Trump Expected to Pull U.S. Out of Unconstitutional Paris Climate Agreement.
Written by Steve Byas
Considering that President Donald Trump has been quite vocal in his intentions to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate agreement (which had been accepted as binding on the United States by then-President Barack Obama), speculation has it that he will now do so. According to the terms of the 2016 agreement — reached November 4 of that year — a nation could not pull out during the first three years.
Those three years are now up, and under the terms of the agreement, Trump can pull the United States out following a one year’s notice. Trump can start the process of withdrawal with a letter to the United Nations. Were Trump to invoke that part of the deal and withdraw today, the United States would exit the deal the day after the 2020 presidential election.
Not surprisingly, officials associated with the Obama administration are expressing opposition to any move by Trump to pull out of the deal.
For example, Andrew Light, a State Department climate negotiator, has said that were Trump to lose the 2020 election, the new president could simply get back in the deal in only 30 days. Light is now with the World Resources Institute.
Opposition to Trump leaving the Paris climate agreement also comes from academia. Jake Jacoby, an economist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was a co-founder of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, predicted that were the United States to leave the deal, it would discredit U.S. leadership, and lead to “shame.”
Another academic, Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University, said, “We’re the second biggest player. What happens to the game if we take our ball and go home?”
When asked what the U.S. government intends to do on the Paris deal, James Dewey, a spokesman with the State Department, said in an e-mail on Friday, “The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has not changed. The United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.”
What exactly is involved in the Paris agreement? It calls for those nations signing the agreement to develop increasingly ambitious anti-CO2 actions every five years, beginning in November 2020. Advocates of the deal argue that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, and that it has already caused weather extremes, melted ice across the world, and is expected to get worse. Among the problems these climate alarmists predict are a jump in world temperatures by several degrees, leading to a rise in sea levels of up to three feet.
Of course, all of these dire predictions are assertions that lack scientific proof.
But beyond the issue of alleged industrially-caused global climate change, the Paris deal raises certain constitutional questions that are simply not being asked by the mainstream media, most members of Congress, law-school professors, or even the Trump administration itself.
After all, presidents — including both Obama and Trump — took oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So did every member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit in giving the president of the United States the authority to make treaties with other nations, but it is just as explicit in requiring that any such treaty agreed to by the president be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before it is considered law in the United States.
Nothing of the sort was done with the Paris agreement. President Barack Obama simply agreed to its terms. Without the ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, then, it is not legally binding upon the United States. In other words, President Trump could withdraw from the agreement today, without any letter or even a tweet to the United Nations.
In fact, Trump could have withdrawn from the deal the day he took office in January 2017, because, since Obama had not gotten any ratification from the Senate on the deal, it was not a law in the United States, and neither he nor the U.S. government was bound by it.
With all the talk of impeachment over matters that are trivial in comparison, why is there so little concern about a president — Obama — entering into an agreement, on his own, without following the Constitution? For that matter, why has Trump either not already pulled out, or submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification?
Has Congress, which has essentially surrendered its power to declare war to the president, now surrendered its role in the making of foreign policy to the president as well? Each member of Congress took an oath to the Constitution, which requires that the Senate agree to any presidential agreement with other nations if it is to be considered law.
Whether one agrees with the Iran Nuclear Deal, it also should have been submitted to the Senate for ratification.
Members of Congress have meekly given up their constitutional powers to the executive branch, an action that they had no legal right to take.
And the trade deals that the United States has entered into over the years clearly are what the framers of the Constitution would have considered treaties. If President Trump takes his oath to the Constitution seriously, then his USMCA should not be subject to a simple majority vote of each house of Congress, but should be sent to the Senate, where it would require a two-thirds vote to have any legal standing at all.
The Mexican government considers the USMCA a treaty. Why shouldn’t the United States?
This issue — following the Constitution’s checks and balances on treaties — is far more important than a stained blue dress, a third-rate burglary in the Watergate building, or the firing of a secretary of war. It is certainly of far greater importance than what Trump said in a phone call to the president of Ukraine. Yet, the mainstream media and members of Congress say little to nothing about whether a U.S. president can make law through a simple executive agreement.
Minneapolis Wants to Ban New Drive-Thru Windows to Reduce Carbon Emissions
May 20, 2019
Minneapolis wants to ban all new drive-thru windows citywide in order to cut down on carbon emissions produced by idling cars.
The City Planning Commission has been considering a drive-thru ban since 2017, but the idea didn’t really start to come to fruition until the 2018 conversations surrounding the “Minneapolis 2040” comprehensive city plan.
Now, according to a report prepared by the planning commission, a new ordinance wants to take language included in the comprehensive city plan and “expand the prohibition of new drive-through facilities to all zoning districts citywide.”
“A text amendment that specifically addresses regulations is timely given the number of proposals for new drive-through facilities that have been considered by the City Planning Commission in the last few years and the undesirable impacts these uses have,” the report states. “Said impacts include noise, extended idling, proliferation of curb cuts, conflicts with pedestrians, and traffic generation.”
The report lists seven pending proposals to build new drive-thru windows within city limits for businesses such as banks, pharmacies, coffee shops, and fast-food restaurants.
Some, however, think the ban would have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable residents, such as the elderly and disabled, or even parents with young children. But City Planning Commission President Sam Rockwell dismissed those concerns during a Thursday meeting, according to WCCO.
“You go to a city like London, Paris, New York or Boston. Neighbors help their elderly neighbors up the stairs with their groceries. They know them, they help them, they run errands. So creating that community can be a boost,” Rockwell said.
“Drive-thru [windows], traffic lanes, parking facilities … they all create induced demand, which is ‘if you build it, they will come,’” he added.
Tom Steward, an investigative reporter for the Center of the American Experiment, agreed in a recent article that the “latest anti-automobile edict” would “once again harm the most vulnerable members of society.”
“Yet the big shots at city hall never seem to let the personal impact on the people they’re supposed to serve get in the way of imposing their vision,” he said. “It seems Minneapolis has a future with all sorts of places to go, but no practical way to get there. The sort of place you might choose to ‘drive-thru’ and keep on going.
Video Source: KFYO – Lubbock, TX
Source: Primepatriot.com – August 21, 2019
LOS ANGELES – To keep your home cool with central air conditioning while also optimizing energy efficiency (and therefore cost), keep the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit or higher.
The suggestion comes from Energy Star, a federal program managed jointly by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency that provides information to consumers about energy efficiency practices that not only save consumers money, but also improve air quality and protect the environment.
With record-breaking heat waves becoming the norm, finding ways to beat the heat without busting your budget might seem mystifying, which is why Energy Star provided consumers with a set of energy-saving recommendations on how to best manage central air conditioning in warmer spring and summer months.
According to Energy Star, keeping your central air thermostat set to 78 degrees is optimal for both cooling and energy efficiency, but this recommendation only applies to the times when you are home.
While you are away from the house during the day, you should keep the thermostat set to 85 degrees or higher.
While you sleep, Energy Star recommends keeping the temperature set at 82 degrees or higher.
For those who hate to sweat in summer months, keeping your home temperature set at a minimum of 78 degrees during the day and 82 degrees through the night might sound awful, but the benefits are significant.
For every degree you raise the set temperature of your central air, you’ll save about three percent on your utility bill, according to the Department of Energy.
On top of running air conditioning, Energy Star also recommends opening windows to fill the house with cool air at night and then shutting all windows and blinds in the morning to trap the cool air inside. Additionally, air sealing your home and installing window treatments can help prevent heat gain via your doors and windows during the day.
The Department of Energy also stresses keeping the heat coming from within your house to a minimum as well to keep efficiency high and costs low. Small adjustments like turning off appliances and lights when they aren’t being used, only washing full loads of laundry and dishes, taking shorter showers and running fans while you do things like shower and cook can also help reduce the heat build-up in your home.
With the climate hysteria movement, fear is everything. How much fear can they ignite in the population is the key to their future governmental plans. Unfortunately for them, people like freedom, and it turns out and they have to be petrified in order to give it up.
On Monday, radio’s Rush Limbaugh spoke about a good example from the not-too-distant past that shows the depths to which the climate alarmist community is willing to go to instill fear in the public about climate change.
On his show, Limbaugh said, “it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now ‘extreme weather’) crowd is.”
Back in 2015, the good folks at the Media Research Center uncovered an excellent example of the type of sky-is-falling propaganda and deceit that the climate alarmist community is capable of. In 2008, ABC News presented a documentary style program called Earth 2100, a feature that made several predictions about a dystopian future, in which mankind fails to act on global warming in time to forestall climate disaster.
The full film wasn’t actually broadcast until 2009, which makes its failed prognostications of 2015 one year more ridiculous. But in June of 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America aired a trailer of the film and interviewed reporter Bob Woodruff about the upcoming film. Woodruff narrated the film, telling then-GMA anchor Chris Cuomo that it “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”
The film follows a fictional character known as Lucy through her life. In the beginning of the film, Woodruff is careful to say that events shown in the story are not “a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.”
Lucy’s 2015 was a pretty awful place, with a gallon of milk costing just under $13.00. Gasoline was over $9.00 per gallon with lines stretching for blocks to get it. In fact, gas stations were forced to close due to lack of product. Miami, where Lucy lives, is wilting under the worst heatwave in history and then, on cue Miami is hit by the largest hurricane in history.
Interspersed throughout the film are “climate experts” such as Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and CNN’s Van Jones giving their “expert” opinions on the climate crisis. Though, technically a work of fiction, the show is presented in a dishonest documentary style.
And, of course, America is the villain in all of it. Led by America, the world doesn’t act to cut greenhouse emissions. In fact, in one of the more ridiculous prophecies contained in the film, America acts to build dozens of new coal-fired energy plants.
Had the show been promoted as a comedy with a laugh track, it would have made more sense. As some sort of prophecy based on climate science, it failed miserably, at least for its 2015 prognostications.
In the actual 2015, you could buy a gallon of milk for about $3.40. Gas at the time was selling at an average of $2.75 per gallon — no supply shortages noted. Today, in 2019, the average national price for a gallon of gasoline is only $2.72.
And, of course, Miami and indeed all of Florida rode out what storms it did see, as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico were in the middle of a 12-year-drought of serious hurricanes, which ended in 2017 when Hurricane Maria hit Texas.
Much like their failed climate models, the climate hysterics behind this show couldn’t get anything right. ABC’s Earth 2100 was nothing but fear-porn based on misunderstood science. Though it claimed not to make “predictions,” the scientists, politicians, and journalists involved with the show were clearly hinting that such things were going to happen.
Despite being continually wrong, the climate alarmist movement persists. Any extreme weather event is treated as “proof” that the climate is changing for the worse. And those claims are always anchored to calls for the governments of the world to “do something.” It must be terrible being a part of a movement which has to root for disaster and death to occur in order to make their point.
And even if any of this were true, the governments of the world would be the last entities we should trust to do anything about it. Especially any corrupt “global” government based out of the United Nations.
Climate hysterics like to claim that their assertions are all about “science.” But the ironic reality shows us that it’s true scientific inquiry that the movement fears. When President Trump, an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, suggested a special White House panel to study the issue and determine if climate change (so-called) is truly an existential threat, climate hysterics went predictably bananas. NASA climate scientist Katie Marvel said such a panel was “like assembling a panel of gravity skeptics who insist it’s safe to jump off tall buildings.”
Marvel’s reaction is not that of a true scientist but more like a religious fanatic whose beliefs are challenged. Real scientists welcome review of their work, especially skeptical review. If the science is truly “settled” and conclusive, why the fear of another climate panel?
Photo: Meindert van der Haven/iStock/Getty Images Plus
An Inconvenient Glacier: Study Shows Greenland Glacier Growing
Written by James Murphy
Thursday, 28 March 2019
Over the past two decades, the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland had been melting at what climate alarmists might term an alarming rate. However, a new study published in Nature Geoscience has concluded that since 2016, the Jakobshavn Glacier is now growing again.
Using airborne altimetry and satellite imagery data, the study concludes that since 2016, the glacier has been advancing. The data used was from NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission. The study was conducted by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with contributions from Remote Sensing Solutions in Barnstable, Massachusetts, and the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
The study traces the glacier’s growth spurt to a naturally occuring cycle of cooler water in the North Atlantic more than 600 miles south of the glacier. Researchers posit that the cold water was set in motion due to an effect known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which causes the Northern Atlantic to switch slowly between warm and cold every five to 20 years.
The water in Disko Bay, where the glacier meets the Atlantic, is now 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it was just a few years ago, causing the Jakobshavn Glacier to grow. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they’ve been since the mid-1980s.
And, boy, were the scientists surprised about it.
“At first, we didn’t believe it. We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last twenty years,” said Ala Khazendar, a research scientist at JPL and the lead author of the study.
Around 2012, Jakobshavn had been retreating at roughly 1.8 miles, and thinning at about 130 feet, annually. However, according to the study, it has been growing again at roughly those same rates since 2016.
As far as ice loss and its potential contribution to sea-level rise, the Jakobshavn glacier is one of the most important in the Northern Hemisphere.
“This was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said ice and climate scientist Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.”
Box was not a part of the study, but he called Jakobshavn “arguably the most important Greenland glacier because it discharges the most ice in the Northern Hemisphere. For all of Greenland, it is king.”
Another NASA scientist, who was not part of the project, lauded the OMG mission for its groundbreaking scientific potential. Tom Wagner, NASA Headquarters program scientist for the cryosphere, said, “The OMG mission deployed new technologies that allowed us to observe a natural experiment, much as we would do in a laboratory, where variations in ocean temperature were used to control the flow of a glacier. Their findings — especially about how quickly the ice responds — will be important to projecting sea level rise in both the near and distant future.”
But in 2019, where climate is concerned, there can never be good news. Any study must be spun to include impending disaster.
Scientists connected to the study were quick to point out that the glacier’s growth is only an “interruption” of the expected long-term glacial melt supposedly caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
“Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern. But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland’s ice sheet,” according to Josh Willis of JPL, the principal investigator of OMG.
In other words, the growing glacier is only evidence of a brief respite from the scourge of man-made global warming. Once the North Atlantic Oscillation changes back to warmer water, future glacial melts will be catastrophic.
“All this is an indicator of how sensitive glaciers are to ocean temperatures,” Khazendar explained, hinting that that’s not a good thing.
“In the long run, we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” said Willis.
Climate scientists cannot simply report on findings without linking them to future disaster. Any study, even one showing an obvious slowdown in global warming — a growing glacier — must be linked to catastrophic climate change. It’s another sure sign that the study of climatology is as much political as it is scientific.
Forget Earth Day; Remember Murderer Einhorn, Its Co-founder, and the Bogus Claims of His Movement.
Written by R. Cort Kirkwood
April 22, 2019
It’s Earth Day again, so for the 49th time, mankind must suffer through another harangue about impending doom. But the one thing you won’t hear anywhere in that harangue is the bloody history of Earth Day’s illustrious co-founder, Ira Einhorn.
An inconvenient truth about him, as The Daily Caller quipped in borrowing Al Gore’s movie title, is this: He murdered his girlfriend in September 1977, composted her in a closet, fled to Europe, and hid for nearly two decades until the long arm of the law caught him.
Leftist Nutter Becomes Killer
Einhorn, who dubbed himself Unicorn, was “a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie,” as NBC described the murderer in 2011.
The hirsute “charismatic spokesman” for the radical Left, however, “had a secret dark side,” which girlfriend Holly Maddux didn’t find out about until it was too late.
When Maddux broke up with Einhorn and split for New York, he told her to fetch her belongings from his apartment or he’d toss them in the street. “And so on Sept. 9, 1977, Maddux went back to the apartment that she and Einhorn had shared in Philadelphia to collect her things, and was never seen again,” NBC reported. “When Philadelphia police questioned Einhorn about her mysterious disappearance several weeks later, he claimed that she had gone out to the neighborhood co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned.”
The Unicorn lied.
Cops went back to his apartment 18 months later, NBC reported, after a neighbor “complained that a reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid was leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet. Inside the closet, police found Maddux’s beaten and partially mummified body stuffed into a trunk that had also been packed with Styrofoam, air fresheners and newspapers.”
Cops arrested Einhorn, but he posted bail and fled the country in 1981. His attorney was future Senator Arlen Specter, who “assembled a group of his client’s supporters to serve as character witnesses, which helped Einhorn get released on bail,” OZY reported.
Lawmen nailed him in 1997, and while waging a four-year battle against extradition, the Associated Press reported, “Einhorn thumbed his nose at American authorities by appearing on television shows to discuss his plight and sipping wine while posing naked for photographers in his garden.”
Extradicted in 2001, Einhorn actually claimed the CIA murdered Maddux and framed Einhorn, NBC reported, because he was the real-life version of the man who knew too much. Einhorn expected jurors to believe the CIA whacked Maddux because Einhorn might spill the beans about the agency’s research into the paranormal.
Einhorn, who viewed himself as a “planetary enzyme,” and “catalyst for change,” told jurors about his “Virgo Moon,” AP reported.
The judge called him “an intellectual dilettante who preyed on the uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.”
In 2002, a judge sentenced Einhorn to life in prison.
The judge was on to something, and not just about Einhorn. The movement he helped found also preys upon the “uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.” One might also say the credulous.
The American Enterprise Institute, using a no-longer-available article from Reason magazine, compiled a list of the myriad failed, but widely accepted, outlandish claims in 1970 from the movement’s leaders and its scientists, who retailed them as what they call “settled science,” or as Gore might say, “inconvenient truth:”
• The New York Times, after Earth Day 1: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• Population control fanatic Paul Erlich: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Life magazine: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…. By 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”
• Ecologist Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”