International Parasite Agreement

[Crick]

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone else here can understand what I write. If you can't, well...

 

[jc456]

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone else here can understand what I write. If you can't, well...

me thinks you are delusional and know there are many on here who agree with me, and that, most of your posts are regurgitated lies built out of fear mongering, making such posts, mumbo jumbo!

Have a nice day!!!

 

[Crick]

You're the very first to complain that you cannot understand me.

 

[jc456]

You're the very first to complain that you cannot understand me.

When did I say i didn't understand you? I never wrote that. I merely pointed out that the material you choose to post is full of mumbo jumbo! And I know there are many on here that would agree with me!!

BTW, where's the info on that experiment that proves your claim on 120 PPM of CO2?

 

[Crick]

I took it to mean that you found my posts meaningless or senseless. Others do not. So there appeared to be a failure on your part to extract the sense and meaning from my posts with which others have no problem.

 

[Crick]

BTW, where's the info on that experiment that proves your claim on 120 PPM of CO2?

Right where I left it.

 

[jillian]

Climate change scams always originate at the United Nations. Environmental ripoffs offer the United Nations its best hope of gaining the authority to tax the American people. This latest one is more of the same:

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.

Wannabe domestic parasites demanding seats at the public trough better tread carefully before they get behind an agreement designed to benefit foreign parasites. Americans will be less inclined to accept more domestic environmental parasites diving into the public feed tub after Taqiyya the Liar punishes Americans internationally the way he did domestically:

In June, he bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions.

NOTE: The EPA is a de facto United Nations agency.

There is no reason to cover the UN’s designer-science in detail. Ditto Third World parasites dictating policy. This excerpt will suffice. It is a masterpiece that combines phoney science with a demand for American tax dollars:

Poor countries look to rich countries to help build dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas levels, or to provide food aid during pervasive droughts.

I do want to touch on a critical aspect of the UN’s relentless drive to become a global government.

Notice how the word “legal” is used correctly in the beginning. Blue is correct usage —— red is misdirection:

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.

XXXXX​

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,”. . .

The New York Times admits that treaties must be ratified by the Senate to be legally binding. Now read how “legal” becomes misdirection:

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” . . .

Suddenly, “legal” jumps back to proper usage:

That regulation, which would not be not final until next year, already faces legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed on behalf of a dozen states.

And then a quick jump back to improper usage:

Observers of United Nations climate negotiations, which have gone on for more than two decades without achieving a global deal to legally bind the world’s biggest polluters to carbon cuts,. . .

XXXXX​

At a 2009 climate meeting in Copenhagen, world leaders tried but failed to forge a new legally binding treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Instead, they agreed only to a series of voluntary pledges to cut carbon emissions through 2020.

The Obama administration’s climate change negotiators are desperate to avoid repeating the failure of Kyoto, the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty.

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty
By CORAL DAVENPORTAUG. 26, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/u...ng-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

The final excerpt best clarifies my point: “. . . the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty.” My point:

NOTHING THE UNITED NATIONS DOES IS LEGALLY BINDING.​

science deniers are funny.

but it does explain why we're falling behind most civilized nations.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're the very first to complain that you cannot understand me.

When did I say i didn't understand you? I never wrote that. I merely pointed out that the material you choose to post is full of mumbo jumbo! And I know there are many on here that would agree with me!!

BTW, where's the info on that experiment that proves your claim on 120 PPM of CO2?

Buddy boy, your post are just plain shit. No information, just denial of what is happening today, and denigration of your betters.

 

[Flanders]

(CNSNews.com) – As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming “absurd” and “a costly and pointless crusade”.

“You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human…history to find [such a] mad obsession,” according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.

French Mathematicians Blast UN’s ‘Costly & Pointless Crusade’ Against Global Warming
By Barbara Hollingsworth | October 29, 2015 | 1:19 PM EDT

French Mathematicians Blast UN’s ‘Costly & Pointless Crusade’ Against Global Warming​

No further back than then the late 17th century.

Quotes from #20 permalink:

Centuries ago, Al Gore’s scientific consensus gave the world the phlogiston theory. The following excerpt from a piece by Robert Tracinski’s gives a brief history:​

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in the early years of the science of chemistry, many serious scientists accepted phlogiston theory. This was an attempt to explain the chemical processes of combustion, oxidation, and metabolism by inferring the existence of a substance call "phlogiston." This theory was wrong, but it was not a totally crazy invention; it simply came too early, before scientists had sufficient evidence to prove a theory of combustion. Phlogiston was only superseded when the great chemist Lavoisier identified oxygen as the substance that is actually responsible for combustion, a discovery that helped pave the way for the development of modern chemistry.​

This next excerpt is beautiful in its simplicity in relation to today’s global warming scam:​

But imagine: what would have happened if the government had come along and pumped the equivalent of billions of dollars into phlogiston research? What if phlogiston had become a social cause, promoted by political leaders, touted by famous actors, defended by the culture's best writers? What if those who raised objections to the theory were vilified as "phlogiston deniers" and had to worry about losing funding for their research?

Yet that is precisely how today's scientific, political, and cultural establishment is approaching the nascent science of climatology.​

The questions posed by Mr. Tracinski are not that difficult to answer. As a matter of self-preservation a phlogiston bureaucracy feeding on tax dollars would have quickly acquired enough authority to get away with manufacturing scientific “facts” as well as accumulating the muscle to silence critics. Does that sound familiar?

Assuming that phlogiston theory would have eventually been disproved by Lavoisier, the phlogiston parasites would have been so entrenched in France’s public trough they would be there in perpetuity. It is easier for literal scientists to cure all of the diseases known to man than it is for scientific truth to drive one parasite away from the public trough.​

And is it not poetic justice that the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA. came out against the global warming fraud to make amends for the French lopping off Lavoisier’s head:

During the Reign of Terror, the French government sent Lavoisier to the guillotine because of his connections to the old aristocratic regime. That is one of history's great crimes against science -- but it probably did less damage than our government has caused by killing climatology with the false kindness of politically motivated research funding.​