Reply With Quote
conservatives waking up.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...-wealth-climat
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...#ixzz15jkAjSF8
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): 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.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): 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. Why? 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.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development 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.
For the record, 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."
As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.
conservatives waking up.
about damn time.
Come on Darrin. Anyone with above a room temperature IQ already knows that fact.
What do you mean? We already know this is just a power and money grab.
Parker thinks he got there first and everybody else is catching up.
Contrary to his strident individualism, he doesn't give people too much credit for thinking on their own. Parker's more the type of the pedantic enlightener or the vain record store clerk.
Is it untrue that the American citizens pollute at a much higher level than the rest of the world's per capita average or not? What about water usage? Compare the US per capita usage to the world average and what do you find?
Is this sustainable?
I really try not to over-use this smiley, but in this case...
The guy said the exact opposite of what Darrin thinks he said.
Darrin, by virtue of his ed, cherry-picked quotes thinks the guy said:
"Limiting greenhouses gases like the climate change people want is just stealing wealth from rich countries to give to poor countries, and I just straight up admitted it, so there."
What the guy actually meant was:
"Rich countries, by virtue of unlimited emissions are stealing wealth from poor countries."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
Classic self-pwnage. It just doesn't get any better than that.
It's not an either/or: Edenhoff cites the latter as justification for the former. In your zeal to flame Darrin, it looks like you parsed it wrong.
Ok but the point still flew over Darrin's head. Its like Darrin claiming that the police are jailing innocent people while ignoring that the "innocent" people were holding up someone else at gunpoint.
Oh yeah, definitely it is being used as justification as you pointed out.
Maybe it is being unfair to Darrin, and he actually was capable of making the distinction.
If he actually bothered to parse his own thoughts, we might know.
As it is, I would be willing to bet the subtleties escaped him in his zeal to make his case that Global Climate Change is a big bad leftist conspiracy.
Parker gets tired of hearing a board full of amatuer scientists wasting hours trying to debunk real scientists worldwide, and waiting for fox news to catch up the fox-news-following on the underlying scheme at work here..
I have been waiting for conservatives on this board to catch fire with this angle. If they had, these stories would have amounted to at least half of Darrin's/Yoni's 10-15 threads a day.
The country is in the ter because conservatives dont step up. They dont step up because fox news doesnt tell them too. Conservatives have become followers to RM's marching orders. and THAT is why our country is in the ter... because the CONSERVTIVE CONSCIENCE has disappeared, obliterated by a lust for weapons and mass distruction.
From the Website devoted to "exposing and combatting liberal media bias".
It wasn't
"addressing climate change means redistributing wealth in the reverse of what it is now"
it was:
"The (false) theory's sole purpose was for poor countries to rob rich countries"
The point the UN guy was making was no where near what Darrin and the guy wanted it to be, in order to fit their narrative, but they cherry picked quotes for the faithful, for the obvious sole purpose of backing their narrative.
I stand by my flame.
There's no need to. Darrin already ran away.
Your take, not mine.
(I give it a solid B. I almost lol'd.)
sigworthy or not, its the truth. Fox news has been picking up on a lot of libertarian stances of late, trying to incorporate the alienated tea partiers into its minions. My study of the libertarian platform led me to this a while back. And just as I say, fox news is now picking up on the angle.
I see it as a plus...the more fox news moves towards libertarian ground the more it may move away from the neocon disaster that it is.
Fox news trying to make the IPCC look bad is new?
Yeah, that leapt out at me, too.
no the globalization angle. the global tax/international banks/wealth redistribution angle.
The science means in this POLITICAL debate.
because whether its terrorism or global warning....
"IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
-Hermann Goering, President Nazi Party, Luftwaffe Commander
He sees what he wants to see. I don't believe for a second that Fox News is moving to a libertarian stance and is merely just carrying on with bashing AGW theory because thats what their idiotic viewers love.
Parker, you give the average viewer of Fox News far too much credit but you only do so when it makes you feel better.
I dont give a damn about the fox viewer. Its the message thats important. People that buy the global warming-as- a -reason- to- give- up -their- standard- of- living to- international- fraudsters need to know that its not about carrying through with a feel good save the planet agenda. its about having their wealth stolen in plain view.
and i believe the science.
people have all the info they need to save the planet. no need for big govt and international banksters to get involved.
The fact that they are chomping at the bit tells you its all about profit potential.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
