Climate Treaty

Earth Day 2016: Paris Climate Agreement Signed

Too weak or a giant bureaucratic threat to democracy?

|

EarthDayCloudsDreamstimeHannuViitanen
Dreamstime: Hannu Viitanen

This Earth Day, representatives of some 170 countries gathered at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York to sign the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The document, which was hammered out at the U.N.'s 21st climate change conference in Paris in December of last year, commits signatories to work toward limiting the rise of global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius above their pre-industrial average, and to strive to keep the increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. 

All 196 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty dating back to the early 1990s, have adopted the Paris Agreement.

But climate activists wasted no time complaining that it's is too weak. "There is still a dangerous gap between what the governments are signing up to, what they are doing and the real ambition we need to avert the worst impacts of climate change," said May Boeve. executive director of the climate justice group 350.org, in a statement. "As a movement we will continue to hold governments accountable, ensure they ratify the treaty, go well beyond their current targets and accelerate the transition to 100% renewable energy." Climate Justice and Energy Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International Sarah Shaw denounced the signing ceremony as "the global elite's theatre" and declared the agreement "irresponsibly insufficient." Shaw added, "We cannot count on such an agreement alone to achieve climate justice."

The United Nations artfully explains that the Paris Agreement is "a legal instrument that will guide the process for universally acting on climate change. It is a hybrid of legally binding and nonbinding provisions." The core is a set of administrative and procedural requirements. For example, signatories must commit to reporting on their progress at regular intervals. However, concrete goals, such as reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions or amounts of foreign "climate aid" a country will provide, are voluntary. Leaders are authorized to set their own "nationally determined contributions" in those areas, which are then registered at the U.N.

In our nationally determined contribution, the Obama administration promises that the U.S. will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. These reductions will supposedly be achieved by implementing domestic regulations, including tightening automobile fuel economy standards and cutting carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation by 30 percent under the Environmental Protection Agency's legally-challenged Clean Power Plan.

Constitutionally, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate has to give its advice and consent before the U.S. can formally enter into a treaty. However, the Obama administration argues that the Paris Agreement is really an "executive agreement" that doesn't require signoff from the upper chamber—which is convenient since the Republican-controlled body is not particularly eager to give the White House what it wants.

The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual explains that presidents may conclude executive agreements in three cases: pursuant to a treaty already authorized by the Senate; on the basis of existing legislation; and pursuant to his authority as Chief Executive when such an agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress.

In arguing for treating the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement, the Obama administration points out that the U.S. Senate approved the UNFCCC back in 1992, and that that framework established the procedures under which international climate negotiations continue to operate. In addition, the U.S. is already obliged under the UNFCCC to collect and report its greenhouse gas emissions data. So the Paris Agreement's reporting requirements are merely an extension of those in the previously ratified treaty, Obama says. Since the Paris Agreement ostensibly does not impose any additional obligations beyond those that already exist pursuant to domestic laws, he contends that he has the authority to conclude an executive agreement that commits the U.S. to abide by it.

According to its  terms, the Paris Agreement will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 countries, accounting for 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification or acceptance with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. More than 150 countries are signing it today, meaning the agreement could take effect as early as June.

Stated otherwise, the Obama administration is committing the U.S. to honor promises that may well go into effect before the election of the next president. Once that happens and the agreement is in force, a party can begin the process of withdrawing only after three years—and then it must wait an additional year after filing its official withdrawal notification. Republicans are understandably concerned that, even if their party takes back the White House in November, the next president's hands may be tied through 2020.

But there's a more significant problem with how the Paris Agreement is structured. The goal is supposedly to keep future global temperatures from rising less than 2 degrees Celsius, but in a March 2016 review, two Italian climate change researchers associated with the University of Venice reported that the current nationally determined contributions will come up short—way short. Adding them up, the researchers found that the global trajectory of greenhouse emissions will still rise from 44 gigatons annually now to almost 57 gigatons by 2030. To keep on track to limit future increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the world would need to be emitting only 40 gigatons of greenhouse gases by 2030. If these calculations are correct, total emissions must not increase, but instead be reduced below their current levels.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit calculates that if global greenhouse gas emissions peak as late as 2030, future emissions would need to be cut annually at a rate of 9.6 percent in order to stay below the 2 degree Celsius threshold. This is only possible via in negative emissions of 4.1 gigatons annually. Negative emissions are achieved by massively implementing Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), a process that involves growing plants, burning them, capturing the carbon dioxide that's released, and pumping it underground.

The Italian researchers also compared the promises made by big emitters in their nationally determined contributions. After setting all countries to a 2005 emissions baseline, they report that emissions from Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and the U.S. will be cut in 2030 by 43 percent, 30 percent, 37 percent, 26 percent, 3 percent, and 26 percent, respectively. However, tracking the economic growth projections outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA), emissions from China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico will rise by 150 percent, 253 percent, 226 percent, and 32 percent respectively. What does that mean in practice? Developing countries could wellincrease their emissions  faster than the developed world can cut theirs.

The International Energy Agency estimated in its 2015 Energy and Climate Change report that in order to have a 50 percent chance of staying below 2 degrees Celsius, the world can emit a total of 3,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Humanity has already emitted around 2,000 gigatons, which leaves a carbon dioxide budget of 1,000 gigatons.

How should the remaining 1,000 gigatons be divvied up? The Italian researchers cite a 2015 study from the French Economic Observatory that suggests that, under a system of "climate fairness," India, Indonesia, China, Brazil and Mexico should be permitted to emit 50 gigatons each between now and 2040. On the other hand, the U.S. and Canada are carbon dioxide "debtors" that should be allowed to emit nothing at all and in fact should be expected to soak up 26 and 19 gigatons respectively by 2040.

Needless to say, there's a yawning mismatch between the ambitious goal of keeping temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius and the promises made in the current nationally determined contributions.

"In reality, the Paris Agreement is a compilation of nationally determined intended contradictions," declared Vienna University socio-economist Clive Spash. He points out that the agreement does not mention fossil fuels at all and actually offers no plan or roadmap for achieving its emissions targets. In addition, it has no enforcement mechanism, and countries may withdraw from it without suffering any sanctions.

Interestingly, Spash proposes a simple test for the agreement's effectiveness: Did the share prices of fossil fuel companies drop after its adoption? As it happens, the Dow Jones coal index fell from 481 points in 2011 to just 12 points in January (a drop of 97.5 percent), although it has bounced all the way back up to 34 points today. The S&P's global oil index peaked in 2014 at 2,560 points, dropping by mid-January to 1,240 points (down 52 percent). But it too is up to 1,600 points now. Whether the Paris Agreement had anything to do these trends or not, the shares of hydrocarbon companies have not been well-loved by investors of late.

Meanwhile, Lucas Bergkamp, the head of European Regulatory Practice at the international law firm Hunton and Williams, sees the Paris Agreement as a "Trojan Horse" that poses a grave threat to constitutional government. Along with his colleague Scott Stone, Bergkamp argues that the gap between the agreement's ambitious goals and the admittedly insufficient national climate plans leaves space for UNFCCC bureaucrats, climate activists, and unaccountable judges to engage in policy laundering. This occurs when activists (and their allied bureaucrats and politicians) use treaties or other international agreements to justify imposing rules, regulations, taxes, and mandates that lack domestic political support. The rationale amounts to "The treaty (or agreement) made me do it."

SystemChangeCop21Bailey
Ronald Bailey

For example, climate activists masquerading as the representatives of "civil society" might assert that international obligations under the Paris Agreement require courts to step in and order governments to perform their legal duty to protect citizens from climate change. In fact, last year a Dutch court ordered the government of the Netherlands to do exactly that by reducing the country's greenhouse emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Unless governments are careful, Bergkamp warns that the Paris Agreement could morph into a vast bureaucratic monstrosity beholden only to climate activists and crony capitalists.

Bergkamp cites political theorist Isaiah Berlin's definition of a totalitarian society as "one that places one goal so far above the others that anything can be sacrificed in its pursuit." That should sound familiar: Protesters at climate demonstrations regularly feature banners with the slogan:"System change, not climate change." In her recent book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, activist Naomi Klein does not put too fine a point on it when she declares that the climate change issue has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever. 

So who is right: Spash, who says the agreement doesn't go far enough to achieve its goal, or Bergkamp, who thinks it will enable activists to impose laws on unwilling populations? As someone who's been reporting on United Nations climate negotiations since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro where the UNFCCC was adopted, I've seen both the climate justice movement and the U.N. and domestic climate bureaucracies massively expand and gain influence. Global warming is a problem, but I fear that Bergkamp has a point.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

215 responses to “Earth Day 2016: Paris Climate Agreement Signed

  1. Don’t you have a panel that’s starting soon that you should be prepping for?

    1. uptil I looked at the bank draft which was of $6999 , I accept that my sister woz like they say trully receiving money parttime on their laptop. . there uncles cousin started doing this for only 17 months and just now cleared the mortgage on their mini mansion and got a new Peugeot 205 GTi . pop over here ?????? http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

  2. Oh goody! I can’t wait to find out what’s in it and what the consequences will be!

    1. I swear that if something in this agreement gives them an excuse to come after my car after we already beat the EPA, you’ll see the reaction on the news.

      *begins perusing woodchipper catalogs*

  3. I wonder how many of those 170 countries were coerced, in one way or another, into signing this.

    1. Virtually all of them? I mean, the vast majority of them are getting cash money because of it. Why wouldn’t they demand this type of agreement take effect? It’s not like they’re going to limit their own emissions or recycle/responsibly store their own industrial waste when push comes to shove. They’ll give us the finger while using the money to build factories and power plants.

      1. they will use the money to violently oppress their citizens while their leaders enjoy nights of debaucher in Monte Carlo on their 500 foot yachts.

        1. To be fair, violently oppressing people is the best way to limit their carbon footprint.

          1. Worked for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

    2. I wonder how many have running water and electricity.

  4. “commits signatories to work toward limiting the rise of global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius above their pre-industrial average, and to strive to keep the increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.”

    No matter what we do the earth will continue to warm. We have very little to zero control over that. The most recent ice age is ending and we are just going to have to wait for the next one. Obumbles should be hanged by his nuts for signing on to this con.

    1. The hubris and stupidity of that sentence is breathtaking in its ugliness.

    2. Dear Leader is only continuing his program of implementing various tools for financial control of all aspects of life. Health, death, transportation, energy use, food, and communications.
      Hanging by nuts should have occurred quite a few years ago, but alas it did not. And besides…..what nuts?

    3. That’s already the most likely warming trend per their wonderful models when you account for technological developments and flatlining populations.

      So, they are going to define success as the most likely warming trend (not the shit they sell to us publicly which requires burning all the worlds coal for the hell of it) and this lie will likely live on for most of the century. It won’t be that global warming was nonsense, but that our dear leaders stopped it with their wisdom.

  5. Once that happens and the agreement is in force, a party can begin the process of withdrawing only after three years?and then it must wait an additional year after filing its official withdrawal notification. Republicans are understandably concerned that, even if their party takes back the White House in November, the next president’s hands may be tied through 2020.

    Pardon my ignorance here, but what’s going to stop us from puling out whenever the hell we want?

    [insert sex joke here]

    Seriously, though. Why can’t a president with fortitude just tell these idiots to fuck off?

    1. Because that might hurt their feelings and they’ll write strongly worded letters?

      1. Ugh. Nobody wants to see anymore Letters to the President by Michael Moore.

        1. I would bet money that he causes more pollution than my car does.

    2. Not a god damn thing? Declare war on us? Sanctions? Openly weep?

  6. All theater. Derp coming to Broadway! Climate Change: The Musical!

    I don’t think it’s that much of a risk to bet on Bergkamp.

  7. If these calculations are correct

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…. wait a minute, need to catch my breath… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  8. Other analysts fear that the agreement will spawn a vast unaccountable bureaucratic monstrosity beholden only to climate activists and crony capitalists.

    Both sides know this is what will happen. It’s just that the proponents can’t say it. If they did then it would betray their true goal. They would never allow themselves to be that honest.

    1. a vast unaccountable bureaucratic monstrosity

      Any international agreement is a bunch of international apparatchiks and their supporters voting themselves more power. It’s the world’s leeches voting to suck more blood out of the peasants.

  9. Yeah, because humanity totally has a chance to offset the 97% of CO2 emissions we aren’t responsible for. Sure. Next you’ll tell me that these jerk wads want to be intellectually consistent and regulate water vapor emissions. Or better yet, the actual output of the god damn sun. I mean, why should the goals be realistic when the premise isn’t?

    It’s almost as if people truly believe Government is some kind of actual god, with powers beyond the mortal mind.

    1. Wait, what? With the amount of people that worship the government, I think Godhood has already been established. Really, all we are talking about now is the sacraments and commandments.

    2. It’s almost as if people truly believe Government is some kind of actual god, with powers beyond the mortal mind.

      Government is how the People are able to channel the magic of good intentions with such power that it can conquer the laws of economics and physics. That or pave the road to hell. You decide.

      1. Government is how the People are able to channel the magic of good intentions with such power that it can conquer the laws of economics and physics. That or pave the road to hell. You decide

        NPR was covering the Volkswagen emissions lawsuit payouts this morning. They reported that the software was developed in the 1990s by Audi in case their engine/transmission designers were unable to meet newer emissions standards. From there, they went on to report that current emissions standards goals cannot be met with current technology implying that the standards are unrealistic.

        Apparently, those good intentions of CAFE are catching up with us. Voklswagen owners were simply the first hit.

        1. Goddammit, congress mandated a unicorn, now the car companies damn well better produce a unicorn!

    3. What frustrates me to no end is that they have conflated ‘Climate Change’ with ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’, and then if you deny AGW you are automatically denying ‘climate change’.

      No, sorry fuckhead. Climate change is actually real, whereas manmade global warming is not. If you conflate the two, fuck off because you literally are an idiot. Proglodytes like to tell me I don’t understand science then they instantly turn around and prove that they have even less of a clue than I do. It’s like they don’t understand something to the tune of 150~170 PPM of this ‘deadly gas’ is required for life on Earth to exist.

      That is the minimum. Even ‘AGW’ ‘scientists’ admit this, but then they babble on about a climate feedback effect that not only hasn’t been proven, but couldn’t happen given well-known geological history of the planet. They even misquote the 97% of climate scientists agree nonsense and treat it as gospel, but their parroting of that instantly proves they never read what the ‘consensus’ was actually on.

      Anyway, I’ll stop now. This is Reason. You probably already know this stuff.

      /vent

      1. It’s like they don’t understand something to the tune of 150~170 PPM of this ‘deadly gas’ is required for life on Earth to exist

        Anyway, I’ll stop now. This is Reason. You probably already know this stuff.

        I didn’t…not the exact numbers anyways.

        Do you by chance have a link for that as well as someplace I could read about the consensus thing? Asking for my own edification, not disputing your statement. I’ve heard it said a lot but never really bothered to look it up since the real story is so watered down with Proggy gobbledegook.

        1. The first result I came by was Brietbart, hardly a great news source, but I’m at work so I don’t have access offhand to better sources. Regardless, this is the gist of the 97% quote:

          “Cook’s paper, titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not.”

          Even that quote leaves off the fact that it was a three-position assertation, specifically calculated to inflate . It was broken down by essentially ‘has a significant impact’, ‘has an impact, but not a significant one’, and ‘has no effect’. Summed up, taking each of the first two criteria, they came up with the 97% quote. Needless to say, the vast majority of the papers took the second route, that of mankind having an impact, but not an outsized impact.

          This is paraphrasing on my part, obviously, so you should look into it deeper if you’re truly interested. Honestly the data isn’t as hard to find as you might think. As for the 140-170 PPM required for life, this is a pretty obvious one. Plants breath CO2 and produce oxygen. If CO2 falls below the necessary atmospheric amount for respiration, everyone dies. QED.

          1. Thanks for the response.

            That’s pretty much what I figured about the CO2 thing, just wasn’t aware of the numbers. I will continue to look into it.

            If nothing else I can use it to shut up my Proggy brother.

            1. Yeah, considering CO2 concentrations have been at least into the 1,300-2,000 PPM mark (according to AGW believers, btw, and I have no reason to fault their ice core sampling.) it’s ludicrous to believe that the current ~450 PPM is anything except dangerously low.

              I don’t know how the majority of ‘climate scientists’ get around these facts, but considering their models consistently produce garbage it indicates they haven’t managed to get around it yet.

              1. This is the part that makes me the most skeptical. We know that temperatures and CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past without such huge negative consequences. In fact, they’ve even shown that it can have benefits.

                We also know that they’re wrong almost every time with almost every study about everything. That’s what science is all about. If every hypothesis was correct 97% of the time, there’d hardly be a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to remain skeptical and continue to study the things you don’t know. It just baffles me that this many “scientists” can say with absolute certainty that climate change is man-made. There is nothing else on the planet with that kind of consensus unless they’re in an echo chamber and reinforcing each other’s views, which inevitably produces the worst results.

                A proggy might say that this means man-made climate change is incontrovertible.

                It tells me that they’re too busy listening to each other and sucking up grant money, covering each other’s asses, sucking on the teat of power, to look outside their echo chamber.

                1. Okay, there are some things with that kind of consensus (the earth is round, we need water to live, etc).

                2. “We also know that they’re wrong almost every time with almost every study about everything.”

                  FTFY

              2. Ultimately, none of it matters. If you call for the arrest of dissenters, you have fucked up somewhere.

          2. “Scientific Consensus Redux”

            It’s quite possible that the 97% consensus is an echo chamber:

            The researchers found that 97?98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field are convinced of man-made climate change. In addition, using publication and citation data, the study found that the few climate change dissenters are far less scientifically prominent than convinced researchers.

            1. I did find the paper BYODB was talking about. It didn’t refute the 97% claim, but it did clarify it a bit. Basically, of the climate change studies conducted that took a stance on climate change caused by man, 97% of them said that yes it is. How much man changes the climate varies, but it doesn’t necessarily refute anything.

              Does this change the way I think about climate change? No. These scientists are probably funded entirely by various public/governmental agencies and work within an echo chamber (as you have stated). I don’t care how unbiased you claim to be, that will have a significant impact on your results. If your results show that climate change is not man-made, your funding stops. End of story, and end of your job. That’s all the incentive one person needs to suddenly discover the correct results.

              1. —–Does this change the way I think about climate change? No. These scientists are probably funded entirely by various public/governmental agencies and work within an echo chamber (as you have stated). I don’t care how unbiased you claim to be, that will have a significant impact on your results.—–

                It’s quite possible that you have the cause and effect backwards. Rather than the government money affecting the scientists, the issue is quite possibly that the government money is only going to the scientists that already have decided in the ‘proper’ manner.

          3. They breathe oxygen too. Plants are a net sequester of carbon because the use it for structural material. They still burn a fraction of the sugar produced to live.

            But your point is still valid that below about 180ppm atmospheric co2 we would literally starve because there wouldn’t be any new food.

            1. I’m shocked they take in oxygen, is that what the ‘O’ is for in CO2?

              /sarc

              Seriously though, yes, you’re not wrong but what was the point in mentioning that factoid?

              1. No, they breathe oxygen. Taking in CO2 does not mean the same thing at all. That was the point. If it weren’t for their growth, they wouldn’t be net producers of oxygen.

                1. It doesn’t, hence the sarcasm tag. It’s been a long day, I apologize for the shortness. Now that I’m away from work I realize you were literally talking about respiration. Entirely my fault.

        2. The 97% Myth

          Everyone cites the number, but citations differ widely about *what 97% of Xpeople actually agree about*

          You find the White House claiming “”Ninety-seven percent of 1) scientists agree: #climate change is real, 2) man-made and 3) dangerous.”
          … when maybe 1 of those is actually supported by the studies… which are themselves dubious.

          1 – none of the surveys of “All scientists” have ever yielded anything like that. Some surveys of “climate scientists” have had high-consensus;

          2 – the actual degree of consensus of “human contribution” is lower than if Climate Change merely exists in ALL the meta-surveys…

          3 – a minority actually think it is in fact Dangerous

          They conflate multiple ‘meta-surveys’ to make their combination-claims…(Oreskes, 2004; Zimmerman 2010; Anderegg 2010; Cook 2013)… none of which support all claims, and each of which sample very different studies and populations. And all those meta-surveys suffer from definition and sampling problems. Some are just ‘wrong’.

          e.g. “three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only …1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent?had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. “

          These meta-studies are also inconsistent with simpler, direct-surveys on the same questions.

          1. These are exactly the points I was referring to Gilmore. The 97% quote is false. One of the ways they’ve fudged the numbers is, again, redefining what ‘climate change’ means. Sometimes when you say it you’re merely observing that the climate changes. Then sometimes it means mankind is changing it. The goalposts on what things mean change so quickly that you need to read the studies abstract to know what the hell they’re talking about anymore.

            1. I don’t have a citation, but I had read that the 97% number came from a single survey. However, that survey was originally sent to over 1000 scientists, but the 97% number is actually based on 71 of 73 people. (again, I’m not certain of the actual numbers, but the scale is very close, if not even worse).

              I’d look it up, but I don’t have the time, or the interest at the moment.

      2. Worse than that. If you are on board with AGW but not CAGW, they still cry Apostate! Heretic! The power of Gaia Compels You!

    4. “It’s almost as if people truly believe Government is some kind of actual god, with powers beyond the mortal mind.”

      In his book Social Statics, Herbert Spencer pointed out that those with primitive minds have a hard time understanding natural processes, so they ascribe everything to someONE deciding that it should be that way. The examples he cites are ancient Greeks believing that the flight of a thrown spear was guided by the gods, tribal peoples blaming spirits for disasters, believing that fire and thunder are the actions of deities, etc.

      I think it’s the same way with a lot of “progressives”, which would explain a lot of their beliefs. When they see that the average female salary is lower than the average male salary, they jump to the conclusion that someONE sat down and decided that women should be paid less than men on average. They look at “income inequality” and conclude that it was some sinister plot dreamed by up the Koch brothers in a shady back room.

      So if they think that everything is the result of some secret committee issuing a directive, it’s no surprise that they think they can move heavens and earth if they just get The Right People? to sit down and send off decrees.

  10. If these calculations are correct

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    1. You owe me a royalty.

      1. Your HAHAHAHAs ended with an “H”.

        Cretin.

        1. I meant to tell you- if you find a pair of socks under your daughter’s crib, they’re mine. Just leave them next to the bassinet, I’ll pick ’em up next time.

          1. My “daughters” are canines, Old Man With Dog Treats.

            But yeah, I’ll leave the socks in the usual place.

  11. I didn’t sign a goddamn thing.

    1. Social Contract, peasant!

      1. I actually had a guy (fellow social studies teacher) tell me that living in a state of non-armed rebellion constitutes your tacit consent to everything the gov’t does.

        I…I ended the conversation. I don’t think it was going to go anywhere positive.

        1. Basically if you aren’t willing to kill and die to resist it, you are consenting.

        2. living in a state of non-armed rebellion constitutes your tacit consent to everything the gov’t does.

          Ask him how well that turned out for Socrates.

          1. Ask him, eh? Socrates would be proud.

          2. Well, the idiot was basically admitting that the government will kill you for refusal to accept whatever they say. He was just too stupid to realize it.

        3. living being raped in a state of non-armed rebellion constitutes your tacit consent to everything the gov’t rapist does

          Yeah, that sure makes sense.

        4. living in a state of non-armed rebellion constitutes your tacit consent to everything the gov’t does.

          Sometimes, Godwinning some clueless fucktard is actually the right move.

        5. I actually had a guy (fellow social studies teacher) tell me that living in a state of non-armed rebellion constitutes your tacit consent to everything the gov’t does.

          So when the D’s didn’t enter in a state of armed rebellion against the government, it indicated their tacit consent to the invasion of Iraq?

    2. You didn’t read the fine print last time you received a package from Fedex, did you?

    3. There was a deal, that was historic.

      1. You misspelled “histrionic”.

  12. climate agreements are like gun control there is never enough until they have everything.

    1. everything in this case being the extinction of humanity

  13. Climate Justice and Energy Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International Sarah Shaw denounced the signing ceremony as “the global elite’s theatre” and declared the agreement “irresponsibly insufficient.” Shaw added, “We cannot count on such an agreement alone to achieve climate justice.”

    So, same shit, different year. And I need a definition of what “Climate Justice” is.

    1. I think it means everyone gets the climate they deserve.

    2. I agree with the first half of that.

      1. The second half could be true too. Climate Justice (whatever that may be) is probably something that can’t be achieved no matter what.

    3. In the climate justice system, carbon based offenses are considered especially heinous. In Paris, the dedicated bureaucrats who investigate these vicious atmosphererapes are members of an elite squad known as the Greenhouse Victims Unit. These are their stories.

      1. +1 dramatic chimes hit.

    4. And I need a definition of what “Climate Justice” is.

      “Climate Justice” is a term of art used by thugs to paint “Horse” on a pig and enter him in the Kentucky Derby, in this case painting coercion, control, and robbery rationalized by potential Climate problems as Justice.

  14. Happy birthday Vladimir Lenin. He is after all, the reason for the season.

    1. Communism Causes Climate Change?!

    2. It is pretty funny. Especially since it follows so closely on 4-20 which happens to be Hitler’s b-day.

  15. “International treaty”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  16. It’s a belated start, but it’s a start. You say Bergcamp may have a point. And you say “These reductions will supposedly be achieved by implementing domestic regulations, including tightening automobile fuel economy standards…”

    Does it have to be that way? Niskanen has been touting a carbon tax as the best effort to allow the marketplace to arrive at solutions. Better than regulations and what Bergcamp fears.

    Do you agree? We should implement a carbon tax? Or what other market solution would you prefer.

    1. How about they have to actually prove that man-made CO2 is actually having a deleterious effect before they can implement any more theft, jackass? There needs to be definitive proof of an actual problem before we need to impose government “solutions”.

      1. Note I asked Ronald that question, not the commenters here who believe what science is telling us is a hoax. Ronald has stated man is warming the climate, and that it might indeed prove to be very problematic. It’s been proved enough for him that science might in fact be right.

        1. I give this comment 2 problematics.

        2. Because modern “science” is so repeatable… The continual dishonesty of the religion of Climate Change should have been a hint to us that the way the moderns do “science” is fraudulent.

        3. You know what actual science is? It is hypothesis, prediction, experiment, and observation. The AGW hypothesis was that manmade CO2 was causing global warming, and as CO2 increased, the temperature would increase. All of the climate models based on this hypothesis failed, therefore the hypothesis has been falsified. So if you actually understood science, you might understand that what science is telling us is actually the opposite of what you’re claiming. But you’re just a dishonest idiot who probably wants cake.

          1. I guess scientists don’t understand science. You should educate them.

            1. Sure they do. I actually am a scientist, dipshit. What the global warming propagandists are doing is actually politics masquerading as science. They know what they’re doing, but it keeps the grant money flowing and promotes their preferred government narrative.

              1. Curious- what’s your field?

                1. Curious- are you a child?

                2. I am a biologist.

                  1. Thanks. I stay away from anything slimy or creepy-crawly. Nice clean photons and electrons.

                    1. I was always fascinated with how living systems work. I always liked science in general, and biology in particular for that reason.

                    2. I dabbled in it a few years back- managed to publish a few things and snag some sweet, sweet NIH and NSF money. But I never felt like I was really on top of it, so I went back to molecules. Hat’s off to you and anyone who can grasp systems that complex.

      2. I will say that even though Ronald seems to accept most of what science is telling us, he might in fact rather do nothing. I don’t know. Hard to tell. He has danced around a carbon tax, doesn’t like regulations, so maybe he would prefer to do nothing. I was just asking.

        1. You don’t actually understand what the actual science is telling us, moron. So stop dishonestly insisting that science actually says something that it clearly does not.

          1. Include Ronald in that critique.

            1. We commonly do, though it might have flown over your head. As most things do when you’re a midget.

    2. No. Essential first step is missing.

      1. Oh, now you like them before their first step?

        1. Until you have felt the nictation of the tender gums of a female infant on the head of your penis, you have not fully lived.

          1. Female? Now I know you’re lying.

            1. If your son said anything, he’s hallucinating.

      2. It’s not missing to Ronald.

        1. Ronald has all the scientific credentials and experience of Bill Nye.

          1. Ouch.

          2. So, no one without a PhD in the relevant field is ever qualified to say anything about science?

            1. They can say what they want. But it’s purely the opinion of an amateur.

              1. BTW, this was one major problem with James Hansen- since climatology wasn’t his specialty, he apparently made some major errors. But they were on the side of all that’s good and holy, so that’s OK. Some actual climatologists have pointed them out.

                1. +15 dendros and +25 principle component analyses.

              2. Sure, I guess you are right. But as an enthusiastic and somewhat sophisticated amateur, I like to think it’s possible to have some ideas about some things that rise slightly above the level of mere opinion. Most knowledge is just stuff that other people tell you, even if you are an expert in the field.

                1. I’m not disagreeing totally- Ron’s opinion is certainly worth more than Bernie Sanders’s. My opinion is worth more than Ron’s. Roy Spencer or Judith Curry’s opinion is worth FAR more than any of ours.

        2. Science is hypothesis, prediction, testing, and observation. Climate “science” has failed on all counts. Short, stupid, and dishonest is no way to go through life, son.

        3. First step – prove that any recent warming is actually the result of manmade CO2 and not just another natural warming cycle as the earth has experienced many times in the past.

          1. Ask Ronald.

            1. Appeal to authority? You really don’t understand science, do you?

              1. You afraid?

                1. Midgets like you don’t scare me Joe, they just creep me out.

                  1. He should be nicer to you- you might be the guy who finds a simultaneous cure for dwarfism and retardation.

                    1. I’m certain there is no cure for what is ailing Joe.

                    2. Well, it’s your field, so you’d know. A pity, the poor thing, there’s no hope.

          2. You can’t prove anything with science. You can only provide good reason to believe something is probably true.

            1. Fine, in order to avoid a bout of pointless pedantry, substitute “demonstrate” for “prove”.

              1. “Survive all attempts at falsification.”

              2. Yes, I’m being a bit pedantic. But I think that this is one place where precision in use of language really helps clarify things.

                1. Yeah, I will have to agree with that.

    3. “We” should do nothing to slay this red herring.

    4. There is one market solution and that is to leave people the fuck alone and let them adapt to whatever comes.

      1. Yikes. That’s a thought.

        1. It’s the only time tested solution to big problems facing all of humanity.

          1. We only adapt? We never mitigate?

            1. That’s one way to adapt.

            2. When are you going to send your check to exxon? The slght warming the earth has undergone since the lia has been beneficial. Plant biomass is greater now than 30 years ago.

              Why do you hate children?

    5. We should implement a carbon tax? Or what other market solution would you prefer.

      Umm, pretty sure taxes aren’t a “market” solution.

    6. One does not simply “Say” Bergcamp.

      DENNIS BERGKAMP DENNIS BERGKAMP DENNIS BERGKAMP DENNIS BERGKAMP..l. AEOHEHORHOROHROAOAEEAEEJEJJJJEHE

    7. Do you agree? We should implement a carbon tax? Or what other market solution would you prefer

      Taxation is not a market solution.

  17. Goodby erf. You are doomed.

  18. Why bother? The polar ice caps melted in 2014, according to Al Gore.

    1. Unpossible. I have it on good authority that our planet began to heal on January 20th, 2009.

      Then again, according to Paul Ehrlich, we’d all been dead for a decade by that point.

      1. Not only was the planet going to heal, but the waters were going to recede. So why do we need a treaty?

  19. I was just reading some about Earth Day on wikipedia. The predictions from the first Earth Day are pretty amusing to read, as they all turned out dead wrong.

    Why the fuck are people so determined to be gloomy and pessimistic at every opportunity?

    1. Because you can’t scare people out of cash or into compliance with good news.

    2. Well I’m gloomy and pessimistic because I see the left unraveling civilization on all fronts.

      1. And look how much good it’s doing. I mean, it’s hard not to get a bit depressed about all of that. But our sort of predictions of decline and doom may well rest on some assumptions that are as false as those behind the predictions I link to above. People have been idiots trying to control each other forever and we’ve gotten this far.

        1. And look how much good it’s doing.

          If I were optimistic, I’d be content to sit on my hands and wait it out. My pessimism drives my will to fight it, if I thought everything would be just fine in the end I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Look how much good the passive mindset is doing.

          But our sort of predictions of decline and doom may well rest on some assumptions that are as false as those behind the predictions I link to above.

          I’m not talking about failed climate models or the left’s false narratives about how things aren’t going their way, because clearly they are. Lest you forget, the labor market is shit for several reasons and no amount of optimistic government statistics will change that. Whole economies are being consumed by government policy, savings rates are down, the average person’s time preference is rising along with capital consumption and the culture war, that rational people are losing, is preoccupying everyone’s attention.

          I’m willing to bet that I see problems that you don’t regard as problems. Birthrates of westerners are down, the government meanwhile is facilitating that, and paying third-worlders to enter the democracies we’re forced to live under and are systematically replacing the population. I see the aggressive leftist push for the extinction of European people and civilization their replacement with what they perceive to be noble savages. I fear the world that my children will inherit.

          1. Well, the sorts of things you mention in your last paragraph are the sorts of predictions I am talking about (in addition to climate or population doom scenarios). You may very well be completely right about that. I can’t deny that.

            I suppose my worldview is more that shit just happens how it’s going to happen. No one is ever really in charge. Even when people with some power and ill intent (or who are well intentioned but misguided or stupid) do the sorts of things that you are very concerned about, you never know what consequences there may be that you or they never foresaw.

            Or: let’s hope that the best in human civilization naturally rises to the top, because if that isn’t how things happen naturally, we’re just fucked no matter what.

            1. No one is ever really in charge.

              That sort of arrangement, decentralized power and economy, is what made European civilization great. But at present, there’s a dearth of defense of that concept and at the same time an incredible amount cultural momentum to put the “right people” in charge of basically everything. Of course I’m not saying the government will ever be able to control every little aspect of everything in existence, but god damn it they will try and they’ll take us for the ride.

              Even when people with some power and ill intent (or who are well intentioned but misguided or stupid) do the sorts of things that you are very concerned about, you never know what consequences there may be that you or they never foresaw.

              Take for example, Angela Merkel’s welfare subsidized invasion invitation. I cannot conceive of an upside to that. I’m willing to revise my opinion based on new information, but I can’t fathom of any possible advantages to the equivalent of a large middle eastern city’s worth of low IQ Muslims moving to Germany every single year.

              Or: let’s hope that the best in human civilization naturally rises to the top, because if that isn’t how things happen naturally, we’re just fucked no matter what.

              That is my hope. I don’t think the third-worlders have the wherewithal to bring down western civilization. But the western leftists will do so if not stopped, and it won’t happen naturally.

              1. Everything is natural, isn’t it? I expect we will see some kind of (natural) cultural backlash from native/cultural Europeans if things continue as they are. I just hope it’s not too ugly. Europeans have some pretty nasty potential too.

                1. Everything is natural, isn’t it?

                  Semantically I guess that could go either way. But what I mean by natural and unnatural, is whether or not the price of a loaf of bread is determined by natural forces of human interaction (the market) or whether it’s dictated by some political committee in the Soviet Union (men with guns). The soviet price of bread should be properly understood as unnatural, the market determined price would be natural. The left is not inclined towards societal changes occurring naturally. They don’t want ideas and cultures to compete on an even playing field, they want to socially engineer outcomes they would like to see.

                  I just hope it’s not too ugly. Europeans have some pretty nasty potential too.

                  I wholeheartedly agree. The longer these artificial migrations persist the uglier the solutions and/or outcomes will eventually be. Whether it end’s up to the European’s favor, or not.

                2. Nah, Euros don’t actually deal with the sources of problem until way down the line. They find Jews to pogrom first.

    3. There a fuck ton of money in gloomy and pessimistic. The do-something industry is a multi-trillion dollar market sector which is entirely unregulated.

      1. That sort of begs the question, though. There is money in it because people are eager to believe it. But why is that? Why do so many people with nothing to gain from the gloom industry go for it? All the information on how terribly wrong the predictions have been are right there for everyone to see in Wikipedia, not exactly part of some right wing conspiracy or something.

        1. FUD has always sold.

          1. I just don’t get it. But there are a lot of things about other people that I don’t get, so I shouldn’t be so suprised, I guess.

            1. Because once you admit the crisis you can be saved by just following these simple instructions from really smart ppl who will do your thinking for you. Never underestimate the human craving for feudalism. It’s easier than thinking and taking responsibility for yourself.

              1. Goodamnit, I’m trying to be optimistic here!

              2. Never underestimate the human craving for feudalism serfdom.

                Seems to be what you mean. Feudalism and serfdom are distinct things. Feudalism is an ad hoc system of contracts between landowners, their lords, and their lord’s lord’s, regarding taxation, military protection, dispute resolution and various other services and commercial arrangements. Serfdom is a sort custodianship of human beings that treats populations as facets of real property, a lite form of slavery.

                Feudalism can exist without serfdom and serfdom without feudalism, and have historically occurred at different times and places, as well as simultaneously, to one another.

                Sorry to correct you, this is one of those topics I’m incapable of letting slip by.

                1. Fair enough. I’m not aware of cases where they were separate but nothing prevents it and I don’t claim to be a historian.

        2. “Why do so many people with nothing to gain from the gloom industry go for it?”

          Maybe they gain prestige (in their minds) by espousing the “correct” opinions and standing up against those big evil corporations.

    4. “Pay no attention to those previous predictions of doom! These new predictions of doom are totally legit!! I’m cereal!!”

  20. So, Earth Hour is not on Earth Day? I used to observe Earth Hour by turning on every light, gadget, or device and scheduling resource-intensive computer tasks for that hour. But I completely lost track of it in the last five years or so.

    1. I celebrate both by laughing at the idiocy.

      I love the people who burn candles for earth hour. Candles that are made from oil and much, much less energy efficient and dirty than a coal power plant.

  21. “The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual explains that presidents may conclude executive agreements in three cases: pursuant to a treaty already authorized by the Senate; on the basis of existing legislation; and pursuant to his authority as Chief Executive when such an agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress”.

    If the Senate Republicans were competent and responsible, they would have brought up legislation refuting the verbiage in the “executive agreement” point by point. That way, the Obama Administration wouldn’t have a Constitutional leg to stand on–in any way whatsoever. There’s no way the Obama Administration could defend an executive agreement a treaty that conflicts with legislation enacted by the Senate or an “executive agreement” that contradicts legislation passed by both houses of Congress.

    If the Republicans haven’t already bought this up in both houses, then we know the Republicans have incompetent and irresponsible leadership in Congress. What’s the point of having Republicans in control of both houses if they can’t even block a wildly unpopular international climate change “agreement” using the legitimate powers of Congress?

    1. “…then we know the Republicans have incompetent and irresponsible leadership in Congress. What’s the point of having Republicans in control of both houses if they can’t even block a wildly unpopular international climate change “agreement” using the legitimate powers of Congress?

      I think most here have already come to that conclusion.

      1. It still needs to be said.

        Paul Ryan, where are you?

        For goodness’ sake, Mitch McConnell is from a coal mining state!

        Hello? Anybody home?

    2. Aside from the fact that the house has nothing to do with treaties, exactly what would you accomplish when barry vetoes said legislation? It’s not ‘enacted’ until he signs it. And even if it were, it would never make it past a senate filibuster.

      So what was the point again?

      1. “Aside from the fact that the house has nothing to do with treaties”

        Did you read the article?

        Did you read the quote from the article I put up?

        Here it is again:

        “The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual explains that presidents may conclude executive agreements in three cases: pursuant to a treaty already authorized by the Senate; on the basis of existing legislation; and pursuant to his authority as Chief Executive when such an agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress”.

        Do you see how Congress enacting legislation might interfere with the Chief Executive’s ability to enforce this “executive agreement”?

    3. the republicans just want the control for themselves under their banner as the savior of the planet. only a few actually deny climate change and they still want the control

  22. I accept Ron’s earlier article reporting that Science is utterly broken.

  23. Just to reinforce the point of how woefully incompetent the Republican leadership is:

    “WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

    In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

    To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal”

    —-New York Times, August 26, 2014

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08……html?_r=0

    Yes, that’s from a year and a half ago!

    The Obama Administration announced they were going to do this eighteen months ago–before the midterm elections even–and the Republican led Congress (with majorities in both houses) is still yet to do anything that I’m aware of to stop it. With incompetent jackasses like that, who needs Democrats?

    1. I suppose it’s a good Obama didn’t do anything like this on gun control. I don’t see why the Republicans in Congress would have done anything more to stop him on that either.

    2. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal”

      It’s not politically binding if it’s not ratified by representatives of the people. End of discussion. It’s not more complicated than that. Really.

      1. It’s politically binding if the President starts issuing executive orders to achieve his goals, and the Court upholds it when people sue.

        Incidentally, when democracies slip into tyrannies, that’s usually the way it works. There isn’t a memo that goes out to everybody about the new policy. It’s just that the executives start telling the bureaucrats what to do, and they start doing it without input from the legislature.

        Usually the legislature keeps meeting and passing bills or not passing bills. The outcomes of their votes just stop being as important as it used to be–and they start limiting the things they argue about to things that don’t really matter. Historians only look back a hundred years later and go, “Oh yeah, that’s when the German republic became an empire under Bismark”. “Oh yeah, that’s when the Roman republic became an empire”.

        For the legislature to matter, they need to assert themselves. There was no reason why they couldn’t have already brought this to a vote. The Supreme Court is certainly more likely to side with the Executive if the Legislature hasn’t even bothered to weigh in on the matter. We’re not even talking about a dispute, here! For their to be a real dispute, the Legislature would need to actually conflict with the Executive on this in some way.

        It’s not enough for Mitch McConnell to sit on his hands and say, “I object, that’s unconstitutional!”

        1. And senate dems would ensure this never passes. What is your point?

          1. The Democrats are a minority in the Senate.

            Pass the legislation!

            What’s Obama gonna do? Say it’s a treaty all of a sudden?

            He can’t. That would require 2/3 of the Senate.

            If he wants to veto the legislation and then turn around and claim his executive order is legitimate because there isn’t a law conflicting with it, then make him do that.

            We’ll see how well that stands up in the Supreme Court.

            1. If he wants to veto the legislation and then turn around and claim his executive order is legitimate because there isn’t a law conflicting with it, then make him do that.

              Which Obama can do and exactly 0% of his supporters and/or the DemOp media would find any irony in that. It would be business as usual.

              You seem legitimately frustrated that Obama sees himself as a King. Well, sure, but the Democrats see him as a king, too. So unless Republicans can pass with a veto-poof majority, he’s a king.

              1. The question is whether the Supreme Court sees him as a king.

                I vetoed the legislation that would prohibit it, and then turned around and it did something that contradicted it through executive orders? I suspect that would be a tough maneuver to justify to the Supreme Court.

                What’s the justification for opposing Obama’s order if Congress doesn’t even weigh in on the matter?

                1. Seriously? 4 of the justices are virtually guaranteed to give barry anything he and his basr wants and you think an 8 member scotus is going to stop him here?

                  1. On the basis that executive orders that contradict law are a no go?

                    Maybe.

                    It’s certainly a better argument than the one where the executive order isn’t contradicted in law, right?

                2. The justification is that the executive cannot make law or approve treaties. Full stop. No one needs to do anything for that to be true.

    3. Actually, the Repubs don’t need to to do anything. If Obama wants to sign a meaningless piece of paper, who cares?

      Oh, its “politically binding”? Like a campaign promise is politically binding?

      Let the pathetic little man chase his pretend legacy. Who cares, really?

      1. See my comment above.

        If Obama orders the EPA to do this or that, and the EPA does it, and if the Supreme Court (stacked by Hillary or whomever else) calls it “an executive penaltax”, then it’s legally binding.

        And my point is that the Republicans really shouldn’t just sit on their hands while Obama bends us all over the Oval Office desk again. . . . certainly not when the Republcians have control of both houses!

        There isn’t anyone in the private sector that shouldn’t be fired for acting like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan on this. They knew this train was headed towards us for 18 months, and they just laid down on the track and did nothing? I can hear the excuse now: “Well I left a message on his voicemail, and he never called me back”. I get rid of people for that kind of attitude.

        Somebody please tell me I’m wrong. Somebody please tell me that the Republican leadership has actually been working on this for a long time–and I just haven’t heard about it.

        1. That worked well on repealing obamacare, didn’t it? As long as the president has more than a one third minority of the senate and a compliant scotus he does get to do what he wants. It’s called the libertarian moment.

          1. ObamaCare was legislation that passed Congress. It was not an executive order.

            Its legitimacy was not questioned on the basis that Congress never weighed in on it.

            You see the difference, there, right?

            1. And all of the changes made to obamacare were passed by congress as well? Oops. Barry just claims any of his changes are merely applications of existing law. They’ve already made that argument in fact. Somehow you think there’s this magic that happens when congress votes on something.

              And you still haven’t reconciled yourself with the fact that there are enough dems to prevent cloture so they wouldn’t even pass the fucking bill in the first place. Inertia wins here, so again aside from the futile gestures and speeches on the chamber floors, what is your point?

  24. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    =============== http://www.worknow88.com

  25. ‘Civics’ hasn’t been taught for over 70yrs. I didn’t have it in High school. And I doubt my parents did. So, why should any American understand the simple fact we are a Republic? Because that IS what is being taught in our schools. Democracy. Which is just another word for an Oligarchy. PST…don’t look now but that is what America has become.

  26. Video – Big Difference Between a Republic & a Democracy – Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack Hussein Obama, claim’s to be a constitutional scholar. He doesn’t even understand the oath which he is to uphold nor the basic foundations of America.
    All one has to do is simply recite the pledge of allegiance to know how you are being lied to..
    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” -Thomas Jefferson
    DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation.
    “A republic is based off an ‘Empire of Laws, and not of men.'” ?John Adams
    REPUB’LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015…..democracy/

  27. The rubes at unReason actually think globull warming is real. Hey grubers, wanna buy some swampland in Florida? PT Barnum loved you suckers.

  28. I am reminded of the sage counsel of Dixie Lee Ray, ex-Governor of WA, and a previous Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, that if man put all his effort into destroying the world, he would come up short.
    I still believe that is so.
    So, this pact is neither too weak, nor too strong (except with hubris), but it is a bureaucratic nightmare.
    Since our “wise” President will not submit it to the Senate for ratification as a Treaty, the Congress should take the matter up and vote its disapproval – decisively!

    1. It’s not the earth that I am worried about, it’s liberty, which we have in decreasing measure each time we allow our pols to do dumb shit like this.

  29. Bailey’s done drunk the Kool-Aid.

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”. -Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC Working Group

    1. It’s just slavin’ on a grander scale.

  30. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  31. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  32. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

  33. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  34. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ============= http://www.richi8.com

  35. The problem with the climate change movement is it, like much social environmental control issues,is rooted in an attempt for control–of our lives.

    Do we have a climate problem–really I don’t know. I doubt it is the coming catastrophe the liberal warns us of. And I know the liberal spews anti reason every time he talks. You don’t believe me? Then why does he insist illegals are legal in this country and one man is obligated to pay for another? And that is the baseline of his mantra. Anti reason.

    So when he tells me I should be forced by mandate to have a GPS tracker in my car to monitor how much I drive (as has been attempted) then I generally disregard his attempt that he his speaking in the genre of rational thinking. As I know the liberal ultimately believes in blind loyalty to the State and that my earnings should go to the undeserved.

    So when the liberal comes back to earth in reality in other common sense subjects then maybe we can have a discussion about climate control.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. The prophetic novel of America’s Apocalypse. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE. The Patriots’ guide to the lost art of common sense.

  36. Get nuclear power back on track by reducing the regulatory hurdles. The rest is just political grandstanding.

  37. 2?once I saw the draft of 4200 bucks,,,I admit that my sister was like really generating cash in his free time with his COM. My aunt has done this for only 6 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new BMW..N5

    ———— http://www.Buzzmax7.com

  38. ” For example, signatories must commit to reporting on their progress at regular intervals. However, concrete goals, such as reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions or amounts of foreign “climate aid” a country will provide, are voluntary. Leaders are authorized to set their own “nationally determined contributions” in those areas, which are then registered at the U.N.”

    This sounds like the weakest agreement in the world. So, we have to report progress, but we can set whatever goals we want, the UN writes them down, and then… what?

    There’s no way he can do anything major without the legislature, outside executive branch tinkering, which he already could have done. Why did he have to wait? The photo op?

    Maybe a legislature will use the treaty as an excuse to do something about climate change. However, there’s been a few, consistent messages in this, through the decades:
    1. Global climate change is a problem.
    2. Because of the government, we now have much cleaner air, while still producing a significant amount of CO2.
    3. This is completely inadequate to deal with climate change, which is still a huge problem.

    Same dance, different tune: how much can we regulate, so we can say we’re doing something, without really…you know…changing day-to-day life much? Can we get some new highway infrastructure with our new fuel efficient cars, etc? Playing both sides is fun!

    This is much to do about nothing.

  39. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.fox-88.com

  40. Enjoy your pleasure of reading books, earn money and jump on the Hollywood train! Click here for more Info == http://www.NetNote70.com

  41. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  42. RE: Earth Day 2016: Paris Climate Agreement Signed
    Too weak or a giant bureaucratic threat to democracy?

    An excellent way to destroy any free country is to employ needless, powerful and counter-productive bureaucracies.
    Just look how well the EPA has worked out.

  43. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  44. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  45. Bailey’s done drunk the Kool-Aid.

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”. -Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC Working Group
    egypt
    abraj

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.