slow trickle. Like the professional suicide of 5000 journalists world wide. The no-name potus is such a good widdle puppet. Must please the goat worshiping Georgie Sorryios. Well, if Obama bypasses Congress on the Paris climate deal because it claims it is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement, President Trump can easily write it out, along with all the other unconstitutional EOs. No problem. We need a more effective way to maintain peace and prosperity than the present UN. It will have to be respected by a vast majority of Earths citizens. Unfortunately todays UN is a disorganized global chamber of commerce. I read somewhere that the original UN concept called for some sort of global representative elected body, but the task was supposedly assigned to a committee and never heard from again. Is this true? If so, does anybody know what happened? Its easy to limit the warming to 2 degrees since thats all thats predicted max from CO2. and he will attempt the same with the Small Arms Treaty The US has ratified nothing. That requires the two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, which hasnt even seen this proposed treaty. So unless the Senate suffers a sudden outbreak of mass insanity, the incoming Trump Administration can merely dismiss it, like any of Obamas other executive actions. Not everyone is telling the same story. The TPP is on its deathbed and its because of digital rights advocates like you. Be a part of the next victory: Join the movement for free expression and the open Internet at https://act.openmedia.org/defendfreeexpression A source is only as good as its own sources. Those who claim a source is lying are obligated to provide evidence. If you call me a liar, I do not have to prove I am telling the truth, but you have the moral and intellecual obligation to back up your accusation. If you cannot, you are at risk of being convicted of libel. We are, in our tradition, innocent until proved guilty. It is for those blaming to prove guilt. If I say here that you are a child molester, it is for me to provide evidence, since you cannot prove you are not. None of us first hand knowledge of 99% of the issues we discuss, which is why we need to provide sources and if we question them, provide evidence that they are flawed. I am the King of fact-checking, and that why I dont lose arguments (I reduce people who dislike what I say to cursing and trolling, an admission of defeat): I study hard, reading perhaps 10 hrs a day with a very excellent education in critifcal thinking and research; then I report what I have learned; when attacked, I provide my sources. Then, the sources are attacked, without regard to primary sources. If you question the sources, you must go to other sources to provide criticismso that is why it is important to go to primary sources and have an educated standard of what a valid source is. is this you providing evidence that your sources are accurate and you can personally attest to their veracity?? FAIL! I said check the sources. and yet I find taking your word for anything, dubious at best.. youll actually have to prove the veracity of your claim. or just go away because Im fairly certain youre a liar! IF as you claim, you checked the sources, you would have inundated me with your facts, instead of vox et praeterea nihil If you dont trust the sources I give, check them out and prove that I have misquoted them or that they dont support the claims I make. And I did provide the sources in context of responding to someone else. I wrote Since you are too lazy or uneducated to check sources, I will provide the sources for the comment quoted: I suspect that even when I give my sources, you will deny them. Will you agree that the sources I provide are valid? Go back and read the posts to get the context and then, respond, and admit that you had shot from the hip without reading back for context. Your brief outbursts have no facts at all. I I will quote what a section in which I provided many sources: How ironic that the Constitution Party should have the same platform as the Taliban and Sharia Law and deny the Law of the Land, per the Constitution, for in 1797, the President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty constitutionally recognized as the law of the land This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any The President cannot repeal laws. That is unconstitutional, and thats the legal situation. It is not the UN but NATO (designed to block the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 27 years) which the US should exit. The US has a defense budget of a trillion a year; Russia spends 50 million (cut 10% last year) or 5% of what the US spends. Trump even said that NATO was obsolete, before the generals had a talk with him and he came out and said I am a big fan of NATO. So his views are pliable, depending on who talks to him. He was right in the first instant: NATO is obsolete, since both Bush I and Reagan promised the Russians, in exchange for their disbanding the Warsaw Pact, that NATO (which the US controls) would not move one inch east and gobble up the former Warsaw Pact Nations. Since then, all 11 have joined NATO, and at this time, they are playing war games with tanks and nuclear missiles on the border of Russia. the aggressor. How would the US react if Russia had tanks and nukes on our Canadian and Mexican borders.would we then be the agresser if we sent our troops to those borders. Such saber rattling only serves to embolden the hardliners in Russia to demand more weapons, more force.and arms race, historically, according to a study of 2000 arms races over 2000 years, leads to war 98% of the time. Executive power, which has been growing since 9/11, cannot make laws or repeal them, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. A President who sought to violate the supreme law of the land would guilty of high crimes and impeached. We dont need no stinking tyrants, taking the law into their own hands. I always fact check before I write, and I have the best education in the world for critical thinking, scholarship, etc..so, I expect, if you have any integrity, that would apologize. I expect you would rather argue than learnso unless you are willing to read back for context, please dont waste my time. In a discussion, I give sources, etc and then when someone else who hasnt read back, I will not waste time repeating what I already presented. I am making an exception for you, in the belief you really want to learn and will, like me, admit it when you are wrong. Liars think everyone else lies. Sir, I do not need to lie..in my education through the top public and private universities in the world, I never needed to cheat. I dont lie and that is why your belief is wrong. If you catch a mistake (we all make mistakes), I will thank you for correcting me. If you can show that I am lying, I will make a public apologyif you will do the same. I inundated Bill the Bus driver with facts and sources which he called bullshit.I will not repeat them, except for this partial exception for you. In exchange, you need to go back and read the development so that you can confirm that I provide more documentation and sources than anyone, with the result that no one ever refutes me factually but rather blows up in insults, a sign of defeat. So when I write American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20.as a source, are you claiming I made it up. Just highlight it and click to Google and in 2 seconds, you will find it. I cant prove in a post that this source existsother than to go the source and repeat it to you. If you think I made it up, you can make total fool out of me, rather than yourself, by checking and proving me wrong. To repeat: when you have strong intellectual training and no reason to lies, you dont. You may not believe me because you are projecting your intellectual sins onto me. If I catch a mistake? ok, you must have missed that executive agreements/executive orders are not an authority granted to anyone in the Constitution and are therefore null and void, see Marbury v Madison. I wrote pages on this with numerous sources, such as Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international agreements through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: You may not like it but that is existing law. And I wrote:It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent.. Jefferson Thank you for bringing up this 200 yr old opinion: it clearly does not discuss sole-executive agreements but rather treaties, which require approval, and legislative acts by Congress. You have misread his opinion, which does not even refer to executive agreements. Treaties are legally binding while executive agreements are politically binding. The WSJ reported: A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%. And more, all of which you missed, so you are a total waste of time: I asked you to go back and you obviously didnt. Get outta here! nice dodge of my question.. so you cant actually point out the authority for such actions in the Constitution, right?? The Koch brothers, with 100 billion, are globalists with multinational businesses and have spent tens of millions to deny climate science including a study by Dr. Muller, a climate skeptic, which proved govt temperature data is totally accurate. They oppose curbs on pollution and emissions because it would harm their bottom line. Under current laws, the trillions in cost for the damage done by fossil fuel burning (which kills millions, sicken hundreds of millions) is shifted to the taxypayer through govt subsidies and to the individual through higher healthcare premiums. Exxon, which has also spent tens of millions to deny climate science, actually discovered it in 1981 but buried it to protect profits. Carbon taxes have not raised taxes but have cleaned the air and created jobs (renewable energy jobs are booming). BCs law is specifically revenue-neutral. So you are repeating lies by billionaires seeking to protect their right to pollute and increase their 100 billion fortune, started when their father helped Stalin develop Soviet oil, and then they helped Hitler. All great fortunes are built on great crimes. These oligarchs know that climate change is real, since their own scientists have proved it, but they put private profit above the health of the entire worldyou need to turn your anger to those who have filled your mind with lies. The TRUTH? You wouldnt UNDERSTAND the truth if it walloped you upside the head from a passing express train. Really. Man produced, and now somehow controllable manipulable climate change is so far from the most important issue of our times anyway. . . when we have still 4 reactors at Fukushima burning through our planet, nuclear war and destruction staring ourselves in the face, uncountable other REAL environmental problems at hand. . .and the con has become SO ingrained in you and so many others by now, that you even believe your own bullshit. You dont understand. Frontman Al Gore MOVED THE DECIMAL POINT (so its been AT the very LEAST exaggerated by 10X). And the geo-engineering that has been going on for over 15 years is just another example of how they want to try to CREATE the very scenario that they have (in grand globalist stylewith an adjoining carnival con). . .rolled out . And that even YOU are sitting here promoting like a dodo bird. Ive heard that cliche before! How sad that you are unable to carry on an intelligent conversation. You are probably half-way decent in person, but the cybercloak provides cover for your darkest side. It was not scientists (whose research was the basis of Gores An Inconvenient Truth (how prophetic!) but a UK judge with zero background in science, let alone climate science. He claimed the book contained 9 lies, and instead of inviting climate scientists to testify, he ruled that while he would not ban the documentary in schools, he would require that teachers explain that it was false. Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century. With ice melting in other regions, too, the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago. Justin Gills, award-winning environmental journalist for the NYTimes, with study in climate science at MIT and Harvard. The Judge studied law at Balliol College. Among his rulings (judges ruling on science?) was that there was no evidence of rising sea levels. On the Carterets, king tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt. The people have been forced to move. Heres another (there are many already evacuating or preparing to): (Tuvalu, with 10,000, was one of the 11 nations (including 3 other tiny islands) in Bushs Coalition of the Willing that supported invading Iraq: Tuvalue sent a box of coconuts for the troops.) 90% of the worlds glaciers are melting, some already gone, leading to both flooding and drought and water shortages for hundreds of millions. Where do you think that water goes? When judges decide what is science, we are in the world of Stalin. scientific progress is based on perpetual skepticism by peer review, and every effort to politicize science, such as judges denouncing what the worlds climate scientists have discovered, has produced bad science and regression. I rely on the worlds climate scientists; you prefer infowars. I promote peace and justice. I prefer science and facts. So shoot me. Look, maybe you can understand just this. Whatever level of priority mankind needs to give this particular meme: Climate Change, would (and this just is not right!) require mankind to abridge his own right to live his own life with a basic liberty . . .human rights. . .such. . .that to implement the Climate Change program would, under their taxation scheme, allow them to require mankind to be in an ever tightening at their mercy giving over position. It would be an ever tightening control grid because they could then evolve their own funded operation of ultimate domination to infinity. But they have already proven their intent is dishonorable by now, havent they? With the spraying, lying about science, etc, etc. They could give a rats a$$ about the environment! (Fool me once, shame on me, etc. .) Climate Change (the meme) is a fool hardy policy to follow any way you look at it, rationally fairly There is no right to pollute and destroy human health and the environment. There is a right to breathable air and clean water. Climate change is not a fool hardy (sic) policy but the result of global warming. Today in the news, it is reported the the Artic has areas 35 degrees above normal and that In British Columbia, the carbon tax law states that the tax polluters pay must be refunded to consumers so that it falls only on the polluters and no government programs are funded by it. So no one is losing their rights, since I think you agree no one has a right to poison or destroy the environment. If you would have a free mind, you would stop resisting reality. The people who created this revenue neutral program, where the tax goes to the consumer, are all democratically elected. Those who seek to block such laws are using corporate tyranny to poison you and then charging you for it. How would you curb pollution which knows no boundaries? How do you explain that 90% of the worlds glaciers are melting and some are now totally gone? We cant have an intelligent conversation unless you address such realities. all democratically elected my left nut, you lying moron! If you tell the truth or report accurately, there is no need to lie. Moron is what Trump in a NYTimes interview in 1999 called those who are not rich. So by Trumps definition, tho am very comfortable and own 3 homes and have an income about 3K more than needed to pay the bills, I am a moron. So are you. Public opinion polls in 2007 showed that the environment had replaced the economy and healthcare at the most important issue to a majority of respondents. This cultural change, brought about by greater media and political attention both inside and outside of Canada, changed the political dynamic of British Columbia. Traditionally the left-leaning BC New Democratic Party (NDP) had been seen as the greener of the two largest parties, as opposed to the more free market BC Liberal Party. However in 2008 it was the Liberals who introduced the carbon tax and tax shift, which was thought to be a more market-friendly method of regulating carbon than the competing idea of cap-and-trade which the NDP supported. During the 2009 British Columbia election the NDP as well at the BC Conservatives made repealing the carbon tax part of their platform, but the Liberals won another majority government. The British Columbia Liberal Party is a conservative provincial political party in British Columbia. The tax goes from polluter to consumer with no use for government programs; it was promoted by the conservatives. Thats the truth. Look it up. Oh, I forgot you already know everything. You just lied. Not Trump. You think by deflecting the lie onto Trump you can escape it. . .just like ALL willing to cheat to win libs EVERY SINGLE CHANCE THEY GET! 1 Globalism is the richest corporations in history (fossil fuel multinationals) shifting 5 trillion a year in costs to the consumer and taxpayer. See the IMF analysis of costs of subsidies, damage to human health, the environment, etc. The globalists are the corporatocracy. In British Columbia it was the public supporting the conservative carbon tax which enacted the law in 2008. All revenues go back to consumers, with no money for government projects. Sucker sucker..name calling is not rational discourse, my friend. Who are the suckers when the tax goes to the people? 