0.1 Degrees Warming Since The US Committed To “Future Climate Treaties”


In 1990, the National Science Foundation committed the US to future climate treaties, thus guaranteeing tens of billions of dollars of confiscated taxpayer money to scientists for future climate boondoggles in places like Cancun.


August 31, 1990 – Humans cause of globa warming, U.S., others say | Chicago Tribune Archive

Since they made this commitment, the Earth has warmed about 0.1C, mainly due to the current El Nino. Last year there was no net warming.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

About stevengoddard

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

13 Responses to 0.1 Degrees Warming Since The US Committed To “Future Climate Treaties”

  1. This senate will find any way it can to abdicate responsibility and let Hussein do whatever he wants by executive fiat. Of course they will hold hearings afterward, but that is all the ever do, hold hearings, and give themselves raises of course.

  2. rah says:

    I await the troll.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Just face it, all the manic adjustments, all the lies and data manipulation, all the closing down of debate and getting contrary facts and people thrown out of their jobs..

    …. and yet as an anti-CO2 crusade, the AGW scam has been a MONUMENTAL FAILURE.

    Global CO2 emissions will continue to climb quite rapidly because of the developing countries’ need for solid reliable cheap energy.

    It remains to be seen how far the totalitarian social agenda behind the AGW scam will get.

    • Professor Plum says:

      MONUMENTAL FAILURE. is exactly right. After all the billions spent and the man hours from “scientists” wasted CO2 has not been reduced one iota, just the opposite. The net gain to society = zero.

      And not one policy or tax under consideration will do anything and everybody knows it.

      Climate science is the ultimate in western decadence.

  4. Ted says:

    See? They fixed it.

    And we all thought they were incompetent…

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Treaties can be set aside but the US government does not want us to know that. This weakness in the drive to World ‘Governance’ is why Al Gore, Slick Willy and the rest have worked so hard at establishing ‘Interdependence’ so the UN and transnational corporations can hold the USA hostage.

    The Dulles brothers (Soviet Spies) worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda.

    “There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”
    Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

    Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution

    The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
    The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
    HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

    When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! ….

    The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
    “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
    The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.

    Now we must let our elected “representatives” in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE… we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.
    [Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research….

  6. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Gail! While I agree completely with your discourse on the Constitution, pragmatism still rears its ugly head. The Constitution has not been enforced for a long time now, and even though our rulers (I do not say “leaders”) swear to uphold it, they are known liars. Remember NAFTA? That was a treaty — at least it was a treaty until it became clear that the Senate would not supply the 2/3 vote for it. At that point they just changed the name of it and it became an “agreement” instead of a “treaty”. Viola! Pass it with a simple majority vote.

    I could go on with many examples, but you are an extraordinarily bright lady and know at least as much about it as I do. The Constitution is dead, and in fact very few citizens even read it anymore, and if they did even fewer would understand or agree with it. We have become a nation of cowards and sheep and the masses prefer a good master to a life of liberty. You and I are exceptions. This sounds negative but is only meant as an honest look at things. Anyone who values liberty has some serious long term thinking to do. Things will get better in the future, but the system needs to crash, before enough people want to rebuild it again to something more free.

    • Jason, do you mind if I ask you this question?

      Do you believe that the republic was founded primarily by:

      a. Atheists
      b. Agnostics, a/k/a Antitheists
      c. Deists, a/k/a Atheists who lie about being Atheist
      d. People who were true believers in the Gospel and thus believed in the necessity of a good master, and believed that liberty in Christ was the only valid liberty, that sheep are good and wolves evil, and that man’s best efforts could only go so far to preserve his liberties because God is in control, and he would in fact allow things to get worse (no matter what we do) before he returns.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Richard, my apologies for only now responding, but due to a bunch of factors I only just now (Nov 27!) saw your questions.

        I think your choices are slanted. My best pick is “c”, Deists, but I would never agree that they are ” Atheists who lie about being Atheist”. I think that they were people who truly believed that there was some great designer (which most people call God) but which they did not believe was described fully or correctly by traditional religions which cast God as (in essence) an infinitely powerful human.

        To give a little more nuance to my response. I would say that “c” and “d” were both extraordinarily important (with a higher percentage of “C” in the founding fathers and a higher percentage of “d” in the wider masses of ordinary people).

        Needless to say, that is simply my opinion, and while I am pretty sure that both “c” and “d” were present, I may very well be wrong about the percentages.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Jason, and Richard

      At this point, unless sufficient number of actual patriots manage to get other actual patriots into the White House and into Congress, I really see no hope. The rot has gone too far and the USA is only a few weeks from becoming a Vassal State of the UN, paying tribute and rubber stamping laws written by nonamericans. Heck the Food Safety Modernization Act that Rosa Delauro shoved down are throats was actually written by the WTO, FAO and OIE and not by any Americans. There are plenty of similar laws. Bush was all in favor of “Harmonizing Laws” with the EU and made an agreement to do so.

      Richard, I have said before I am an Agnostic and my husband an Atheist. However we very much believe in the ethics and morals that is taught by the Christian faith and whole hardily support it.

      As far as the founding fathers go, I think they also very much believed in the ethics and morals that is taught by the Christian faith and founded this nation on that. However they were also aware that the Church has been used time and again as an instrument of oppression and even evil. Throughout most of history there has been a collusion between the head priests and the rulers. Even Chaucer made this clear. This is why the USA had separation of church and state.

      So now we have collusion between government and the multi-national corporations.

      • Gail, I was asking Jason a question. By writing all of this, you can easily distract from my question. I don’t know if that’s your intention or not, but that can be the effect of it.

        Richard, I have said before I am an Agnostic and my husband an Atheist. However we very much believe in the ethics and morals that is taught by the Christian faith and whole hardily support it.

        Even if that were true, it really isn’t relevant to the question I posed, nor to the statements of Jason that I was reacting to.

        You may support some of what The New Testament teaches, but by your writings you reject the vast majority of it. And how can you say you support someone’s teachings and you’re not even sure if he exists? How does that make any sense? The answer is, it doesn’t. You don’t believe that God taught those things. Evidently you’re inclined to believe we made it up! So what is the point of saying you support the morals taught by us? When you say that, you’re calling every one of us either a dupe or a fraud. Is that supposed to make us feel better?

        And how can you say you support the morals taught by God? One of those morals is to believe in, love, serve, and support Him, and only Him. Another one is that a human being is not his own, but is bought with a price, and is accountable first and only to God in everything he does. Another is that all transgressions must be forgiven, i.e. there must be no retribution taken. Another is that we’re a peculiar people, set apart from all others, along with all that that entails. Another is that God, and not man, is the source of all wisdom and all knowledge, so that anything that contradicts His Word is a lie and not to be believed or taught — by anyone, anywhere. Another is that all money and wealth received must be given away to God’s work, since it was an unearned and undeserved gift to us, from God. (This implies that we are called on to share all of our wealth, yes, even with others who haven’t earned it! /sarc) Another is that we do not have an absolute right to life, but our right to continue living is conditional. Another is that we do not have an absolute right to liberty of any kind, but that that is conditional as well. Another is that we are each our brother’s and sister’s keeper, and they are ours. In other words, we’re each responsible for the welfare of those who are our spiritual kin, to the extent we’re able to be.) Another is that we are never to deliberately injure or harm a person, even to help or defend another one (let alone ourselves!), regardless of the reason for doing so. Another is that the name of any false god should never be spoken by anyone. Another is that we must love everyone, including our enemies, and must pray for those who spitefully use us. Another is that we must put our trust in God, rather than in our own abilities, believing in supernatural solutions, and we must credit God when we have positive outcomes to our problems. Another is that when we know these things, we are obligated to preach them to others, even though it may result in attacks of all kinds, in theft and destruction of our goods and our livelihood, in the loss of all friends, and even in our murder. These are all moral imperatives taught by the Bible and the Christian faith. The Christian faith teaches that willful disregard for any of these is evil (a moral judgement!) and has spiritual consequences. (That part about consequences would be a moral statement too, because the consequences in question are moral rather than legal ones.)

        What you’re doing is you’re trying to define your own subset of morals as being the ones “taught by the Christian faith”, and in so doing you are misrepresenting that faith, and misrepresenting whosoever is the author of that faith.

        As far as the founding fathers go, I think they also very much believed in the ethics and morals that is taught by the Christian faith and founded this nation on that.

        Interesting view, but that was not my question. First of all, the republic was founded by all the founding citizens, not just the founding fathers.

        Second, what you are suggesting is that the founding fathers were mostly not believers in the Gospel, despite the fact that they mostly said they were, but that they decided to humor the people who were, because they saw value in doing so. This again entirely misses and derails the points my question was intended to make.

        Third, one of the things that God taught and teaches, which you are either unaware of or are hiding your awareness of, is that when a nation that has been specially blessed by Him turns away from Him, turns away from serving Him and praising Him and believing in Him and worshipping Him, and follows its own desires and its own plan in contradiction to His commandments, He will systematically take that nation down and make it the slave and the pawn of nations who never accepted Him in the first place. This point is made over, and over, and over and OVER again in both testaments. It is one of the central themes of our teaching. You reject it adamantly, repeatedly, and forcefully, and then you repeatedly call yourself a believer in His teachings. Again, is that intended to make us feel better?

        Throughout most of history there has been a collusion between the head priests and the rulers.

        No, we’ve been through this before. There has never been this. What you are calling the Church is not the Church. Every time you say that, you are calling God’s Church evil and the tool of an evil power. But God says that between Him and the enemy there is no accord. And He says there is no evil in Him. There is evil in those who fraudulently claim to represent Him, but there is no evil in Him. Since there is none in Him, that means He will not cause His Church to collude with civil powers to harm people. If you believe in the teachings of the Church, then you believe this. But if you contradict this, knowing that the authentic Church teaches this, then you do not believe the teachings of the Church, but you are someone who rejects those teachings.

        Even Chaucer made this clear”

        No, he did not! Chaucer did not speak of the Church any more than you do. It’s obvious you had no interest in what I was trying to tell you before about this, yet you persist in dragging this issue up. You want to disagree, that’s your right. But why over and over again, without acknowledging the context of what I’m saying? You already know that I hold that there is a true Church, and there are false churches. If you don’t agree, that’s your right, but every time you say I’m wrong about that, you are calling me and anyone who agrees with me evil, corrupt, a pack of manifest liars, in league with the enemies you reference, and a threat to the life and liberty of good people everywhere. Why are you doing this?? Then it just becomes a pointless disagreement. And your argument is exactly what Communist China and every other Communist country have argued, as well other countries that have suppressed Christianity and the Bible. Basically just about every country, including the present-day United States.

        “This is why the USA had separation of church and state.”

        Why are you suggesting that I am opposed to the separation of church and state? I know you’re pretty smart, not an ignoramus by a long shot. You are quite smart enough to know the subtext of what you wrote. Why are you doing this?? That is a false accusation.

        “However they were also aware that the Church has been used time and again as an instrument of oppression and even evil.”

        Hmmm… would it be valid for me to characterize you as an “instrument of oppression and [. . .] evil” because someone did something bad in your name? No? I thought not.

        So why would you do that to me?

        Now, Gail, I have answered the new topics you raised. Are you going to raise more of them in further open rebellion against the truths I’m sharing with you, or are you going to stick to what’s already on the table? Just so you know, in the past I’ve let it go unchallenged when you have falsely accused me. I will not necessarily do so this time. I was not addressing you with my comment to Jason, but you addressed me with your false and extremely harmful accusations. I am frankly getting sick and tired of it. I’ve been neighborly to you, and just looked for areas of agreement, but my efforts have been met with blatantly false accusations. I call on you to repudiate those accusations, not partially, but in full.

  7. rah says:

    There can be no doubt that the majority of the founding fathers were in fact Christians while several others were deists, which counter to a doctored definition I read here are those which believe there is a creator but takes no active role in the fate of what was created.


    The words “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” in the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence were not Thomas Jeffersons. They were added due to a vote at the insistence of a majority of the Continental Congress.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s