Opinion by Paul Plante
Yes, people, that is the gist as I understand it of a breaking news story in The Hill that announced that Speaker of the House and Democrat faction leader and San Francisco, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and a whole passel of Democrats created a huge cloud of noxious and toxic carbon pollution flying over to Madrid, whether first-class, as befits her station, or military aircraft at present is unknown, so she and her entourage, which included a pet senator or two, could surrender the United States of America to governance by the IPCC, by by-passing Trump and bringing the United States of America back into that FARCE called the PARIS AGREEMEMNT, which Trump got us out of, precisely because it is a FARCE.
In the article in The Hill entitled “Pelosi: Congress has ‘iron-clad’ commitment to climate crisis” by Miranda Green on 2 December 2019, we and the candid world that watches were informed thusly concerning Leader Pelosi’s surprise trip to Madrid to surrender the United States of America to the IPCC, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised world leaders Monday that Democrats in Congress have an “iron-clad” commitment to addressing climate change despite the Trump’s administration rollback of multiple environmental efforts.
end quotes
Now, seriously, people – is there anyone out there who will be bold enough to step up to the plate in defense of Nancy Pelosi and explain to us how that is not just mindless drivel?
Does anyone have a clue as to what Nancy is on about when she says, “Democrats in Congress have an ‘iron-clad’ commitment to addressing climate change despite the Trump’s administration rollback of multiple environmental efforts,” given that the earth’s climate for the last several thousand years or more has never been constant nor stable, and instead has always been changing, sometimes quite rapidly?
Is she saying that the Democrats will finally yank their heads out of their collective ***** to study the basic high school science they so obviously missed if they don’t know that the earth’s climatic zones are constantly shifting?
Getting back to that breaking news:
Speaking at a United Nations conference in Madrid, Pelosi promised that the U.S. would continue to push for the goals set by the Paris climate agreement despite President Trump removing the country from the international pact.
end quotes
Except the Paris Agreement goals are pure horse****, as we can clearly see from p.10 of “Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis” by Jonathan Symons, who is an Australian, by the way, not a Trump Republican, copyright 2019, to wit:
Social psychology also tells us that people are generally much more likely to acknowledge the existence of a threat if they believe others have caused it.
Consider the 2015 Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting warming 1.5°C.
This goal was always a fantasy whose adoption suggests a collective desire to avoid difficult truths.
Even if all emissions ceased today, warming might eventually exceed 1.5°C (Hansen et al. 2008).
The more ambitious 2°C now also looks practically unfeasible.
Full implementation of the Paris Agreement pledges would bridge only about twenty-two percent of the gap between our current emissions trajectory and a pathway consistent with limiting this century’s warming to 2°C (UNFCCC 2015b, p. 44).
At the time of writing, no major developed economy is on track to meet even these feeble pledges Victor et al. 2017).
end quotes
And that is mirrored in the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius October 8th 2018 which was delivered to the Democrats in our Congress by little Greta Thunberg of Sweden in September of this year at their invitation in Chapter 4, to wit:
Limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would require transformative systemic change, integrated with sustainable development.
Such change would require the upscaling and acceleration of the implementation of far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectoral climate mitigation and addressing barriers.
Such systemic change would need to be linked to complementary adaptation actions, including transformational adaptation, especially for pathways that temporarily overshoot 1.5°C (medium evidence, high agreement) {Chapter 2, Chapter 3, 4.2.1, 4.4.5, 4.5}.
Current national pledges on mitigation and adaptation are not enough to stay below the Paris Agreement temperature limits and achieve its adaptation goals.
While transitions in energy efficiency, carbon intensity of fuels, electrification and land-use change are underway in various countries, limiting warming to 1.5°C will require a greater scale and pace of change to transform energy, land, urban and industrial systems globally. {4.3, 4.4, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in this Chapter}
Although multiple communities around the world are demonstrating the possibility of implementation consistent with 1.5°C pathways {Boxes 4.1-4.10}, very few countries, regions, cities, communities or businesses can currently make such a claim (high confidence).
To strengthen the global response, almost all countries would need to significantly raise their level of ambition.
In developing countries and for poor and vulnerable people, implementing the response would require financial, technological and other forms of support to build capacity, for which additional local, national and international resources would need to be mobilized (high confidence).
end quotes
So why would We, the American people with our own Constitution and laws and form of national government wish to jettison our Constitution and laws and form of national government to submit ourselves to governance by this foreign IPCC?
And since this is all common knowledge that the so-called Paris Agreement is a SHAM, why is Nancy Pelosi so hot to sell us out as an independent nation to this IPCC, which itself is a world government scheme?
Getting back to The Hill:
“Congress’s commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron-clad,” she said.
“By coming here we want to say to everyone, ‘We’re still in.'”
“‘The United States is still in.'”
end quotes
And no, Nancy, there is where you are dead wrong, and you obviously do not read the Cape Charles Mirror, because We, the American people want nothing to do with that SCAM known as the Paris Agreement, from which we gain no benefits whatsoever as a people and as a nation!
Getting back to The Hill once again:
Flanked by 14 Democratic senators and representatives, Pelosi’s attendance at this year’s United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is meant to position congressional Democrats as counter figures to the White House, whose talking points have frequently derided the Paris climate accord, a capstone of the countries involved in this week’s international meeting.
end quotes
And yes, Nancy, we know – it is all about the childish, silly tit-for-tat infantile political games you Democrats are playing as you try to get even with Trump for being president instead of Hillary Clinton, and then for having the gall and temerity to investigate prominent Democrats for alleged corrupt acts.
And PHOTO OPS, which Nancy is a master of, as one can see by looking at the photo at the top of the story with Nancy and her entourage in front of the UN backdrop http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ … li=BBnb7Kz with Nancy looking quite regal and imperious people up this way are saying, a woman of great power in the world who knows she is in charge, not Trump, and who has no qualms about using that power, either, which takes us back to the narrative of Nancy in Madrid, to wit:
“It’s our moral responsibility, if you believe as do I that this planet is God’s creation and we must be stewards of it.”
“But if you don’t share that belief, we all agree we have a moral responsibility to our children to pass on this planet to our children in a very responsible way,” Pelosi said.
end quotes
Speaking as a grandfather, Nancy, I would say that it is our moral responsibility to not lie to children and fill their heads full of “CLIMATE CRISIS” bull**** to make them scared, when you and all the rest of the Democrats are in possession of no evidence whatsoever that there is a “climate crisis,” which is an invented term.
That is what our true moral responsibility is – to not teach our children FALSEHOODS implying that the Democrats in Congress actually have such control over nature as its “stewards” that they can literally make the earth stand still and have it be like sunny Burbank for everybody in the world, except the Russians, 24/7/365.
And finishing out that news:
Pelosi journeyed to the event as part of a bicameral delegation with members of Congress who have been key figures in the party’s climate action push, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
The House in May passed a bill introduced by Castor that would force the U.S. to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and recommence steps to meet its emissions goals.
end quotes
Except there is no linkage between the two!
The United States of America does not need the Paris Agreement for it to reduce CO2 emissions.
The United States is a sovereign nation!
If its CO2 emissions need to be reduced, then it is totally within our power as a people and as a nation to reduce them.
So what then is Nancy Pelosi really doing in Madrid, beyond playing at childish partisan politics while making empty promises to the youth of America, exploiting them for partisan political gain in the 2020 presidential election?
About the Author
Staying for the moment with the theme that the United States of America is a sovereign nation with our own Constitution, even if it is totally ignored by Nancy Pelosi, who may well be bat**** crazy, and her ravening pack of Democrats, and our own laws, which are again totally ignored by Nancy and her Democrats who make it up as they go, it is incandescently clear from a review of OUR Constitution that when she and her pack of fawning fools went to Madrid to declare that she was going to put the United States back into this FARCE and SHAM known as the “Paris Agreement,” she and they were way off the reservation usurping powers never delegated to them in the first place by We, The American People, because the Paris Agreement is a TREATY, and the House of Representatives, according to our written Constitution, has no role to play at all in the making of treaties, and with good reason.
According to the Annotations to Article II of OUR written Constitution, as opposed to the unwritten constitution of the Democrats which Nancy Pelosi keeps stored for safety in her own alimentary tract, specifically Clause 2. Treaties and Appointment of Officers, we have as follows:
THE TREATY-MAKING POWER
President and Senate
The plan which the Committee of Detail reported to the Federal Convention on August 6, 1787 provided that ”the Senate of the United States shall have power to make treaties, and to appoint Ambassadors, and Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Not until September 7, ten days before the Convention’s final adjournment, was the President made a participant in these powers.
The constitutional clause evidently assumes that the President and Senate will be associated throughout the entire process of making a treaty, although Jay, writing in The Federalist, foresaw that the initiative must often be seized by the President without benefit of senatorial counsel.
Yet, so late as 1818, Rufus King, Senator from New York, who had been a member of the Convention, declared on the floor of the Senate: ”In these concerns the Senate are the Constitutional and the only responsible counsellors of the President.”
“And in this capacity the Senate may, and ought to, look into and watch over every branch of the foreign affairs of the nation; they may, therefore, at any time call for full and exact information respecting the foreign affairs, and express their opinion and advice to the President respecting the same, when, and under whatever other circumstances, they may think such advice expedient.”
end quotes
So, given that, how then does Nancy Pelosi, a mere congresswoman from San Francisco, California, get any constitutional authority to put OUR nation back into this insane scheme known as the “Paris Agreement?”
And the answer is she simply does what she always does – she makes it up by pulling it from out of her ***, because OUR Constitution as written totally denies her a role to play in that treaty-making process, which takes us back to the Annotations to our written Constitution, as follows:
Negotiation, a Presidential Monopoly
Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.
”He alone negotiates.”
“Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it,” declared Justice Sutherland for the Court in 1936.
end quotes
However, that means nothing at all to Nancy Pelosi, who sees herself as above our laws, as well as being the true ruler of the United States of America, as opposed to Trump, who the Democrats in Congress view as an illegitimate usurper, given that Democrat Hussein Obama has already tapped Hillary Clinton as his chosen successor, in the manner of Roman Emperors appointing their successors, which takes us back to the Annotations, as follows:
The Senate must, moreover, content itself with such information as the President chooses to furnish it.
In performing the function that remains to it, however, it has several options.
It may consent unconditionally to a proposed treaty, it may refuse its consent, or it may stipulate conditions in the form of amendments to the treaty, of reservations to the act of ratification, or of statements of understanding or other declarations, the formal difference between the first two and the third being that amendments and reservations, if accepted by the President must be communicated to the other parties to the treaty, and, at least with respect to amendments and often reservations as well, require reopening negotiations and changes, whereas the other actions may have more problematic results.
The act of ratification for the United States is the President’s act, but it may not be forthcoming unless the Senate has consented to it by the required two-thirds of the Senators present, which signifies two-thirds of a quorum, otherwise the consent rendered would not be that of the Senate as organized under the Constitution to do business.
Conversely, the President may, if dissatisfied with amendments which have been affixed by the Senate to a proposed treaty or with the conditions stipulated by it to ratification, decide to abandon the negotiation, which he is entirely free to do.
end quotes
So, once again, people, what were Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats doing in Madrid, besides acting in a LAWLESS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER?
And why, as a free people, should we meekly be accepting of that type of LAWLESS conduct by Nancy Pelosi and her pack of rabid Democrats?
Because we are weak and stupid?
And to give us all a better feel for what is really going on here with respect to Nancy Pelosi and the s0called Paris Agreement and the IPCC, since most of it occurs behind closed doors so we do not have knowledge of what is being done, even though it directly impacts on our lives and our well-being, let us go to a NOAA puff piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by author Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
end quotes
Now, focus in on these words, people, because they are important to understanding that anything coming to us from the IPCC or Paris Agreement crowd, and this most definitely includes Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C is based on contrived “science” to suit the needs of the politicians of the Paris Agreement crowd, which would include Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats she took with her to Madrid to surrender the United States to the IPCC.
And then we come to this in that NOAA puff-piece, to wit:
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
end quotes
Other world goals, people, like eradicating poverty, and since the Democrats back in 1964 launched a WAR ON POVERTY in this country that they still have not won, and since it was estimated 2015 that 13.5% of Americans (43.1 million) lived in poverty, with other scholars underscoring the number of people in the United States living in “near-poverty,” putting the number at around 100 million, or nearly a third of the U.S. population, it seems to me that instead of flying off to Madrid, where she had no business being, to join the Paris Agreement to eradicate world poverty, Nancy should be ending poverty here first.
Getting back to that NOAA puff-piece:
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
end quotes
Elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that this Ko Barrett has a serious conflict of interest here, trying to serve her political masters at the IPCC, versus maintaining the integrity of science at NOAA which has become a laughing stock after Sharpie-Gate, and thus, she should not be in charge of research at NOAA, which takes us to that interview, as follows:.
Q: Thank you for joining me.
You are currently the vice chair of the IPCC.
How did you come into that role and what does it mean?
Barrett: Thank you for your interest.
Since 2001, I had been a U.S. delegate to the IPCC as part of the U.S. government delegation.
In 2015, elections were being held for the new leadership team of IPCC.
The U.S. had always had a spot on the leadership team, so they put me forward for vice chair, and I was elected by acclamation.
end quotes
Who are the “they” who put this Ko Barrett forward for vice chair of the IPCC?
Does anyone have a clue?
Getting back to the interview and her further answer, we have:
There are 12 people who compromise the IPCC leadership team.
A chair, three vice chairs and two co-chairs for each of the four working groups or task forces.
The chair is the main representative for the organization.
The co-chairs produce the reports and do the bulk of the assessment work.
The three vice chairs sit in-between those two levels.
We assist with representational activities and work, especially during approval sessions, to convene groups to reach consensus on language.
end quotes
Focus on that statement “convene groups to reach consensus on language.”
In other words, to contrive the “science” that the political IPCC has need of at the moment, as we will see by returning to that interview, as follows:
Q: And what exactly does the IPCC do?
Barrett: The IPCC was formed in 1988 when the issue of climate change was just emerging as a possible challenge.
It is unique in that it is a scientific assessment body that is intergovernmental in nature.
It is sponsored by two organizations in the United Nations (UN) system: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program.
So the way it functions is like nothing else.
We produce periodic assessments of the state of climate or special topics of interest to policy makers.
At various stages of production of the report, we put it out for expert and government review.
But the summary for policymakers is negotiated line by line and approved by governments.
This is a way to give the governments a chance to weigh in on the report, both generally and specifically.
The summary for policymakers is a discrete enough piece of the report to actually negotiate with governments, without having to put the whole thing up for negotiation.
It [the IPCC] is this incredible handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it an authoritative perspective on climate science like no other.
end quotes
And it is that handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it anything it produces highly suspect as politically-contrived “science,” so that it is not an authoritative perspective on climate science, at all – to the contrary, it is perverting climate science for political reasons.
So why are Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for that?
And as we pause here to consider the IPCC statement endorsed by Democrat Nancy Pelosi last week when she went to Madrid in an attempt to surrender the United States of America to the IPCC global climate crisis crowd meeting at the UN Conference of Parties where little Greta Thunberg told us that we had to go to zero carbon dioxide emissions to give poor countries like Burkina Faso a chance to be prosperous, that “(A)dditionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty,” Reuters had an interesting story on that very subject entitled “Burkina Faso mining lost $1 billion to graft in decade: parliament” on October 26, 2016, which informs us as follows concerning “achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty,” to wit:
OUAGADOUGOU (Reuters) – Burkina Faso lost nearly a billion dollars to corruption and mismanagement in the mining sector in the decade leading up to the fall of Blaise Compaore and the year after he was forced out, according to a parliamentary inquiry.
The committee announced its findings late on Tuesday after a three-month investigation and called for charges to be brought against three ex-ministers as well as the former president’s brother, Francois Compaore.
The committee’s head Ousseni Tamboura said about 551 billion CFA francs ($920 million) was lost between 2005 and 2015.
Former president Blaise Compaore ruled the West African nation for nearly 30 years before being forced out of power in 2014 when protesters took to the streets to demand he step down.
After his fall, Burkina Faso’s new authorities vowed to battle corruption and arrested several former ministers in 2015, but graft has proved difficult to stamp out.
“The losses are essentially due to bad governance of the sector, bad management, and the appropriation of the mining economy for self-serving interests,” Tamboura said.
The commission said Francois Compaore, who served as an advisor during his brother’s rule, collected bribes of 5 billion CFA francs ($8.33 million) linked to the awarding of a mining contract in 2014, he said.
According to the report, fraud in the gold industry worsened after the state-owned buying office which had a monopoly was liquidated in 2006, opening the door to private buyers.
And for a real candid look at the harm Democrat Nancy Pelosi and her squad of “ME,TOO, IF YOU SAY SO” Democrats she took with her to the Paris Agreement Conference of Parties (“COP”) in Madrid in her bid to formally surrender the United States of America to the so-called “Paris Agreement government” and strike the hated American flag to replace it foreveraftermore with the plain blue flag of the United Nations, let’s go to the New York Times article “As U.N. Climate Talks Go to Overtime, a Battle for the ‘Spirit’ of the Paris Pact” by Somini Sengupta on 14 December 2019, where we have as follows:
MADRID — After two weeks of contentious negotiations, world leaders put in charge of averting a cluster of accelerating climate threats remained at loggerheads on Saturday about whether they could commit, just on paper, to raise voluntary climate targets next year.
The annual talks, which had been scheduled to end on Friday, were meant to hammer out the final details of the landmark 2015 Paris climate accord, and expectations initially ran high that they would yield a collective political call for raising climate targets.
That is vital for the future of millions.
With greenhouse gas emissions on their current trajectory, average global temperatures are on pace to increase to levels where heat waves are very likely to intensify, storms are set to become more severe, and coastal cities are at risk of drowning, according to scientific consensus.
end quotes
Except it really is not “scientific consensus;” to the contrary, that is a political consensus posing as science, which takes us back to that article as follows:
The delegates from nearly 200 countries who gathered in the Spanish capital were similarly stuck on two other issues that have vexed the Paris Agreement since its inception: working out rules for an international carbon trading system and providing money for the poor countries that suffer most from climate catastrophes.
end quotes
Focus in on that phrase “providing money for the poor countries that suffer most from climate catastrophes.”
And a very nebulous statement, it is indeed, which is why Trump had the good sense to get us shut of that lash-up as a nation and as a people, because the reality is, is that is nothing more than a massive graft pipeline being set up through this so-called “Paris Agreement,” which is an agreement about moving money around, not saving the world from carbon pollution, which again takes us back to the story, to wit:
The draft texts that emerged early Saturday immediately set off furious criticism from inside and outside the plenary room.
By midday, delegates were waiting for new drafts and there was no telling when the sessions would wrap up, with or without an agreement.
“Adopting this would be a betrayal of all the people around the world suffering from climate impacts and those who are calling for action,” said Jennifer Morgan, the executive director of Greenpeace International.
Diplomats and advocates at the deliberations repeatedly cited opposition from large economies that are run by leaders suspicious of international cooperation — including Australia, Brazil and the United States, the only country in the world that is pulling out of the Paris accord.
The United States delegation was among those that objected to the notion that the conference document should signal the need to enhance climate targets next year, saying it did not support “expansive additional language on gaps and needs.”
And while the divide between rich and poor countries loomed over these talks, as they often do in climate negotiations, the battle lines were far more muddled this time.
Many countries from the global South, like Fiji and Colombia, insisted on higher ambitions by 2020, while India was among those that resisted such a deadline.
“The spirit and the objectives of the Paris Agreement are being eroded clause by clause, discussion by discussion,” Simon Stiell, the environment minister of Grenada, said as the negotiations entered the final stretch.
The lackluster diplomatic results stood in sharp contrast to the climate risks roiling the world beyond the conference center, with Arctic temperatures at near record highs this year, smoke from wildfires choking Sydney, Australia, and millions of young people pouring out into the streets for much of this year.
These are the last negotiations that the United States can participate in before it formally retreats next year, and it used the Madrid session to vigorously push back against appeals from several poor countries to be compensated for the economic damage they suffer from hurricanes, droughts and slow-moving climate catastrophes like the decimation of coral reefs.
They have been seeking “loss and damage” funding that is separate from what is now in place to help poor countries rein in their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Delegates from other countries said the United States had insisted on a waiver in the negotiations that would protect big emitters from liability claims in other countries, but that was unacceptable to many developing nations.
“We refuse to import that paragraph,” said Ammar Hijazi, a Palestinian diplomat who is chairman of a large bloc of poor countries, known as the Group of 77, which is backed by China.
“If we accept it at this stage it will come back to haunt us.”
A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the specifics of the loss and damage talks, saying only that “the U.S. government is the largest humanitarian donor in the world, and we respond based on needs.”
end quotes
Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats were in Madrid with the express purpose of selling us to that large bloc of poor countries, known as the Group of 77.
Why?
Best ask Nancy for her reasons, but as for me, I would say it was to give the Democrats access to a vast untapped reservoir of funds from the United States taxpayers that the Democrats can skim for graft.
Why else would Nancy Pelosi want the citizens of the United States of America held financially responsible if the climate in some poor country isn’t the way they would like it to be?