Plans to Turn ‘Politically Binding’ UN Climate Change Accord Into Federal Law

CNS News ^ | September 12, 2014 | Barbara Hollingsworth

[bobo1]

UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

That’s all I need to know, even though I have read countless articles.

[BenLurkin]

Obama versus America.

Again.

[HapaxLegamenon]

So basically they are planning on something like what happened to prop 8 in California. Someone sues the government, the government agrees with those suing, no one else has standing to enforce the status quo, we all get screwed.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I’ll bet the ministers I London never thought a tax on tea or paper would cause them to lose a bountiful group of colonies.

[KarlInOhio]

A little bit of side question: when did we start using international agreements which require half the House and half the Senate rather than the Constitutionally prescribed use of treaties which require 2/3 of the Senate? I know NAFTA wouldn’t have gotten the 2/3 vote in 1993, but I don’t know enough of its legislative history to know if it was tried as a treaty at first. <p.

[Plumberman27]

In the future all a president has to do is issue an executive order then to void anything this clown has done.

[rockinqsranch]

NO. Absolutely NOT. The lawlessness must stop with the demise of this administration in 2017, or before.

Ours IS a nation of laws. Without law this nation cannot survive.

I was saying in my original post the current administration is operating outside the law, therefore the law(s) this administration claim(s) is invalid.

The Presidential Executive Order has been abused, and by several Presidents IMO, therefore the Presidential Executive Order must be clarified to work properly under Constitutional law. That is a task that must be undertaken immediately, if not sooner.

[rktman]

First step to reduce the output would be for the lyin’king to STFU.

[Morpheus2009]

Venus doesn’t have an atmosphere like Earth, almost all of the atmosphere of Venus is CO2. On Earth, you are talking a percent of 1 percent. We are going to have a seriously hard time getting CO2 to exceed 1 percent. It’s been recorded way higher in prehistoric times.

[Morpheus2009]

That is perhaps the most underestimated threat out there ruling by the courts in favor of restriction. However, even in real laws, how are you going to prove something a threat when your own predictions and claims don’t hold up?

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Yes but Venus became a greenhouse planet from water vapor, then CO2 was trapped by it over billions of years, and yes it's absurd to think we can create enough CO2 to change the composition of 5 quadrillion metric tons of atmosphere. When it comes to controlling the atmosphere, plants exceed us by far, it's why if you look at earth from outer space, almost every continent has green on it, that's not green cars or green people, it's plants. And then we have the oceans with algae and other plant life. So for liberals to think people which are like microbes by comparison can overtake the oceans and plants enough to dramatically change the composition of the atmosphere is beyond absurd.

[Morpheus2009]

It doesn’t have hardly any water now. Whatever happened on Venus must have broken down the water so that it left the planet or got incorporated into Something else. Either way, CO2 presence in our atmosphere is extremely small. Water also limits warming thanks to its capacity to absorb heat, evaporation, and for solid water to float on top of liquid water.

[expat_panama]

,,,Venus became a greenhouse planet from water vapor, then CO2 was trapped by it over billions of years, and yes it's absurd to think we can create enough CO2...

Most folks don't realize that air has a hundred times as much water vapor as it does CO₂. and yet they all got this big thing about 'carbon footprint'.  I mean, like if someone totally eliminates his carbon footprint and the next guy increases his water footprint by a percent --they cancel out.