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

[skookerasbil]

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..

Explain to me the concept of "REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH"

I'm not asking for a Robin Hood / Sheriff of Nottingham explanation, but in the sense derided by the right for Obama's comment on doing things alone,

What is its antithesis, and wouldn't a solution come by a synthesis if an antithesis existed?

s0n........you gotta get the fuck out of SanFrancisco once in awhile........impairs the brain because all you get is the matrix 24/.

Go google UN training manuals dummy.......its right there in the introduction for the trainees......speaks to "redistribution' go third world countries. They don't even try to keep it a secret anymore.




IPCC Official Says AGW is About Wealth Redistribution


On November 14, 2010 the NZZ Online had an interview with Ottmar Edenhofer (Edenhofer is joint chair of IPCC Working Group 3 and deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology)



(Interview in German here: http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

Translation here: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html)



He made the following statements in the interview:

• “That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.”

• “Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … 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 … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”

duh

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My quotes from WG 2 and 3 have been rare, though I recently put links up to both their AR5 reports for Frank when he started obsessing on Edenhofer again. I don't quote them because they aren't talking about the validity of AGW. The ONLY reason I post here is to refute those who claim AGW is invalid.

I'm certain they can all review each other's work but WG II and III do NOT have the right to edit the output of WG-I. They are NOT in control. Edenhofer did NOT select or hire climate scientists. That's now the second or third claim made here to such an arrangement without the slightest shred of evidence. What a fucking surprise.

[
Crick, any prediction on the climate in NY for January or do I just turn on the Weather Channel and listen to you squawk, "Manmade global climate warming change"? What are you calling it this week?

Frank, as I've told you before I couldn't watch the Weather Channel even if I wanted to. No cable. As to the rest of your nonsense, do you know what the term "NON-SEQUITUR" means?

What are you calling it? NASA is now on record that CO2 Cools the planet, so are you back to Global Cooling or maybe Global WarmerCoolering to hit all the possible bases?

http://www.weather.com/

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

These opinions are just that. Opinions expressed which may or may not reveal the context in which they were made.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time", but some of us see the world through a panoptic lens and others are blinded by myopia.

Did you know that Ottmar was a lead author of AR 4 and 5?

No, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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..

Explain to me the concept of "REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH"

I'm not asking for a Robin Hood / Sheriff of Nottingham explanation, but in the sense derided by the right for Obama's comment on doing things alone,

What is its antithesis, and wouldn't a solution come by a synthesis if an antithesis existed?

This one is easy!

Carbon credits are just one example.. Money is take for the right to emit CO2. that money is given to third world countries..

Or more pointed to the US.. The EPA regulations have increased the cost of coal fired plants to operate by 28% in the last three years while redistributing the monies collected to wind farms and other failed green agenda items. just lining up those democrap pockets. These have hit the poor and middle classes the hardest by increasing the cost of living all for your agenda and control mongers.

This ^^^ is the Robin Hood / Sheriff dichotomy in a nutshell.

Q. Is coal clean

Do you support the Clean Air Acts?

A bit of history, or you can be an ostrich and claim this is a bit of propaganda:

Understanding the Clean Air Act | Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | US EPA

Why is the repeal of the EPA a goal of conservatives and Republicans?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Crick has never read AR5

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations. MBIs are shown to be generally more cost effective, providing stronger incentives for innovation and dynamic efficiency.Within the wide range of instruments that qualify as market based, there is a general preference in terms of overall efficiency for taxes over subsidies (Sterner, 2002; Barbier and Markandya, 2012). MBIs include charges on harmful emissions and wastes, subsidies to clean energy, subsidized loans, and others. Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 17.3 | In what ways can economic instruments facilitate adaptation to climate change in developed and developing countries? Economic instruments (EIs) are designed to make more efficient use of scarce resources and to ensure that risks are more effectively shared between agents in society. EIs can include taxes, subsidies, risk sharing, and risk transfer (including insurance), water pricing, intellectual property rights, or other tools that send a market signal that shapes behavior. In the context of adaptation, EIs are useful in a number of ways. First, they help establish an efficient use of the resources that will be affected by climate change: water pricing is an example. If water is already priced properly, there will be less overuse that has to be corrected through adaptation measures should supplies become more scarce. Second, EIs can function as flexible, low-cost tools to identify adaptation measures. Using the water supply example again, if climate change results in increasing water scarcity, EIs can easily identify adjustments in water rates needed to bring demand into balance with the new supply, which can be less costly than finding new ways to increase supply. Insurance is a common economic instrument that serves as a flexible, low-cost adaptation tool. Where risks are well defined, insurance markets can set prices and insurance availability to encourage choices and behaviors that can help reduce vulnerability, and also generate a pool of funds for post-disaster recovery. Insurance discounts for policy holders who undertake building modifications that reduce flood risk, for example, are one way that EIs can encourage adaptive behavior. Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes are another economic instrument that encourages adaptive behavior. This approach pays landholders or farmers for actions that preserve the services to public and environmental health provided by ecosystems on their property, including services that contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A PES approach is being used in Costa Rica to manage natural resources broadly, for example. Paying timber owners not to cut down forests that serve as carbon sinks (the idea behind the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) proposal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) or paying farmers not to cultivate land in order reduce erosion damage (as is being done in China and the USA) are examples. In developed countries, where markets function reasonably well, EIs can be directly deployed through market mechanisms. In developing countries (and also in some developed ones), however, this is not always the case and markets often need government action and support. For example, private insurance companies sometimes don’t cover all risks, or they set rates that are not affordable, and public intervention is required to make sure the insurance is available and affordable. Government also has an important role in ensuring that voluntary market instruments work effectively and fairly, through legal frameworks that define property rights involving scarce resources such as land and water in areas where such rights are not well established. An example of this is the conflict between regions over the use of rivers for water supply and hydropower, when those rivers flow from one jurisdiction to the next and ownership of the water is not clearly established by region-wide agreements. PES schemes can only function well when the public sector ensures that rights are defined and agreements honored. 966 Chapter 17 Economics of Adaptation 17 In many cases climate change exacerbates the effects of pricing resources below their social costs. This is true for some forms of energy (e.g., hydro- and fossil fuel-based) as well as many ecosystem services. If these resources were optimally priced, there would be greater incentives to investment in clean technologies and the need for additional public sector adaptation measures would be lessened (ESMAP, 2010). In addition to the instruments already identified, othersthat are potentially important include raising the price of energy through a tax (Sterner, 2011), developing markets for genetic resources (Markandya and Nunes, 2012), and strengthening property rights so schemes such as PES can be more effective. These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for. Yet it is important to note that though the case for such social cost pricing through the use of charges is strong, it also has its limitations. Higher prices for key commodities can hurt the poor and vulnerable and complementary measures may need to be taken to address such effects"

Frank, what you have quoted here, including what you've highlighted, does not advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Taxes move money from individuals to their governments, not from the rich to the poor. And the intent of a tax on energy is to reduce energy's consumption and thus its production, not to move money around.

Crick, here, read it. Start with the heading and the first sentence.

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations."

 

[Crick]

One doesn't have to look very hard to find the facts about the real agenda. Even their organizational statement is bold enough to show the deception. they wont even consider natural variation becasue it does not further the goal.

Then why have none of you been able to show us a statement from the IPCC that suggests redistribution of wealth?

 

[Crick]

Crick, here, read it. Start with the heading and the first sentence.

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations."

I have read the entire statement and there is nothing there about redistribution of wealth.

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO..........encourage my skeptic pals to get a load of THIS >>>

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf


UN educational manual all about the goals of sustainable development and how to get there.........fucking fascist brainwashing shit s0ns

More fodder about how phony the AGW people are............

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

These opinions are just that. Opinions expressed which may or may not reveal the context in which they were made.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time", but some of us see the world through a panoptic lens and others are blinded by myopia.

And then there are some who have a rectal perspective and refuse to look at the true science with objective reasoning and cognitive thought process. OR choose to leave their heads impacted and deny what these people have written down and clearly state.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick, here, read it. Start with the heading and the first sentence.

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations."

I have read the entire statement and there is nothing there about redistribution of wealth.

My gawd man..he even highlighted the demanded actions showing it for you! Use some cognitive thought would you!

 

[Crick]

Neither "Command and control regulations" nor "...raising the price of energy through a tax" suggest a redistribution of wealth.

For that matter, "...to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history" does not equate to destroying capitalism. If you think it does, then I'd say that it's time what you believe to be capitalism came to an end.

 

[Crick]

And then there are some who have a rectal perspective and refuse to look at the true science with objective reasoning and cognitive thought process. OR choose to leave their heads impacted and deny what these people have written down and clearly state.

As you refuse to look at the true science reviewed in AR1 - AR5 and you choose to leave your head buried in the sand and deny what the world's climate scientists have repeatedly stated.

 

[skookerasbil]

Neither "Command and control regulations" nor "...raising the price of energy through a tax" suggest a redistribution of wealth.

.

YIKES

 

[skookerasbil]

Sometimes..........I spend time in here and you realize what you're up against in terms of the thought processing of the other side........

..........kinda bends the mind at times.........huge.

 

[skookerasbil]

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."


- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

[skookerasbil]

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."


- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 

[skookerasbil]

"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."


- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

[skookerasbil]

“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”


- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

 

[skookerasbil]

This shit is all bogus...........all we can do as skeptics is educate as many of the low-information people as possible!!

The Green Agenda


These people are hard core socialists/communists...............anybody who doesn't realize it has a plate in their head.

 

[Crick]

Sometimes..........I spend time in here and you realize what you're up against in terms of the thought processing of the other side........

..........kinda bends the mind at times.........huge.

Then why don't you explain how those terms suggest a redistribution of wealth? No one else here seems to have been able to do so.