Another Alarmist Icon Bites The Dust

One of the favorite global warming scams was the “Hudson Bay freezes over later than it used to, threatening Polar Bears” scam.

The Hudson Bay will be frozen over about two weeks earlier than normal this year.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Another Alarmist Icon Bites The Dust

  1. Andy Oz says:

    It all had to be solved by today, according to Australia’s premier scientist of 2009. Seems the Australian carbon tax worked better than expected and has now frozen the entire northern hemisphere. I knew we could do it. America should thank us for doing the heavy lifting. 🙂

  2. Robertv says:

    Yep . But the Chukchi Sea did not collaborate this year. So they will only focus on that.

  3. gofer says:

    Climate Talks aim to stop human extinction. The crooks are going to save the world.

    • Gail Combs says:

      This is Coral Davenport and some of the other crap she has written for the likes of New York Times, Yahoo, The Atlantic, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald….

      Seems Jason Calley was correct the SOBs are going to switch names from TREATY requiring 3/4 of Congress to ratify to AGREEMENT which only takes a simple Majority.

      Seems we let this little fact get by us folks.

      Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

      By Coral Davenport — 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.

      The news around that time was Will Republicans Shut Down the Government Again?

      …..LOOK, a squirrel!

    • Gail Combs says:

      A WIKI QUIKY on international agreements:

      One of three types of international accord[edit]

      In the United States, the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

      Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

      Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[2] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history.

      From another source:

      Executive agreements do not require super-majority support in the Senate as do formal Article II treaties. Since the 1940s, the vast majority of international agreements have been completed by presidents as executive agreements rather than as treaties. This major policy evolution occurred without changes to the Constitution, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches have validated the change. This has led some scholars to conclude that the treaty power “has become effectively a Presidential monopoly” (Franck and Weisband 1979: 135; see also Corwin 1984).

      Again the Supreme Court in the times of FDR betrayed this country.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The other source was Treaties and Executive Agreements: A History

        Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements
        International Commitments in a System of Shared Powers
        Glen S. Krutz and Jeffrey S. Peake

        The University of Michigan Press, 2009.

      • Tom Bakert says:

        Gail, The question I have is this: To what extent, either in theory or in practice, are sole-executive agreements with foreign states internally binding? Moreover, if the executive branch of government (i.e., the POTUS) can act unilaterally in entering into such an agreement, can his successor similarly act unilaterally to vacate the agreement?

        I’m not posing this question directly to you. You do more than your share of legwork for us here. Just troubled by this business of sole-executive agreements and the manner in which they seem undercut the balance of power as defined by our Constitution.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The problem as I see it is an Agreement made by Obama that is then agreed to by a simple majority of Congress. This will then be considered “Ratification” within International law.

          From the United Nations on Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

          2. Acceptance and Approval

          The instruments of “acceptance” or “approval” of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state….

          18. Ratification

          Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty….

          5. Amendment

          The term “amendment” refers to the formal alteration of treaty provisions affecting all the parties to the particular agreement. Such alterations must be effected with the same formalities that attended the original formation of the treaty. Many multilateral treaties lay down specific requirements to be satisfied for amendments to be adopted. In the absence of such provisions, amendments require the consent of all the parties.

        • Gail Combs says:

          This is from the UN Development and human rights for all

          Signing the treaty

          A State becomes a party to the Convention and Optional Protocol by signing and ratifying either instrument or by acceding to them….

          [This is one I gotcha]
          What it means to sign the treaty

          The Convention and Optional Protocol provide for a simple signing procedure. That means that there are no legal obligations imposed on a signatory State or regional integration organization immediately after the treaty is signed. However, by signing the Convention or Optional Protocol, States or regional integration organizations indicate their intention to take steps to be bound by the treaty at a later date. Signing also creates an obligation, in the period between signing and ratification or consent to be bound, to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.

          So just by signing as Head of State Obama binds the USA ” to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.” so that right there cripples the USA even if the treaty/agreement is never ratified.

          To Continue:


          Signing indicates the intention of a State to take steps to express its consent to be bound by the Convention and/or Optional Protocol at a later date. Signing also creates an obligation, in the period between signing and consent to be bound, to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.
          Ratification legally binds a State to implement the Convention and/or Optional Protocol, subject to valid reservations, understandings and declarations.
          Formal confirmation legally binds a regional integration organization [Like the EU] to implement the Convention and/or Optional Protocol.
          Accession legally binds a State or regional integration organization to implement the Convention and/or Optional Protocol….

          The role of parliament in the ratification process

          Parliaments have a key role to play in the ratification process. While a representative of the executive – Head of State, Head of Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs – signs and ratifies treaties, in most countries, the ultimate decision on ratification rests with parliament, which must approve ratification. This is certainly the case in countries with a civil-law tradition. However, in most countries with a common-law tradition, treaty-making power is generally vested in the executive, and parliaments have a more limited role to play in the ratification process. As international treaties increase in number and cover a growing range of subjects, with clear implications for domestic law and policy, parliaments in all countries are taking a greater interest in the executive’s prerogative to make treaties.….

        • Gail Combs says:

          This sucker Terminating Treaties – Duke University has 634 pages, so there is no way I am reading the entire book. However Chapter 25: Terminating Treaties is ‘only’ 17 pages so at this point it is worth a read.

          An old adage says that no one likes to talk about divorce before a wedding. Yet that is, in effect, precisely what States do when they negotiate new treaties. Buried in the back of most international agreements are provisions that describe procedures for the treaty parties to end their relationship. In addition, no fewer than thirteen articles of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) contain termination, denunciation, or withdrawal rules that apply when States do not negotiate treaty-specific rules on these topics.1 These ‘exit’ provisions share a distinctive attribute: they authorize one treaty member acting unilaterally or all treaty parties acting collectively to end their obligations under an international agreement.2 The act of exiting pursuant to these provisions is thus distinguishable from a termination or withdrawal in response to breach by another treaty party…..

          The foundational principle of State consent governs the design and operation of
          all treaty exit clauses. At the negotiation stage, State representatives have free reign
          to choose the substantive and procedural rules that will govern the future cessation
          of their relationship. Once those rules have been adopted as part of the final text,
          however, a State that ratifies or accedes to the treaty also accepts any conditions or
          restrictions on termination, withdrawal, or denunciation that the treaty contains.14
          Unilateral exit attempts that do not comply with these conditions or restrictions are
          ineffective. A State that ceases performance after such an attempt remains a party to
          the treaty, albeit one that may be in breach of its obligations.

          The real zinger is:

          A. Treaties with no provision for termination, denunciation,
          or withdrawal
          The most important—and the most controversial—of these exit default rules is Article 56(1) of the VCLT, which provides that a treaty that contains no provisions for termination, denunciation, or withdrawal ‘is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty’.17 Article 56(2), in turn, requires twelve months’ notice before a withdrawal or denunciation effectuated pursuant to either of these clauses takes effect.18

          Article 56 reflected an uneasy compromise among the members of the International Law Commission (ILC) as to whether States may exit from treaties that do not contain an express denunciation or withdrawal clause. In his 1957 report to the ILC, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice wrote that such treaties should be assumed to be of ‘indefinite duration, and only terminable . . . by mutual agreement on the part of all the parties’.19

          So it looks like the best thing is to make sure there is a really easy exit clause with no sanctions attached to being in breach of obligations!

  4. emsnews says:

    The warm spot off of Alaska is the ONLY ‘warm spot’ left on earth. All other parts of the planet are in a general cool down.

    And California no longer has a drought, either. It isn’t just that the story that the Arctic is melting is falling apart, all the goofy stories are falling apart rapidly, too.

    I notice in the news today, virtually no mention of the drought ending with lots and lots of rain today, tomorrow and onwards in California. One article snarled that yes, it is raining there but this doesn’t mean the drought is over.

    Just like they tell us that everything freezing up doesn’t mean warming has stopped, either!

  5. Gail Combs says:

    The lack of data is not only because of ‘bad news’ but because of the Lima Climate Negotiations. Obama is determined to shove through an Agreement to de-carbonize the USA and to empty (what is left) in the US treasury into the hands of the United Nations. There will be ZERO news that might wake up Senators to the fact the world is getting colder.

    In other words with the signing of a Climate Agreement (not Treaty) we can celebrate the death of the USA as a sovereign country and our new status as a vassal state of the World Government for Christmas.

  6. CR Carlson says:

    I enjoy watching the Tundra Buggy live cam’s of Churchill’s polar bears while they wait for ice formation. Two years ago I tuned in only to find they’d already wandered out onto extensive ice. Last year ice was in early and as soon as it was remotely solid they left for bear adventuring. Just checked in and it’s -20F and no visibility. That kind of catastrophic warming is sure to spell their demise. Oh, the humanity!

  7. Gail Combs says:

    I am going to continue the look at treaties here since it is wider.

    WUWT had a 2011 page Email from UNFCCC: “we won’t let Canada out of the Kyoto Convention responsibilities”…So maybe it isn’t Kyoto they’re saying they can’t leave, but its parent treaty, Rio’s UNFCCC,

    UNFCCC is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which the USA HAS RATIFIED under Clinton.
    Shades of ‘You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.’

    From the United Nations again:‎

    2. Termination where the treaty is silent on termination
    The Vienna Convention, 1969, sets out general principles regarding termination in case the treaty does not contain any provision on termination. Articles 54 and 55 provide that the termination of a treaty may take place at any time following consultation by consent of all the parties. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a multilateral treaty does not terminate by the reason only that the number of parties falls below the number necessary for its entry into force. However, exceptionally, a treaty may terminate for this reason. See the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

    Article XV provides that:
    If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date in which the last of these denunciations shall become effective.

    Many treaties do not include in their final clauses provisions on termination. This is often the case with human rights and environmental treaties.

    Here is another goodie:

    3. Accession
    A State may express its consent to be bound by a treaty by accession (see article 15 of the Vienna Convention, 1969). Accession has the same legal effect as ratification, acceptance or approval. However, unlike ratification, acceptance and approval, which must be preceded by signature, accession requires only the deposit of an instrument of accession. Accession, as a means of becoming party to a treaty, is generally used by States wishing to express their consent to be bound by a treaty if, for whatever reason, they are unable to sign it. This may occur if the deadline for signature has passed or if domestic circumstances prevent a State from signing a treaty.

    So the USA can be signed up WITHOUT Congressional approval, all it would take is an Executive Order. Since at this point Obummer doesn’t give a $h!t whether or not he is kicked out of office, this could be his move.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    That document UN has a bit more specific to the Climate Change treaty:

    4. Amendment of annexes to a treaty

    A treaty may specify the amendment procedure for its annexes. The Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997, describes in detail the rules governing the proposal, adoption, consent to be bound, entry into force and legal effects of the amendment to its annexes.
    Article 21 reads:

    1. Annexes to this Protocol shall form an integral part thereof and, unless otherwise expressly provided, a reference to this Protocol constitutes at the same time a reference to any annexes thereto. Any annexes adopted after the entry into force of this Protocol shall be restricted to lists, forms and any other material of a descriptive nature that is of a scientific, technical, procedural or administrative character.

    2. Any Party may make proposals for an annex to this Protocol and may propose amendments to annexes to this Protocol.

    3. Annexes to this Protocol and amendments to annexes to this Protocol shall be adopted at an ordinary session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol. The text of any proposed annex or amendment to an annex shall be communicated to the Parties by the secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption. The secretariat shall also communicate the text of any proposed annex or amendment to an annex to the Parties and signatories to the Convention and, for information, to the Depositary.

    4. The Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement on any proposed annex or amendment to an annex by consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, the annex or amendment to an annex shall as a last resort be adopted by a three-fourths majority vote of the Parties present and voting at the meeting. The adopted annex or amendment to an annex shall be communicated by the secretariat to the Depositary, who shall circulate it to all Parties for their acceptance….

    You can read the rest on page 115

    So far I have found nothing that shows an ‘Exit Clause’

  9. emsnews says:

    You can’t enforce any laws or treaties if the parties refuse to honor them.

    VIA ARMS. Yes, if the US public votes against all this via elections, our representatives will tell everyone to buzz off. And guess what?

    They will. We are armed. The EU can’t do squat. Maybe Putin could by why bother?

    • stewart pid says:

      Modern day wars amongst the big powers are economic in nature. Hence the currency war now underway and the sanctions on Russia.

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is all part of the progressives dream of Interdependence. See “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,” for the holes in the theory.

        Clinton made sure the USA was very vulnerable to economic sanctions by shipping our jobs, technology and factories to China thus making the US, not independent but interdependent. (Putin, no fool he, is going after the Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe.)

        So now we have:

        The New Great Power Triangle Tilt: China, Russia Vs. U.S.
        While Obama spoke in Europe of Russia’s perfidy and the need to strengthen NATO, Beijing celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators by eliminating virtually all domestic dissent. Perhaps most tellingly, as Putin attended D-Day celebrations, a high-ranking Chinese general told a regional security conference in Asia that U.S. inaction in Ukraine was an unmistakable symptom of America’s strategic “erectile dysfunction.”

        and then we have:

        ….The Pentagon is growing increasingly worried about relying on military components made in China.

        The hellfire missile — launched from helicopters, jets and predator drones — has been a critical weapon in the war on terror. But the propellant that fires the missile must be imported from China.

        It’s not the only area where the Pentagon military depends on imports. The glass in U.S.-made night vision goggles requires a soft white-colored metal called lanthanum, 90 percent of which comes from China.

        “We need to onshore our critical defense supply chains,” said retired Army Gen. John Adams. He is the author of a new report, which lists 14 categories where the military relies on imported minerals or technologies. Some of those supplies, Adams said, could be stopped during a conflict.

        Really great decisions our leaders are making…. IDIOTS!

  10. ren says:

    Polar vortex over Hudson Bay.

  11. ren says:

    The sun governs in the stratosphere.|en&u=http%3A//

  12. ren says:

    The current increase in solar activity causes a contraction of the polar vortex and jet stream acceleration in the stratosphere.
    Best illustrated in the graph of neutrons, of course, an inverse solar activity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s