Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Makalakumu]

So one man says it so it must be true.
:hmm:

The President of the EU shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It's not like he's a gas station attendant. That person represents millions and is in a position of power that few will ever attain. If he's saying that global government is beginning, he is a position actually know that.

 

[Flying Crane]

Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?

show me a treaty that takes precedence over the US Constitution for US citizens living in the US. How has the US government signed away constitutional rights for US citizens in an international treaty?

 

[Makalakumu]

show me a treaty that takes precedence over the US Constitution for US citizens living in the US. How has the US government signed away constitutional rights for US citizens in an international treaty?

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.

The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110328-what-happened-american-declaration-war

 

[Makalakumu]

Treaties as Law of the Land - United States Constitution

Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.

The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.

What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | Stratfor

Here is a little more info...

Declaration of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[SUP][32][/SUP] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by members of the UN, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[SUP][33][/SUP]
​

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-GeneralInternational Commission of Jurists.[SUP][34][/SUP]
Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against a country or its allies, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, has to be supported by a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force.

 

[K-man]

Treaties as Law of the Land - United States Constitution

Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.

The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.

What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | Stratfor

I think that's a bit simplistic.

The meaning of treaties, as of statutes, is determined by the courts. “If treaties are to be given effect as federal law under our legal system, determining their meaning as a matter of federal law ‘is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department,’ headed by the ‘one supreme Court’ established by the Constitution.” Yet, “[w]hile courts interpret treaties for themselves, the meaning given them by the departments of government particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement is given great weight.” Decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interpreting treaties, however, have “no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” ICJ decisions “are therefore entitled only to the ‘respectful consideration’ due an interpretation of an international agreement by an international court.”


Even when an ICJ decision has binding force as between the governments of two nations, it is not necessarily enforceable by the individuals affected. If, for example, the ICJ finds that the United States violated a particular defendant’s rights under international law, and such a decision “constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States,” it does not necessarily “constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts… [W]hile treaties may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be self-executing and is ratified on these terms.” A memorandum from the President of the United States directing that the United States would “discharge its international obligations” under an ICJ decision interpreting a non-self-executing treaty, “by having State courts give effect to the decision,” is not sufficient to make the decision binding on state courts, unless the President’s action is authorized by Congress.

... and I would question the definition of the UN Charter as a treaty in the true meaning of 'treaty'.

In relation to the declaration of war or not, I would suggest that is a matter of expediency a much as anything else. It is a neat trick to engage in a war without having a war. Your article points out the perils of doing that.

It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.

It's not that they could not declare war. It is that they chose not to declare war.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

According to the UN Treaty, the US must consult the UN before committing troops. This puts UN Security Council approval ahead of the Congress' power to Declare War and commit US soldiers. This has the same limitations nuclear war because the process of going to the UN takes more time than actual nuclear combat would take to wreck the world.

Anyway, I think it can be safely stated that this treaty has removed from the US a vital Constitutional function and changed the way the country goes to war. That stated, if the US enters into any of the climate change treaties, it would be subject to them in the same way described above. Whether this happens to the US and to other countries depends on how much people actually pay attention to these things and how much they care about their national sovereignty.

The global government issue is real and it has the potential to change the way a country is organized on a fundamental level. This is also the main way that world leaders seem to want to address climate change. The political bias for this agenda is real, powerful, and well funded. It has the potential to drive research just as much as money from the Brown Economy.

Climate change alarmists need to pay attention to this, IMO. They can easily become tools of an agenda that not only has little chance of actually solving the climate change problems, but also may have very little to do with climate change. The impetus to create a world government existed long before humans were conscious of climate change. It has used many world issues to advance. Climate change is just the next veil behind which the agenda moves forward.

 

[Makalakumu]

According to the UN Treaty, the US must consult the UN before committing troops. This puts UN Security Council approval ahead of the Congress' power to Declare War and commit US soldiers. This has the same limitations nuclear war because the process of going to the UN takes more time than actual nuclear combat would take to wreck the world.

Anyway, I think it can be safely stated that this treaty has removed from the US a vital Constitutional function and changed the way the country goes to war. That stated, if the US enters into any of the climate change treaties, it would be subject to them in the same way described above. Whether this happens to the US and to other countries depends on how much people actually pay attention to these things and how much they care about their national sovereignty.

The global government issue is real and it has the potential to change the way a country is organized on a fundamental level. This is also the main way that world leaders seem to want to address climate change. The political bias for this agenda is real, powerful, and well funded. It has the potential to drive research just as much as money from the Brown Economy.

Climate change alarmists need to pay attention to this, IMO. They can easily become tools of an agenda that not only has little chance of actually solving the climate change problems, but also may have very little to do with climate change. The impetus to create a world government existed long before humans were conscious of climate change. It has used many world issues to advance. Climate change is just the next veil behind which the agenda moves forward.

According to these scientists, it's okay to "exaggerate" global warming claims in order to "encourage" countries to accept international agreements.

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex anteperspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

 

[K-man]

According to these scientists, it's okay to "exaggerate" global warming claims in order to "encourage" countries to accept international agreements.

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

I can't read this report without paying. Perhaps you could PM me a copy. What else did it say or are you just quoting the abstract?
:asian:

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...

Top climate expert's sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report | Mail Online

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.
Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’
Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.
Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’

Yes, but it is all about the science...

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...a defector...a shill for big oil, or a guy who doesn't know his science...or someone who realizes man made global warming hasn't been proven...

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.

"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."

In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:

"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."


​

Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."

I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.

​

He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.

And here is another guy...

Fritz Vahrenholt - German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.
Vahrenholt's climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title "eco-reactionary" from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. Vahrenholt argued that the sun - not CO2 - was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.

Well this post should make for a nice, big check...

 

[K-man]

Hmmmm...a defector...a shill for big oil, or a guy who doesn't know his science...or someone who realizes man made global warming hasn't been proven...

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'

And here is another guy...

Well this post should make for a nice, big check...

Yet another Breitbart article misrepresenting the facts.

If you read the article and follow the links it is not a scientist defecting at all. It is a scientist saying that the findings need to be questioned and that evidence needs to be properly evaluated. I would suggest that that is exactly the position of mist reputable scientists.

If Breitbart are paying you to push this crap they are being short changed.

 

[billc]

Who said it was Breitbart paying me...:EG:

If you read the article and follow the links it is not a scientist defecting at all. It is a scientist saying that the findings need to be questioned and that evidence needs to be properly evaluated. I would suggest that that is exactly the position of mist reputable scientists.

Actually, this is not the position of promoters of the theory of man made global warming which is why this scientist stands out. for the MMGW people the discussion is over, man is causing warming and now we have to take draconian measures to save the planet. anyone who denies that man is causing the warming either is getting paid to lie or is an idiot...

The skeptics are the ones calling for looking at the real data and evaluating that...and they are the ones who are attacked. Because this guy is saying that the findings need to be questioned and the evidence needs to be evaluated he is now a man made global warming denier and he will be attacked and called a liar, or a shill for big oil...

Hmmmm...now how do I submit the bill for this post...I'll have to check my contract...

 

[billc]

Apparently, glaciers in the Himalayas are okay too...

Study: Himalayan Glaciers not Disappearing After All

Himalayan glaciers - for years one of the poster children of the "man-made global warming is real and we're all doomed" movement - are in no imminent danger whatsoever, a new study has found. (h/t GWPF and Watts Up With That?)


Of the 2018 glaciers mapped and monitored for the survey, nearly 87 per cent were found to be stable while only 12 per cent were found to be in retreat. These real-world observations are in marked contrast to the predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear "by 2035."
The IPCC was subsequently forced to disown the claim after it emerged that it came not from a peer-reviewed study but from an interview given by an Indian glaciologist to an obscure Indian environmental magazine called Down To Earth. In a game of Chinese whispers, this erroneous claim was then repeated in New Scientist, quoted in a report by environmental campaigning group WWF, and then cited as fact by the IPCC.
What made the story even murkier was that the glaciologist, Syed Hasnain. was subsequently employed by a company run by the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, a man who arguably has a strong vested interest in ramping up the global warming scaremongers' narrative.
As Christopher Booker reported in 2010:
Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

Yeah, they aren't doing it for the money....they are men of science...:rofl:

 

[granfire]

Apparently, glaciers in the Himalayas are okay too...

Study: Himalayan Glaciers not Disappearing After All



Yeah, they aren't doing it for the money....they are men of science...:rofl:

Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

NOAA: 2012 was one of the 10 warmest years on record globally

yeah, why do I try....

 

[K-man]

Not to mention New Zealand.

Our frozen assets slowly melting away

Scientists revealed this past week New Zealand's famous Franz Josef Glacier is dramatically retreating. Deidre Mussen investigates what the future holds for our nation's glaciers.

Over the past three decades, some New Zealand glaciers have quietly vanished.

...

A 2008 report on global glacier changes by the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the United Nations Environmental Programme states the annual melting rate of glaciers doubled after the turn of the millennium.


It predicts worldwide glacier shrinkage will accelerate and warns they may disappear from many mountain ranges by the end of the 21st century.
Our frozen assets slowly melting away | Stuff.co.nz

and Antarctica

Glacial Region's Melt Past 'Point of No Return,' NASA Says

A glacial region of western Antarctica that’s already melting rapidly has passed “the point of no return,” according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Glacial Region's Melt Past 'Point of No Return,' NASA Says - Bloomberg

Yeah! Great news Bill. The world is safe.

 

[ballen0351]

Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

NOAA: 2012 was one of the 10 warmest years on record globally

yeah, why do I try....

I wonder what the great Lakes glaciers looked like before they melted. That kinda stuff happens when we exit ice ages

 

[billc]

Hmmm...

Surprise: glaciers in Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930?s and 1940?s than today | Watts Up With That?

The “Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP)” and shows “maximum reconstructed retreat rates [in] 1930″ of about 125 meters per year, compared to near zero in ~1975 and about 20 meters/year at the end of the record in ~2005. The authors report, “Results indicate that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation 6,500 years before the present” and “Retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.”

When did the industrial revolution happen...

and you you would think they would melt faster today, not in the 30s and 40s...

A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews finds that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930′s and 1940′s than over the past 40 years.

After all, ther were less green house gases in hoe air then...

See the problem with your photo is it is from 2005...

This is from 2008...

Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire area was covered by thick sheets of ice.
High snowfall and cold weather to blame.


A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.


"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".


"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."


Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.


Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.


Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers. Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.


Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.
http:/

/www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm


1741 to 1900...

From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Well it seems 1900 would have a lot less green house gases than we have today...and yet...the ice retreated 50 miles...

Makes you go HMMMMMMM....


and what did they say led to this shrinkage..

.From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

I think you guys don't have to worry about glaciers melting because of man made global warming...

 

[K-man]

I think you guys don't have to worry about glaciers melting because of man made global warming...

I don't care what is causing the warming, just that it is happening.

As to Montana and its glaciers ... better get to see them now.

Of the estimated 150 glaciers which existed in the park in the mid-19th century, only 25 active glaciers remained by 2010. Scientists studying the glaciers in the park have estimated that all the glaciers may disappear by 2020 if the current climate patterns persist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here is an interesting one:

This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like | Mother Jones

 

[ballen0351]

Here is an interesting one:

This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like | Mother Jones

from the article

If you truly understand global warming, then you know it's all about the ice. That's what matters. Planet Earth has not always had great ice sheets at the poles, of the sort that currently exist atop Greenland and Antarctica. In other periods, much of that water has instead been in liquid form, in the oceans—and the oceans have been much higher.
How much? According to the National Academy of Sciences, the globe's great ice sheets contain enough frozen water to raise sea levels worldwide by more than 60 meters. That's about 200 feet.

So if its been that way long before cars and factories why do you think it wouldn't naturally cycle back to that state on its own. Then a few million years after that it would all freeze again. You know naturally like its been doing since the dawn of time.