Skip to comments.Stern Words for Global Warming Alarmists
Posted on 03/13/2009 4:50:20 PM PDT by Delacon
|Mr. Horner is author of "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed."|
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
ping for later
Marking while I go to the bathroom to hurl. The press is our enemy...
This was predictable.
A real attempt to cut emissions as much as Gore and Hansen want, while requiring none at all from China, India, and Mexico—this would destroy the Democratic Party for generations, politically.
We Don Need No Stinkin Treaty! [Chris Horner]
At Heartlands International Climate Change Conference in New York this week, I gave a talk addressing the argument made by Brookingss Nigel Purvis that, when it comes to roping the U.S. into Kyotos successor, we need to recognize that The United States should classify new international treaties to protect the Earths climate system as executive agreements rather than treaties, because The treaty clause has never worked as the framers of the Constitution intended.
By that he means, upon clarification, that The treaty process created by the framers of the Constitution requires an exceptional degree of national consensus that is no longer reasonable given the frequency and importance of international cooperation today, meaning that which was intended to keep us from doing something too promiscuously has been overtaken by the practice of doing it too promiscuously and must be thrown overboard.
Kyoto II therefore should just be an executive agreement requiring 50-plus-1 fast tracking in both houses of Congress, not two-thirds Senate ratification.
Now, to be accurate and in apology to the tremendous audience which packed the room for our panel, in my haste to pull up the file and remove from it a few slides that I saw being covered by Marc Morano speaking before me, I actually gave a version of my eight-minute CPAC talk the week before the correct, more in-depth treatment of the issue is the version which will be posted.
This talk tracked a piece I had in the Federalist Societys Engage in February.
I have had Kyotophiles raise their hands the moment I raise this issue, aah-aah-aah! a la Seinfelds Kramer, firmly instructing me that no one is really thinking about such things dont raise them dont raise them I dont hear you, etc.
As that could indicate, this isnt an issue that they find helpful to raise in advance of whatevers going to be done.
So it is with interest that I read a paper for Team Soros that the Center for American Progress sent to me titled A Changing Climate: The Road Ahead for the United States, making the same points made by Purvis, offering the same prescription and on the same grounds of restoring our credibility and so on.
Its full of pap about the U.S. having muzzled its scientists, cites John Holdren for propositions of a catastrophically warming world, yadda, yadda but is most intriguing for this:
The United States own ratification process meanwhile presents special challenges. Ratifying a treaty is much tougher than passing domestic legislation, both because the Senate is classically hostile to requirements imposed by outside bodies such as the UN and because it requires 67 votes rather than the 51 required for domestic legislation or even the 60 required to break a filibuster. Even if a U.S. domestic cap-and-trade system were enacted, ratifying a treaty could be difficult, especially if the treaty required changes to elements of the domestic system, as it well might.
The obvious solution in the face of such meanies adhering to the Constitution and getting in the way when youve got a revolution to carry out is the congressional-executive agreement suggested by Purvis. The authors? Todd Stern . . . senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a partner at WilmerHale in Washington, D.C. [and] William Antholis . . . managing director of the Brookings Institution.
Stern is of course the new climate envoy for the United States, the apparent voice of reason downplaying the idea of U.S. involvement in some grand Kyoto 2.0 treaty (credit for which apparent realism I give him in a Human Events piece from yesterday).
So its unclear which Stern is at work, but at least we do know that he, too, harbors aspirations of finding an end-run around the Constitutions troublesome two-thirds Senate-approval requirement. Its pretty clear that this is in fact the Party Line. Maybe its OK to talk about it now?
“Hey, were a carbonbased economy, guys. Get over it.”
More than that, we are carbon based life forms. To reject that basic premise illustrates the sheer insanity of the “Climate Moonbats”.
Global warmers should LOVE GW Bush. Under Bush we had 8 solid years of cooling reversing the warming trend that was going to destroy the earth. GW Bush is a Super Hero!
Nice read. Love the reference to the “...Escher print hanging over the commode...” Heh.
Hey if you didn’t have an Escher hanging in you room then you weren’t a thinking and complex person.
With the stuff I was smokin’ back then, a good portion of my life resembled an Escher print.
If this guy does more flip flops he’ll be speaking at the republican convention.
I have a feeling that any honest debate of cap and trade in Congress would see the plan nixed in a hurry as Congress critters who vote to impose this massive tax increase my soon find themselves voted out of office. The only way the Reid/Pelosi/Obama cabal can get this through is by hiding in the pork pile.
[snip] consider the media’s different contortions when covering the positions of presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama on the matter of a “global warming” treaty. For example, last week the Obama administration proclaimed that expectations shall be lowered on that front and, for some reason, broadcast anchors eschewed rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth, and the print media couldn’t be bothered with the usual editorials and hit pieces masquerading as news items to condemn the seemingly rational assessment. The words in question came in a speech by President Obama’s “climate envoy,” former Clinton-Gore “Kyoto” aide Todd Stern, that the global warming agenda demanded of Bush was too ambitious and “not going to happen.” (To whom do you present your credentials as “climate envoy”? Mother Nature?) [end]
Global warming or global cooling?
Victorville Daily Press | March 13, 2009 | FROM STAFF REPORTS
Posted on 03/13/2009 8:30:09 PM PDT by neverdem
Low solar activity continues
Coeur d’Alene Press | Mar 08, 2009 | Cliff Harris & Randy Mann
Posted on 03/13/2009 8:55:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Stern is an arrogant fool and a left-wing poltroon. Then again, all leftists are poltroons. There will be a day of reckoning for all of them, and we the people will prevail.