Gracie

Tas Ransel

Tom, you have an extra period (pajamasmedia.com..) which generates an error page in your URLs for:
[1] which should be add further fuel
and for [14] which should be in Copenhagen.

Sure would be nice to have a preview window in order to check my own URLs for errors (oh irony!).

Many thanks for a terrific piece. I’ve been looking for a concise, standalone, article to pass along to the some of the folks who have been dismissing AGW skeptics for years. They’ll have little inclination to spend time following serial examinations of the info dump in real time, but I may be able to badger them into clicking your round-up of links after reading your posting — making URL corrections all the more urgent.

Among friends and family, I’m the only person I know who actually read the original IPCC report that got this dirty snowball rolling. That document itself included enough smoke from the gun in its footnoted disclaimers to give even a statistical/scientific layman like me pause.

In my experience, the good stuff is almost always in the footnotes. It’s just as true when looking at legal briefs and judicial opinions as it has been in the AGW controversy. While the apostles in this case were claiming 90% confidence levels, aggregating the anomalies and provisos produced a margin of error which has always threatened to exceed the variables under examination. That sort of thing may be the very raison d’être of forgettable, piecemeal annotations.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510152

What I find amusing is that the undeveloped countries think any reductions in carbon thruput is a plot to keep them undeveloped. The developed nations think it’s a plot to allow the undeveloped nation to catch up. ALL of them think the Science is bogus, so they are all correct on all points.
This is all good news. Except to the rabid environmentalists (AKA Swampies) who want us all to live in caves and hunt mastodon’s with pointy sticks. When one points out that mastodons are extinct, they all say; ‘see, global warming’.

The Constitution, under the Supremacy Clause, does hold that treaties are the “supreme law of the land.”

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/holland.htm

{snipped}
“The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved.”
A liberal Justice re-writing the Constitution. But wait, there’s more!
“Valid treaties of course ‘are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.’ No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power….”

U.S. v. Pink (1942)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0315_0203_ZX.html

Not sure this one fits, since the treaty was negotiated in part to settle the legal issues in a uniform and national manner.
If you need credentials in place of reading the law;

http://www.tpromo2.com/gko/may02/050802.htm

Mr. Hoar’s close is powerful and worth pasting;

” Internationalists don’t want the U.S. to enjoy the protections adopted by our Founders, which is why they have eroded the Constitution, fought the insurance that would have been provided by the Bricker Amendment, and continue today to seek to tie the U.S. with so many UN bonds.

If you fancy having such United Nations diktats as the “supreme law of the land,” there is a good way to ensure it: You simply need do nothing at all. ”

The Bricker Amendment would be a great issue for Sara to throw on thetable. Talk about forcing the Dems and RINO’s to go hide in the closet. It would resonate strongly with most Ameriacns, who don’t realize that the UN Charter allows the UN to override ANY Citizens constitutional rights.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter16.shtml

“Article 104

The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. ”

Of course, if the UN ever tries to exercise such power, they will die like flies, but that is a different issue. The Issue is ‘Why does article 104 exist? Did the Senate even read it? Truman was a big fan of uni-nationalism, the world state.

Treason….. That word just keeps popping up now, doesn’t it?

Obama might want to commit America to the lifestyle of African tribespeople in the pre-colonial period by Hillary will kick him and say look Barry, nobody else is doing this crap. Forget about wanting everybody to think you’re a cool dude for once.

Good lord, thanks for calling attention to that. So much garbage being flung out of the White House I’d missed that piece.