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.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCCComplete nonsensical post, but typical denier BS.
You have the same reply for every ligit source. But of course, trickle down economics is the only strategy the gop has used for years to preach denialism for their fossil fuel donors.
You idiots are so obvious.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
If you search for the phrase âwe redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy,â youâll find it repeated over and over on climate science denial blogs and sympathetic conservative media outlets. The link given by EELI goes to a page that also claims Edenhofer had âspilled the movementâs dirty secret.âOttmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III, affirmed the scheme: âOne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policyâŚWe redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy.â
What a pile of crap!âWe redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy.â
In the run-up to the COP23 (as in, the 23rd Conference of the Parties) climate talks taking place in Bonn, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) used a quote from German climate policy expert Professor Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to suggest a sinister motive for the United Nations Paris climate deal.
EELI, which backs President Trumpâs attempts to withdraw from the deal, wrote that Edenhofer had âaffirmedâ the Paris agreement, saying in a press release:
If you search for the phrase âwe redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy,â youâll find it repeated over and over on climate science denial blogs and sympathetic conservative media outlets. The link given by EELI goes to a page that also claims Edenhofer had âspilled the movementâs dirty secret.â
So where did the quote come from, did Edenhofer say it, and was he really admitting a sinister plan to redistribute the worldâs wealth?
The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German. Have you spotted the first problem?
How could Edenhofer have âaffirmed the schemeâ from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didnât even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? Itâs OK. You donât need to answer. By the way, EELIâs Christopher Horner wasnât so keen to answer questions about his coal funding in Paris.
All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.
A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used âto imply that Prof. Edenhofer âadmitsâ that there is some kind of âhidden agendaâ behind climate policy.â
The spokesperson added: âOf course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution â but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.â
âŚ..MORE MADE UP SHIT"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
I guess you refuse to post the entire text donât you ? What a fraud. It clearly states using various methods ( and not the same method) produces varying resultsâŚ.Read the rest. It does produce a relationship between rising temps and CO2.Maybe next time, read the paper you link too hmmmkay?
"Students will compare the temperature increase in two containers â one simulating greenhouse
gases, one without. (NOTE: The plastic wrap is representing carbon dioxide in the model used for the
experiment. Greenhouse gases donât hold in heat exactly the same way as the plastic wrap, but using
various methods of adding actual carbon dioxide doesnât produce consistent results in the small scale.)"
OK Let's assume that the AGW alarmists are right. If so, then what good does it do for the G20 nations to bankrupt themselves going green while the major polluters of the world China and India do nothing? They contribute more greenhouse gasses and solid waste pollution than all the other major countries put together.AGW has not been going on for thousands of years.
Irrelevant. AGW doesn't say cold weather will disappear in the immediate future.
Generalized to the point of meaninglessness. Global warming is increasing the frequency and severity of severe weather events.
He includes himself here and expects to be trusted. He has not explained why we shouldn't trust anyone else.
It would be more accurate to describe Mr Lindzen as an employee of the ExxonMobil corporation and more generally by the fossil fuel industry.
*******************
*******************
Background
Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. [3], [76], [77]
Lindzenâs academic interests lie within the topics of âclimate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,â according to his faculty profile at MIT. [3]
Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Instituteâs Center for the Study of Science. The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. âItâs unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,â E&E News reported. [2], [101]
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, âThe Heat Is On,â Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5]
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as âthe only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.â [6]
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an âExpertâ with the Heartland Institute, a member of the âAcademic Advisory Councilâ of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [58], [59], [62]
Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a âclimate science lectureâ in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]
Richard Lindzen
Richard Lindzen Credentials Background Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013.3âFaculty News,â EAPS, May 31, 2013. [âŚ]www.desmog.com
They areâŚ.stop right there. Not doing anything will bankrupt nations. Wtf do you think is happening to nations totally dependent on purchasing fossil fuels from other nations idiot. They are being bankruptOK Let's assume that the AGW alarmists are right.
Where are you on the spectrum?I guess you refuse to post the entire text donât you ? What a fraud. It clearly states using various methods ( and not the same method) produces varying resultsâŚ.Read the rest. It does produce a relationship between rising temps and CO2.
Direct quotes from IPCC 3 co-authorâŚ..MORE MADE UP SHIT
What good does it do for you to obey the laws against murder, rape and robbery when others are doing it? What good does it to you to work hard to support your spouse and children? Leave 'em. Lot's of other people do. What good does it do you to only use a toilet to relieve yourself? The animals just go where ever they're standing. You can too.OK Let's assume that the AGW alarmists are right. If so, then what good does it do for the G20 nations to bankrupt themselves going green while the major polluters of the world China and India do nothing? They contribute more greenhouse gasses and solid waste pollution than all the other major countries put together.
And your point is what ? Can you actually read the quote ?Direct quotes from IPCC 3 co-author
Try again
Are you off your meds?
And youâre now conflating. That post was a rebottle AGW was not being taught in schools.Where are you on the spectrum?
I asked you a SPECIFIC quest and your reply essentially said âyeah, Frank and the Deniers are 100% right, we canât ever show any warming at these low levelsâ
Yet youâre claiming victory???
Geesus, you canât read for understanding can you ?Direct quotes from IPCC 3 co-author
Try again
Are you off your meds?
Thatâs exactly why we have an issue with it! IPCC is using models and frauds to drive people away from âfossil fuelsâ!Geesus, you canât read for understanding can you ?
He is absolutely RIGHT.
Where is the wealth nowâŚ.in those countries producing and sellin* fossil fuels.
âOne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policyâŚWe redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy.â
ABSOLUTELYâŚ.Itâs about wealth and investments. And those who invest in renewables and get a way from fossil fuel dependents, will be wealthier for it.
geesus, weâre investing in renewables HERE, to maintain our position as the wealthiest nation of the world. Our production in petro and nat gas WILL NOT BE. a good source for long term wealth. It will be in selling access to renewable energy.
As well it should. You are somehow convinced that pollution and increased diseases and uncontrolled migration are good and clean air, water and maintaining good health controlled immigration is bad. Amazing. You seem also convinced that supporting oil rich dictators who trample on personal freedom is good, and giving everyone in the world a cheaper access to energy is bad. You guys are knuckle heads. I bet you were just as mad when we went off whale oil.Thatâs exactly why we have an issue with it! IPCC is using models and frauds to drive people away from âfossil fuelsâ!
So isnât a university full of individuals? Name one doing any studyHa Ha
Sane people donât use individuals, we use institutions.
What an science illiterate post.
Exactly less informed. No âoneâ doing a study is reliable. And when I come down with cancer or want the best answers for ANYTHING or doing a study , I go to an institution with multiple sources of intellect and consensus on my cancer or solution to that strange noise in my car and not just one OPINION. Youâre ignorant to argue for anything else. So, youâre smarter then Harvard ? Hilarious.So isnât a university full of individuals? Name one doing any study
Really ? Yes of course. You smoke pot regularly ? Iâve been off it for decades. No wonder you make up shit.Are you off your meds?
So you actually put a made up statement IN QUOTES. Thatâs making up shit of-the first order. Use different punctuation if youâre going to pretend for someone elseâŚ..<> Maybe these.quest and your reply essentially said
Just google that statement verbatim and watch the plethora of ligit responses......
Dumbo, just don't let your floppy ears get in the way.
This is from the World Economic Forum
Dumbo.
View attachment 743531
