R
rdean
Guest
Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.
I've known this and have been saying so for a long time.
It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.
Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?
Warmers are EnviroMarxists.
Nope....East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR and IPCC are already doing a good enough job of it all by themselves."Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.
If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?
No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'
I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.
Nope....East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR and IPCC are already doing a good enough job of it all by themselves."Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"
If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.
No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'
I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.
Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.
The words of the interviewee in the OP speak for themselves.
Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.
Son? Yer outta yer league here...
I think if you'll examine the issue rationally, it's you that's in denial."Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.
If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?
No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'
I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.
Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. :confused (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)
Remember, folks, it's unfair to quote liberals accurately and in context.It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.
Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?
Well, Tax definitely deserves blaming for accurately quoting and bringing the remark to people's attention.
Obama had just hired a White House Tsar to identify and punish people who do the same thing to him.
Indeed. These people simply can't be trusted with power or policy-making positions.The words of the interviewee in the OP speak for themselves.
That the the ranks of anthropogenic gullible warming hoaxers and the IPCC have become the home of displaced communists and central authoritarians of virtually every stripe, is instructive as to the overall ends.
I think if you'll examine the issue rationally, it's you that's in denial."Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"
If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.
No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'
I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.
Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)
By wealth redistribution he means if you put a cap on carbon emissions certain countries will be winners while others will be losers.
This part makes it clear this is about climate:
"Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."
The implications are:
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this"