The agreement was formulated as part of an existing treaty which was already ratified by Congress. This gave the administration enough legal room to move forward on the emissions targets without requiring Senate approval. However, it does nothing to bind the next administration unlike a full treaty change.
Believing that it's work 1-5 trillion dollars by 2050 to reduce 2100 temperatures by 0.05C?
Believing that climate models which fail to match past or current trends are accurate enough to restructure the global economy? (Compare modeled and measured temperature trends of early 20th and early 21st centuries)
Both sides are guilty of talking past each other, ignoring ("denying") evidence that doesnt agree with their previous opinions, and overstating the strength of the evidence they see.
(I tend to fit in the "lukewarm" camp - my reading of the evidence and scientific research is that the earth has warmed, continues to warm, is affected by human activities, but that the warming and the human impact are routinely overstated or ignored by the warring advocates. Much less so by the actual scientists doing the research)
Actually, the current science shows that impacts are routinely understated. BTW, I'm not a warming "advocate" - this implies some sort of cheerleading. I simply follow the science.
Coral reef recovery in the heat damaged areas since 1998 "massive die off"? Similar arctic melt and temperatures in early 20th century? Significantly warmer Greenland temperatures in the last 1000 years?
There is a lot of evidence on both sides that activists actively ignore or rationalize.
A few years ago I visited L'Ans aux Meadows. It's the only known viking settlement in the new world. The logs that were used to build it were grown in a time that is warmer than today. All the trees up there these days are quite small in comparison since they grow so much more slowly. There's all kinds of things like this that can be pointed at.
I do know one thing though. Labeling people 'deniers' or other derogatory things indicates only one thing - that the name caller is unable to articulate a reasonable argument.
I see your point, but you've got it a bit backwards. The reason for spacing out the Senate elections is to temper the political winds. Had the whole Senate been up for grabs in 2014, it would have been an even bigger Republican sweep.
You do yourself and your argument no favors by being willfully dishonest.
From the very same speech:
"Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign. I’m pretty sure I’ll take some actions that some in Congress will not like. That’s natural. That’s how our democracy works"
That's not really relevant, just hollow words. His actions since then indicate very clearly what he really meant.
He said for years that he couldn't act unilaterally on immigration because "he isn't king". Yet once he realized he'd blown his last chance to get a friendly Congress to pass his agenda, he went ahead and acted unilaterally anyway.
That's the point. This is Obama scoring points with the most gullible parts of his base. If there was any chance of it actually mattering he wouldn't have done it.
This is standard lame-duck presidential politics, making grandstanding moves that have no consensus to actually be carried out and leaving the messy details of actual politics to their successor and/or congress.
Climate deals in particular have a history of meaningless promises like this that won't ever be implemented, going back at least to Kyoto (which was signed by Bill Clinton, to no effect)
If anything, a signature on this deal without a plan for ratification and implementation is a defeat, an acknowledgement that real action isn't possible so symbolism will have to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause