Moderation "Best Of" -- Economic side of the IPCC...

[flacaltenn]

This is new thread created from "off-topic" posts in an existing thread.
I contributed to the tangential discussion with a comment I made and it went off course.
This is a better place to discuss that tangent..

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

 

[Old Rocks]

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

Most of the 'commies' leading the charge at the UN. Well now, that is a revealing sentence. How about 'most of the Nazi's like you'? Has just as much validity. You just dropped an order of magnitude in my estimation of your intellect.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

Most of the 'commies' leading the charge at the UN. Well now, that is a revealing sentence. How about 'most of the Nazi's like you'? Has just as much validity. You just dropped an order of magnitude in my estimation of your intellect.

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.. And you knew that. But choose to ignore it with any number of excuses I've heard from you and the faithful.. Like -- "Well they are not scientists".. Don't matter pal -- because in this case --- The commies hired the scientists and the science is the sideshow. The Main Event are those "beggar and whiner" meetings (like in Paris) where they all wants them some handouts..

If I turn Nazi anytime soon -- it will be obvious.. Because I'm proud of everything I support and stand for. You'll know before my immediate family does..

 

[cnm]

They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

Feel free to back up your assertions any time.

 

[Crick]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

Feel free to back up your assertions any time.

You are going to be waiting forever that is an article of faith for the deniers ..that does not require proof logic or science.its a Faith thing you would not understand......

 

[flacaltenn]

They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

Feel free to back up your assertions any time.

For folks so sure of your faith in what you've been told about GWarming and the movement behind it. You certainly don't know very much do you? Those quotes have been plastered all over this forum for years. Wouldn't repeat them for any ole regular like Crickham who has serious CRShit issues. But for YOU -- I'll go dig them up..

Keep your skirts on -- its Christmas.. Even for little Jewish boys like me..

 

[flacaltenn]

only for you cnm Crick knows about this. And the Slothrop doesn't really care about any of this..

Actually I got a dozen UN IPCC officials quoting the stated goal of redistributing wealth -- totally changing the world economic modes -- yada yada yada. We'll start with these 2 HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS of the UN IPCC...

YIKES!!!! I'm only interested in the Science. But knowing that's what the leaders of UN Climate charge have in mind? HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS???

AND -- it's not a fluke.. I back up what I say...

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014. AP View Enlarged Image

 

[flacaltenn]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

It's not gonna be in Reports silly.. It's the LEADERS of the IPCC who have said these things and made such outrageous admissions of their true anti-capitalist goals.. The science is just a hired side-show for them..

 

[Billy_Bob]

They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

Feel free to back up your assertions any time.

U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

Admission from one of your own who authored two working group chapters

 

[Crick]

And let us see such a statement in any IPCC assessment report, publication or press release. And who was Edenhofer talking about? He was talking about the government of the UN's member nations, He was not talking about the IPCC. That is obvious

 

[cnm]

This was your assertion. You have not supported it.

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

 

[cnm]

YIKES!!!! I'm only interested in the Science. But knowing that's what the leaders of UN Climate charge have in mind? HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS???

Quotes without a source are useless. And you are less interested in science than economics, hence your outrage at the thought those who have contributed the most CO₂ to the atmosphere - the US - should bear a proportional cost. This outrage is evinced by you conflating a consequence with a goal.

​

 

[cnm]

AND -- it's not a fluke.. I back up what I say...

No you don't. This is what you said.

flacaltenn said: ↑

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH
​

They have not said that in anything you've supplied. You seem to think that because an alarmist headline says something it is true.

 

[Crick]

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH..

The people in charge of the IPCC have NOT told you that their interest is to redistribute wealth. An economist who served as lead author for WG-3 on one assessment report, in a magazine interview, stated that the effort to fight global warming was no longer an ecological action but an economic one. He was describing the actions of the world's governments, not the interests or aims of the IPCC. You cannot read his statement otherwise without being dishonest with yourself.

And you knew that. But choose to ignore it with any number of excuses I've heard from you and the faithful.. Like -- "Well they are not scientists".. Don't matter pal -- because in this case --- The commies hired the scientists and the science is the sideshow. The Main Event are those "beggar and whiner" meetings (like in Paris) where they all wants them some handouts..

Edenhofer was hired by the IPCC. He did not select or hire any climate scientists and had NO input on scientific questions. Keep in mind that the IPCC DOES NO RESEARCH. They assess research being done by scientists in the field.

If I turn Nazi anytime soon -- it will be obvious.. Because I'm proud of everything I support and stand for. You'll know before my immediate family does..

I hope that is something we never have cause to even suspect.

 

[flacaltenn]

This was your assertion. You have not supported it.

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

Of course I did.. In Post #42. Which you are NOW --- purposely ignoring because it makes your midget head explode.. Reasonable folks know that I backed up that statement. Or folks who can READ...

 

[flacaltenn]

YIKES!!!! I'm only interested in the Science. But knowing that's what the leaders of UN Climate charge have in mind? HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS???

Quotes without a source are useless. And you are less interested in science than economics, hence your outrage at the thought those who have contributed the most CO₂ to the atmosphere - the US - should bear a proportional cost. This outrage is evinced by you conflating a consequence with a goal.

​

You could have Googled the NZZ source interview. Gave the date, the interviewer's name and the paper it appeared in. But NO -- not worth your effort. I did for you in the following posts..

I am only interested in the science. But knowing that there definitely IS a socio-political agenda behind the circus outside of the science means I'm never likely to become a believer based on what I HEAR FROM MEDIA.. which is probably your only basis right now for being so in the dark about the UN IPCC and their motives.

 

[flacaltenn]

AND -- it's not a fluke.. I back up what I say...

No you don't. This is what you said.

flacaltenn said: ↑

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH
​

They have not said that in anything you've supplied. You seem to think that because an alarmist headline says something it is true.

What does the Edenhofer quote say then?? There's the redistribution and admission that their interest is NOT in the environment primarily -- but in changing the VALUES and RULES for global economic systems to their values and rules.

What did the General Secretary of the IPCC say in HER quote then? Do we have to review this word for word -- or do you think she was just funning with you??

And for the CrickHam. I KNOW how the IPCC works -- And who they choose to put in charge of the process and these 2 people had VERY influential roles in HIRING the research for ALL THREE of the Working Groups and had the right of REJECTION for any researcher hired to contribute..

 

[flacaltenn]

cnm HERE NZZ Suche – aktuelle Nachrichten, Hintergründe, Kommentare

is the ORIGINAL Edenhofer interview in the Zurich daily where it appears. You cannot dispute the interview happened. Go to that page --- let Google translate it for you (if you don't sprechen German) and tell what you still deny about this or how it doesn't back my assertion..

Rough translation of the interview summary and the link is -----

Climate has hardly to do with environmental protection slightly, says economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit in which it relates to the distribution of resources. Interview: Bernhard Pötter: "Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"

 

[flacaltenn]

I've MORE than defended my statement. And I'd like to get back to Bill Nye --- the guy who gets too much camera time to bloviate on Global Warming and politics. And violated his Peter Principle when he stopped lecturing children on science..


The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson

As Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

And as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

If you have any doubt about this, some highlight events that took place during the U.N’s 2010 Cancun, Mexico Climate conference should be illuminating. After developing countries demanded that rich ones provide many billions of dollars to them for damage to the climate, U.S. and European representatives expressed willingness to provide their “fair share”, pledging $10 billion per year from 2010 to 2012. This offer was rejected as an insufficient insult, representatives of several undeveloped countries walked out of the meetings and angry riots broke out in the streets.

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource- sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.