JoNova
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
......Van Beizen’s other points essentially were that modern temperatures are
not unprecedented — it’s all been hotter before. The pattern of warming
in satellites doesn’t fit the supposed “forcing”. The world cooled after
WWII when it was supposed to warm. The urban heat island effect is
real.Warming temperatures cause rises in CO2 (but not necessarily the
other way around)."
Monday, 28 December 2015
What the authorities won’t tell you about the floods
NALOPKT
"Amid all the devastation and recrimination over the floods in Cumbria hardly anybody mentions one factor that may not be the sole cause, but certainly hasn’t helped, and that is the almost complete cessation of dredging of our rivers since we were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000.
Yet until then, for all of recorded history, it almost went without saying that a watercourse needed to be big enough to take any water that flowed into it, otherwise it would overflow and inundate the surrounding land and houses. Every civilisation has known that, except apparently ours. It is just common sense. City authorities and, before them, manors and towns and villages, organised themselves to make sure their watercourses were cleansed, deepened and sometimes embanked to hold whatever water they had to carry away. ...................But all this changed with the creation of the Environment Agency in 1997 and when we adopted the European Water Framework Directive in 2000. No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, in an astonishing reversal of policy, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the EU we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.
And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away."
"Amid all the devastation and recrimination over the floods in Cumbria hardly anybody mentions one factor that may not be the sole cause, but certainly hasn’t helped, and that is the almost complete cessation of dredging of our rivers since we were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000.
Yet until then, for all of recorded history, it almost went without saying that a watercourse needed to be big enough to take any water that flowed into it, otherwise it would overflow and inundate the surrounding land and houses. Every civilisation has known that, except apparently ours. It is just common sense. City authorities and, before them, manors and towns and villages, organised themselves to make sure their watercourses were cleansed, deepened and sometimes embanked to hold whatever water they had to carry away. ...................But all this changed with the creation of the Environment Agency in 1997 and when we adopted the European Water Framework Directive in 2000. No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, in an astonishing reversal of policy, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the EU we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.
And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away."
The EU is to Blame for Britain’s Flood Disaster
Breitbart
For green activists like Bill McKibben this is obviously another consequence of man-made climate change.
And the politicians agree – not just left wing ones like Hilary Benn but also notionally conservative ones like local MP Rory Stewart, Environment Secretary Liz Truss and Prime Minister David Cameron. All have suggested that the floods are the result of unprecedented ‘extreme weather events’ whose consequences are quite beyond their control.
Either they are ignorant or lying or buck-passing – or all three. As it was in Somerset in early 2014, so it is with the floods which have ravaged the north of England (and which are fast spreading south) this year. Yes, they are indeed a man-made creation – but the people mainly responsible are the bureaucrats and green activists at the European Union whose legislation has made it illegal for Britain to take the measures necessary to reduce the risk of flooding."
For green activists like Bill McKibben this is obviously another consequence of man-made climate change.
And the politicians agree – not just left wing ones like Hilary Benn but also notionally conservative ones like local MP Rory Stewart, Environment Secretary Liz Truss and Prime Minister David Cameron. All have suggested that the floods are the result of unprecedented ‘extreme weather events’ whose consequences are quite beyond their control.
Either they are ignorant or lying or buck-passing – or all three. As it was in Somerset in early 2014, so it is with the floods which have ravaged the north of England (and which are fast spreading south) this year. Yes, they are indeed a man-made creation – but the people mainly responsible are the bureaucrats and green activists at the European Union whose legislation has made it illegal for Britain to take the measures necessary to reduce the risk of flooding."
Saturday, 26 December 2015
CRU Fraud – Making The Hiatus Disappear
Real Science
The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia used to show the “hiatus” very clearly. Then they talked it over with their fellow fraudsters at NOAA and NASA – and made the hiatus disappear by switching to a new version of their data. If you remove their recent 0.1 degree data tampering, then 1998 becomes the hottest year – which agrees with satellites. Previously, CRU had excellent agreement with satellites about the hiatus. Satellites are supposed to show larger swings than surface data, but the trend was the same. Also note how satellite data shows much larger spikes during El Nino events, like 1998 and 2010. The new CRU data creates a warming trend where there is none. But the real smoking gun of fraud is the divergence with satellites during the current El Nino. They should be converging, not diverging. "
The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia used to show the “hiatus” very clearly. Then they talked it over with their fellow fraudsters at NOAA and NASA – and made the hiatus disappear by switching to a new version of their data. If you remove their recent 0.1 degree data tampering, then 1998 becomes the hottest year – which agrees with satellites. Previously, CRU had excellent agreement with satellites about the hiatus. Satellites are supposed to show larger swings than surface data, but the trend was the same. Also note how satellite data shows much larger spikes during El Nino events, like 1998 and 2010. The new CRU data creates a warming trend where there is none. But the real smoking gun of fraud is the divergence with satellites during the current El Nino. They should be converging, not diverging. "
Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm
WUWT
Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion. "
Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion. "
Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in “decarbonisation”?
JoNova
Michael Kile expands on the little conflict of interest in the UN’s decarbonisation mission
It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to “decarbonize”. That’s code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive “renewables”. But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them. If the darn voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog. So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).
For the Green Machine, “due diligence” means putting the risks onto the taxpayer and citizen. For the free market, “due diligence” means assessing the scientific credibility of those who say they can control the weather. What are the odds that the debate can be kept out of the mainstream media, and this bizarre meme (man-made global warming) will still be running in a few decades? The risk is that voters will get sick of being called names for asking good questions, and they chuck out the gullible fools and parasites. How long has the Golden Gravy Train got?"
Michael Kile expands on the little conflict of interest in the UN’s decarbonisation mission
It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to “decarbonize”. That’s code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive “renewables”. But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them. If the darn voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog. So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).
For the Green Machine, “due diligence” means putting the risks onto the taxpayer and citizen. For the free market, “due diligence” means assessing the scientific credibility of those who say they can control the weather. What are the odds that the debate can be kept out of the mainstream media, and this bizarre meme (man-made global warming) will still be running in a few decades? The risk is that voters will get sick of being called names for asking good questions, and they chuck out the gullible fools and parasites. How long has the Golden Gravy Train got?"
Analyst: US Senate Should Unilaterally Refuse to Ratify Paris Climate Treaty
Climate Depot
“The Senate leadership does not want an institutional fight,” but after cedingits institutional prerogative to President Obama over the Iran nuclear deal, it can and should reclaim its constitutional role by unilaterally refusing to ratify theParis climate change treaty, saysChristopher Horner, an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
“Although the Senate’s treaty function has been greatly diminished, refusing to ratify sends a statement to the world that this agreement should be regarded as a promise, not a commitment. But not doing anything is, in fact, a commitment,” Horner told CNSNews.com.
“The ball really is in the Senate’s court,” he continued. “Obama knows that if the Senate says something, his signed pledge will be under a cloud. But if the Senate lets this go, there is no middle ground.”
“The Senate leadership does not want an institutional fight,” but after cedingits institutional prerogative to President Obama over the Iran nuclear deal, it can and should reclaim its constitutional role by unilaterally refusing to ratify theParis climate change treaty, saysChristopher Horner, an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
“Although the Senate’s treaty function has been greatly diminished, refusing to ratify sends a statement to the world that this agreement should be regarded as a promise, not a commitment. But not doing anything is, in fact, a commitment,” Horner told CNSNews.com.
“The ball really is in the Senate’s court,” he continued. “Obama knows that if the Senate says something, his signed pledge will be under a cloud. But if the Senate lets this go, there is no middle ground.”
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
WSJ: 'Paris Climate of Conformity: It pays to be skeptical of politicians who claim to be saving the planet'
The Hockey Schtick
The moment to
be wariest of political enthusiasms is precisely when elite opinion is
all lined up on one side. So it is with the weekend agreement out of
Paris on climate policy, which President Obama declared with his
familiar modesty “can be a turning point for the world” and is “the best
chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”
Forgive us for
looking through the legacy smoke, but if climate change really does
imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle
of governments and the United Nations will save it. What will help is
human invention and the entrepreneurial spirit. To the extent the Paris
accord increases political control over human and natural resources, it
will make the world poorer and technological progress less likely."
Monday, 14 December 2015
Turnbull Will Always Have Paris
Quadrant Online (Australia)
It is inconceivable that Turnbull and his cronies are unaware of the fatuousness of a non-binding treaty based on carbon-reduction commitments, many made by some very dodgy regimes indeed. Despite the posturing in Paris, none actually believes anything substantive will actually come from the treaty they have blessed with pieties and photo ops. The establishment knows the science is bogus, but that is beside the point. There are lobbies to be pleasured, mates to be enriched, taxpayers to be fed nonsense with one hand and robbed blind with the other."
It is inconceivable that Turnbull and his cronies are unaware of the fatuousness of a non-binding treaty based on carbon-reduction commitments, many made by some very dodgy regimes indeed. Despite the posturing in Paris, none actually believes anything substantive will actually come from the treaty they have blessed with pieties and photo ops. The establishment knows the science is bogus, but that is beside the point. There are lobbies to be pleasured, mates to be enriched, taxpayers to be fed nonsense with one hand and robbed blind with the other."
CRU Temperature Fraud
Real Science
The CRU temperature record run by Phil Jones is fraudulent. The case for this is shown clearly below.
In 1922, the US Consul reported a “radical change of climatic conditions in the Arctic” with “unheard of high temperatures.” “Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable.” “Glaciers have … entirely disappeared”
In 1923, the glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were rapidly disappearing and predicted to be gone by 1950. By 1939, all of the glaciers in Eastern Greenland were nearing “catastrophic collapse.” By 1940, the Arctic had warmed six degrees, and sea ice had dramatically declined in thickness. By 1947, a ten degree rise in Arctic temperature was reported, and scientists were worried about sea level rise drowning seaports. By 1952, the glaciers of both Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass. This tells us that the warming was universal across the Arctic. The glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were still rapidly disappearing. Glaciers in the Alps disappeared during the first half of the century. However, a dramatic turnaround occurred, and by 1961 there was unanimous consensus for global cooling. By 1955, the glaciers of the Pacific Northwest were advancing – “for the first time in about one hundred years.” By 1970, the US and Soviet Union were trying to figure out why the Arctic ice was becoming “frigid” and Arctic sea ice was becoming “ominously thicker.” In 1976, scientists blamed “freakish weather” on global cooling, and the CIA said global cooling “will become the central issue of every government.” In 1976, all of the glaciers in northern Norway were expanding. The climate had cooled dramatically. In 1979, the global cooling since WWII was “indisputable.” NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling” In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences generated a graph of Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures which accurately showed the warmth before 1940, followed by half a degree cooling. This graph made sense based on the behavior of the ice across the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic.
Here is where the problem comes in. The current CRU graph for Northern Hemisphere land surfaces makes no sense. It shows glaciers melting rapidly during a very cold period, and glaciers growing during a warmer period. The sharp cooling after 1940 has been nearly erased. The CRU temperatures are nonsense. The next graph shows how CRU generated their fraudulent graph. They cooled pre-1960 temperatures by about half a degree. The CRU fraud is much worse than that, however. Not only did they dramatically cool pre-1960 temperatures, but they dramatically warmed post-1980 temperatures relative to satellite Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (UAH V6) – to create a completely fake hockey stick of warming.The 1975 National Academy of Sciences data, combined with the recent satellite data, shows us that there has been little net warming since the 1930’s. The hockey stick is a total fabrication by government scientists. Climategate E-mails confirm that this manipulation of data was the scientists’ intent, and that they intended to cover up their activities.. Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history."
The CRU temperature record run by Phil Jones is fraudulent. The case for this is shown clearly below.
In 1922, the US Consul reported a “radical change of climatic conditions in the Arctic” with “unheard of high temperatures.” “Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable.” “Glaciers have … entirely disappeared”
In 1923, the glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were rapidly disappearing and predicted to be gone by 1950. By 1939, all of the glaciers in Eastern Greenland were nearing “catastrophic collapse.” By 1940, the Arctic had warmed six degrees, and sea ice had dramatically declined in thickness. By 1947, a ten degree rise in Arctic temperature was reported, and scientists were worried about sea level rise drowning seaports. By 1952, the glaciers of both Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass. This tells us that the warming was universal across the Arctic. The glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were still rapidly disappearing. Glaciers in the Alps disappeared during the first half of the century. However, a dramatic turnaround occurred, and by 1961 there was unanimous consensus for global cooling. By 1955, the glaciers of the Pacific Northwest were advancing – “for the first time in about one hundred years.” By 1970, the US and Soviet Union were trying to figure out why the Arctic ice was becoming “frigid” and Arctic sea ice was becoming “ominously thicker.” In 1976, scientists blamed “freakish weather” on global cooling, and the CIA said global cooling “will become the central issue of every government.” In 1976, all of the glaciers in northern Norway were expanding. The climate had cooled dramatically. In 1979, the global cooling since WWII was “indisputable.” NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling” In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences generated a graph of Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures which accurately showed the warmth before 1940, followed by half a degree cooling. This graph made sense based on the behavior of the ice across the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic.
Here is where the problem comes in. The current CRU graph for Northern Hemisphere land surfaces makes no sense. It shows glaciers melting rapidly during a very cold period, and glaciers growing during a warmer period. The sharp cooling after 1940 has been nearly erased. The CRU temperatures are nonsense. The next graph shows how CRU generated their fraudulent graph. They cooled pre-1960 temperatures by about half a degree. The CRU fraud is much worse than that, however. Not only did they dramatically cool pre-1960 temperatures, but they dramatically warmed post-1980 temperatures relative to satellite Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (UAH V6) – to create a completely fake hockey stick of warming.The 1975 National Academy of Sciences data, combined with the recent satellite data, shows us that there has been little net warming since the 1930’s. The hockey stick is a total fabrication by government scientists. Climategate E-mails confirm that this manipulation of data was the scientists’ intent, and that they intended to cover up their activities.. Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history."
Even Greenies Admit Paris Climate Talks Were A Total Waste Of Time
Breitbart
Here’s James Hansen, NASA’s former in-house activist and the man who invented global warming hysteria:
Here’s James Hansen, NASA’s former in-house activist and the man who invented global warming hysteria:
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”I never thought I’d say this but Hansen is totally right here. It was all bullshit. The words were all worthless. There will not be any action. And yes fossil fuels will carry on being burned a) because, as Hansen says, they’re the cheapest fuels out there and b) because, as he probably meant to say, fossil fuels are God’s way of telling us He wants us to be rich and warm, not cold and poor."
Australian Academy of Science trains school children to be lobbyists and teachers don’t mind
JoNova (Australia)
Wow. Just wow. Tony Thomas has uncovered the material the AAS provides to thousands of Australian teachers and students under the guise of science education resources.
As far as climate science goes, they might as well have hired Greenpeace. Mining is a questionable activity, Bob Brown is a hero, students should be lobbyists, and climate activists are champions. Forget the calculator, just whip out the placards. Science is not about evidence or thinking, but about following “reputable web sites” (which is code for “give me your brain and I’ll tell you what to think”). Coal is not so much a combustible mineral, as the number one “climate killer”. Not quite the dispassionate, logical path we used to think an Academy of Science might pursue."
Wow. Just wow. Tony Thomas has uncovered the material the AAS provides to thousands of Australian teachers and students under the guise of science education resources.
As far as climate science goes, they might as well have hired Greenpeace. Mining is a questionable activity, Bob Brown is a hero, students should be lobbyists, and climate activists are champions. Forget the calculator, just whip out the placards. Science is not about evidence or thinking, but about following “reputable web sites” (which is code for “give me your brain and I’ll tell you what to think”). Coal is not so much a combustible mineral, as the number one “climate killer”. Not quite the dispassionate, logical path we used to think an Academy of Science might pursue."
Aussie Carbon Pricing is Back
WUWT
Remember back when Australian voters thought they were electing a government which was committed to abolishing carbon taxes? The following are the words of Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott vigorously opposed carbon pricing; ....
So which is it Greg – were you opposed to carbon pricing, until your new boss Malcolm Turnbull told you to embrace carbon pricing? Or did your party lie to the Australian people about being opposed to carbon pricing, back when you were campaigning for our votes? Or is there an innocent explanation for this apparent backflip which I have overlooked?
Given the horrific Danish experience, in which Danes lost 2% of their GDP to carbon fraud, in my opinion, encouraging the purchase of international carbon credits is tantamount to an invitation to criminals to loot the Australian economy."
Remember back when Australian voters thought they were electing a government which was committed to abolishing carbon taxes? The following are the words of Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott vigorously opposed carbon pricing; ....
So which is it Greg – were you opposed to carbon pricing, until your new boss Malcolm Turnbull told you to embrace carbon pricing? Or did your party lie to the Australian people about being opposed to carbon pricing, back when you were campaigning for our votes? Or is there an innocent explanation for this apparent backflip which I have overlooked?
Given the horrific Danish experience, in which Danes lost 2% of their GDP to carbon fraud, in my opinion, encouraging the purchase of international carbon credits is tantamount to an invitation to criminals to loot the Australian economy."
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Paris, COP21, Obama Declares Victory, the TPP Likely Gives It To Him
E.M.Smith
Obama was just on the news declaring victory for “climate justice”. (ANY adjective in front of “justice” is a red flag to a propaganda ploy. There is only “justice”, not flavors of it. Things are either just, or not… )
It’s his Big Legacy and he’s asserting this was a big win.
Some other folks are quasi celebrating that it’s Yet Another Farce and can’t possibly be enforce anyway as it “isn’t a treaty”.
But there’s a secret back door in the works. The TPP."
Obama was just on the news declaring victory for “climate justice”. (ANY adjective in front of “justice” is a red flag to a propaganda ploy. There is only “justice”, not flavors of it. Things are either just, or not… )
It’s his Big Legacy and he’s asserting this was a big win.
Some other folks are quasi celebrating that it’s Yet Another Farce and can’t possibly be enforce anyway as it “isn’t a treaty”.
But there’s a secret back door in the works. The TPP."
Obama will use TPP to Enforce his Climate Agreement
American Thinker
Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year.
Although many people still labor under the delusion that TPP is a free trade agreement, the 5,544 page TPP regulates trade, the environment, immigration, patents, copyrights, and labor laws among the 12 countries that are participants and the additional countries that are expected to join. Consequently, in a post-TPP world, U.S. presidents could force almost any alteration in U.S. law simply by achieving support in the TPP commission for a U.S. specific modification to the TPP. Case in point today, Obama’s climate ambitions. ...........
Republicans are now beginning to realize that Obama will use TPP to enforce his climate agreement. Manning continues:
Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year.
Although many people still labor under the delusion that TPP is a free trade agreement, the 5,544 page TPP regulates trade, the environment, immigration, patents, copyrights, and labor laws among the 12 countries that are participants and the additional countries that are expected to join. Consequently, in a post-TPP world, U.S. presidents could force almost any alteration in U.S. law simply by achieving support in the TPP commission for a U.S. specific modification to the TPP. Case in point today, Obama’s climate ambitions. ...........
Republicans are now beginning to realize that Obama will use TPP to enforce his climate agreement. Manning continues:
There can be little doubt that Obama plans on using the Trans-Pacific Partnership governance as the means to enforce whatever he agrees to in Paris on the U.S. all the while our trade partners will ignore it, with the threat of international trade sanctions imposed against the United States should Congress or a future president roll back his agenda.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)