Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!I'm pretty sure that just about everyone else here can understand what I write. If you can't, well...
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!!You're the very first to complain that you cannot understand me.
BTW, where's the info on that experiment that proves your claim on 120 PPM of CO2?
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:
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: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.
NOTE: The EPA is a de facto United Nations agency.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.
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:
I do want to touch on a critical aspect of the UN’s relentless drive to become a global government.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.
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.
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!!You're the very first to complain that you cannot understand me.
BTW, where's the info on that experiment that proves your claim on 120 PPM of CO2?