Has the Obama Administration Intentionally Duped America Again Concerning Global Warming/Climate Change as a Pretense for UNCLOS Accession?

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2009/04/08/203408/U.S.-committed.htm

U.S. committed to backing Law of the Sea convention

China Post

Agence France Presse

April 8, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday the United States was "committed" to ratifying a convention on world ocean use, as she called for more international cooperation to protect the North and South poles.

[IS THAT BECAUSE SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON BELIEVES IN SURRENDERING U.S. SOVEREIGNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DIPLOMATIC KUMBAYA?? DOES MS. CLINTON BELIEVE THAT A EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL CIVIL LAW PREVENTIVE JUSTICE-BASED GLOBAL GOVERNANCE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

ANCHORED IN THE UNITED NATIONS IS THE BEST WAY TO GO? CAN MS. CLINTON CONFIRM THAT SUCH A FRAMEWORK WOULD NOT UNDERMINE THE U.S. COMMON LAW & FREE MARKET SYSTEMS, AND THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS GUARANTEED TO ALL AMERICANS BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ITS ACCOMPANYING BILL OF RIGHTS? IS THIS "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN"?]

Her comments came at the first summit to tackle environmental and territorial issues affecting the Arctic and Antarctic. Some 60 countries and international organizations are meeting in Washington and Baltimore for the 11-day talks.

At the meeting, the United States and Norway said that the melting of glaciers was opening new navigation routes in the Arctic, thus creating economic opportunities -- including in transportation and energy -- for neighboring countries, but with that came new responsibility.

Clinton said Washington would work with other countries surrounding the region "to strengthen peace and security and support economic development and protect the environment." Those countries include Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark.

"The changes under way in the Arctic will have long-term impacts on our economic future, our energy future and indeed again the future of our planet, so it is crucial that we work together," she added.

The diplomatic chief said she and President Barack Obama were committed to having the US Congress ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, a United Nations text on maritime rights drafted in 1982.

The United States signed the convention's text in 1994, after securing changes to certain provisions deemed against US interests. But Congress never ratified the treaty, despite a lobbying effort by former president George W. Bush in 2007.

[CONGRESS NEVER RATIFIED THE TREATY DURING 2007 BECAUSE IT LACKED THE VOTES. AND, THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT FULFILL ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF VETTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT OF THIS 200 + PAGE TREATY. THE CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DO NOT APPEAR TO WANT TO SHARE WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THEIR EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS DIMENSION OF THE UNCLOS. THE FAILURE OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES TO CONVENE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SUCH SUBJECT MATTER, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO CALL FOR SUCH HEARINGS, SUGGESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN MANTRA FOR A 'NEW BEGINNING IN WASHINGTON' - "TRANSPARENCY & OPEN and INCLUSIVE PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE" MAY LIKELY HAVE BEEN PURELY RHETORICAL.]

Global warming, she added, "raises the possibility of new energy exploration, which will, of course, have additional impacts on our environment."

Clinton was referring to huge unexplored reserves of some 90 billion barrels of oil and an even greater amount of natural gas in the Arctic, according to estimates by the US Geological Survey.

[MS. CLINTON AND HER STATE DEPARTMENT ARE MOST ASSUREDLY DRINKING FROM THE AL GORE-EUROPEAN UNION KOOL-AID FOUNTAIN!!]

[ARE NOT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT & SECRETARY OF STATE BEING A BIT DISINGENUOUS HERE? HASN'T THE SUPER-MAJORITY IN CONGRESS ALREADY STOPPED THE PROCESS OF OPENING OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THE NORTH AND MID-ATLANTIC REGIONS THAT OUR FORMER PRESIDENT HAD EFFECTIVELY FACILITATED VIA EXECUTIVE ORDER, & THE 110TH CONGRESS HAD EFFECTIVELY APPROVED BY ALLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE MORATORIA AGAINST OFFSHORE DRILLING TO EXPIRE?]

These resources constitute 13 percent of the world's untapped reserves of oil and 30 percent of reserves of natural gas.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store noted that merchandise between the Japanese port of Yokohama and the Dutch port of Rotterdam would see a 40 percent reduction when merchant ships would be able to use the North-West Passage being opened north of Canada.

He called for bordering countries, which are members of the Arctic Council, to cooperate closely to avoid an escalation of conflict.

Russia recently announced it intended to militarize the Arctic in order to protect its interests there, while Canada seeks to control 200 nautical miles of Arctic waters.

Ottawa has been consistently reaffirming its sovereignty over the region, in particular the North-West Passage and its thousands of uninhabited islands. Due to melting ice, the passage could become an important future maritime route linking Asia to Europe.

But the United States and other countries say it is an international maritime route, and should thus remain open.

Participants also spoke about the A

ntarctic, which is protectedby a treaty signed in Washington 50 years ago.

"We have no time to lose in tackling this crisis" and take new measures to protect the region, said Clinton after having recalled the collapse over the weekend of an ice bridge that holds in place the Wilkins Ice Shelf, seen as an alarming sign of melting of the glaciers.

[AS WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF RAHM EMANUEL PREVIOUSLY STATED FOR THE RECORD, "YOU NEVER WANT A SERIOUS CRISIS TO GO TO WASTE. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS YOU THINK YOU COULD NOT DO BEFORE." See: Rahm Emanuel: Don't Waste a 'Serious Crisis', All The News That Fits (Nov. 2008) at:

http://allthenewsthatfits.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/rahm-emanuel-dont-waste-a-serious-crisis ].

She said that Obama had provided Congress with an annex to the treaty for ratification. The annex set the obligations of signatories in case of an environmental catastrophe in the South Pole region.

[DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA & SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON - WHY NOT ENGAGE IN SOME CONSTITUTIONALLY WARRANTED TRANSPARENCY & DUE PROCESS YOU ADVOCATE AS PART OF THE NEW SPIRIT OF 'CHANGE' IN WASHINGTON? AND, WHY HAVEN'T THE ADMINISTRATION & CONGRESS YET SHARED WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES ANNEX VI OF THE MADRID ENVIRONMENTAL PROTOCOL OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS DURING EASTER WEEK 2009??]

[See Lawrence A. Kogan, Polar Sea Ice Melts Away in Time for Antarctic Easter Surprise, Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (April 2009), at:
http://www.itssd.org/Polar%20Sea%20Ice%20Melts%20Away%20in%20Time%20for%20Antarctic%20Easter%20Surprise%20III.pdf ]

The United States is also seeking to limit tourism in the region, including the docking of cruise ships, Clinton said.

Clinton was hosting the first joint session of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the Arctic Council, which the State Department called "the two most important bodies involved with diplomacy at the Poles."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html

In Crisis, Opportunity for Obama

By GERALD F. SEIB

Wall Street Journal

November 21, 2008

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That's one way of looking at things. Here's another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis -- and crisis doesn't seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now -- is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

[ACTUALLY, THIS PROVIDES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISINGENUOUSLY ENGAGE IN WIDESPREAD POPULAR MISREPRESENTATIONS.]

This opportunity isn't lost on the

new president and his team. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Listen

Rahm Emanuel addresses leaders at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council.

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: "The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."

Mr. Emanuel noted, correctly, that the U.S. largely squandered the opportunity the oil shocks of the 1970s presented to make serious, long-term changes in its energy habits -- a failure that has returned to haunt the nation today.

Conversely, history points to examples of leaders who have used crises to seize opportunities. Most obviously, President Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of economic trauma in the 1930s to drive through a new economic agenda, as did President Ronald Reagan with his tax cuts in 1981.

The lesson holds true in foreign policy as well. Only the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and its shock to the Middle East status quo, made it possible for President Jimmy Carter to move in and negotiate the historic Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

And so it is for Team Obama now. The risk, of course, is today's opportunities will tempt the administration to overreach, lifting government spending so high that the deficit hangover at the other end of the cycle is intolerable, or injecting government so far into the marketplace that bipartisan support evaporates.

But for now, the call for government action is so universal that the playing field is wide open. With interest rates approaching zero, the Federal Reserve Board is nearly out of interest-rate ammunition to stimulate an economy sinking into recession; Fed policy makers likely are quietly praying for fiscal stimulus to start filling the void.

The chief executives gathered at the Journal conference this week called for the new administration to enact a fiscal-stimulus package of at least $300 billion -- perhaps double the amount of stimulus such a group likely would have called for just a few weeks ago.

That creates an opening through which Mr. Obama can drive a fair amount of his domestic agenda. Certainly the field is open for some immediate form of the president-elect's middle-class tax cut to become part of a stimulus package.

By the same token, the yearning for government spending on "infrastructure" to stimulate economic activity creates an opening for the new president to push the kind of green projects that fit his call for a transition to alternative energy sources, including new kinds of mass-transit systems. And the Obama call for government "investment" in alternative energies will be easier to turn into reality if it, too, can be cloaked as part of stimulus spending.

At the same time, as thousands of additional Americans lose jobs in the recession that lies ahead, they also will lose their employer-provided health insurance and swell the ranks of the nation's uninsured. That will add a bit of rocket fuel to the Obama call for universal health coverage. And certainly the broad dissatisfaction with the way financial markets were regulated will make it easier to rebuild regulatory structures.

The crisis also presents the Obama team with an opportunity that isn't so obvious: using economic distress to step back from the protectionist cliff Democrats edged toward during the election campaign.

A time of global economic distress isn't a good time to construct barriers to international trade. Conversely, it may be a good time to help both stressed American consumers and distressed developing-world economies by lowering tariffs on some goods made abroad. One test of the Obama administration's economic philosophy is whether it is as eager to take advantage of that opening as some of the others now before it.

Scientists doubt climate change

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1002


Washington Times


December 21, 2007


By S.A. Miller - More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.


The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.


"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.


"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.


Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."


"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.


After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.


Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.


"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."


The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.


In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."


The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.


Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.


"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.


The IPCC has about 2,500 members.


HEATED DEBATE


The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:


•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences


•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute


•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil


•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain


Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

By Philip V. Brennan


Newsmax.com


10 December 2007


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html


As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.


Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.


The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.


According to Dr. Douglass:


"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."


One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added:


"Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.


"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."


And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said:


"The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.


"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere.


"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface- and thus the climate.


"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless - but very costly."

Canadian Climate Change Chicanery Compels Close UNCLOS Consideration

Harper dismisses Bush plea for gas tankers passage: U.S. official

December 11, 2007 - 20:02


Beth Gorham, THE CANADIAN PRESS



http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/071211/w121198A.html




WASHINGTON - Prime Minister Stephen Harper "blew off" complaints from President George W. Bush about Canada's opposition to natural gas tankers passing through Canadian waters to get to New England, a U.S. Coast Guard captain told a briefing this week.


Capt. Charles Michel said the issue is a good example of why the United States needs to endorse the international treaty on the Law of the Sea.


"Without being a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we cannot avail ourselves of the dispute-resolution provisions," he said.


"This is a slam dunk. We would win. There's absolutely no question about it," said Michel, the Coast Guard's chief of the office of maritime and international law.


"My understanding is President Bush has personally communicated with the prime minister, who blew off (Bush) and said No, because he's playing to his local political constituency."


And the United States is not about to use force with Canada over the issue, he said.


"Right now U.S. citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because of our inability to become a party to the (treaty). I don't know how much closer to home that can hit."


[CANADA IS IMPOSING AN ILLEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE BARRIER AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARGUABLY ACTIONABLE AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO)]**


Harper and several other Canadian ministers are on record as saying it would be dangerous to allow liquefied natural gas tankers to travel through Head Harbour Passage leading into U.S. ports in northern Maine. It's part of Passamaquoddy Bay in southern New Brunswick that straddles the U.S. border.


[THIS FALSE FEAR-BASED PRETENSE IS INTENDED TO COMPEL U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE UNCLOS. IT REFLECTS THE HAZARD (NOT RISK-BASED) PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE]**


New Brunswick MP Greg Thompson has called the passage one of the most treacherous in Canada and says the chance of a spill is too great.


American officials have been lobbying the Senate to quickly endorse the Law of the Sea treaty for other reasons like national security and access to untapped Arctic energy resources.


The upper house is expected to vote on the convention and it must pass with the support of two-third of senators.


The United States helped devise the treaty, which came into effect in 1994 and has been ratified by 155 countries including Canada.


But the U.S. never signed because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights.


Not joining is hurting the country in several ways, said Navy Capt. Patrick Neher.


"It denies us the opportunity to submit a claim for our own extended continental shelf off Alaska and elsewhere" covering vast energy resources, he said.


[NOT TRUE]**


Passing the treaty would also give the United States tools to claim an area of the Beaufort Sea that Canada considers its own.


Canada insists the international border continues through the ocean in a straight line from the land along the border between Alaska and the Yukon.


The United States argues the border angles 30 degrees to the east, an area with high energy potential.


Global warming is reducing ice cover in the Arctic, creating the prospect that shipping route could open up within a decade, so there's more impetus for northern countries to stake their claims.