"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

[Amused]

Who said this?

Ottmar Edenhofer
UN Co-Chair of the UN IPCC
November 14th, 2010.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4437320/inconvenient-truth-about-green-agenda/

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wisse...verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

He goes on to admit that the UN environmental policy has nothing to do with the environment, and their Science policy has nothing to do with the climate and says,

"One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Is there really any doubt left?

 

[Zebo]

Like UN's Durban conference has nothing to do with racism and human rights but instead about promoting third world colonizing first, promotes anti-Semitism, laws against blasphemy, anti free speech, anti homosexuals and ignores problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world. Basically whole UN is garbage and I hope we get a president who shit cans it.

 

[Double Trouble]

This has been my contention for a long time with regard to the climate stuff. All the real scientific work and evidence has gotten shoved to the side and the movement is now simply a vehicle for advancing political agendas.

 

[NeoV]

with regard to the climate stuff

it's real

what politicians do with that fact, or choose not to do, is another story altogether

 

[dammitgibs]

with regard to the climate stuff

it's real

what politicians do with that fact, or choose not to do, is another story altogether

I'll leave that to the scientists to decide thanks.

 

[irishScott]

I'll leave that to the scientists to decide thanks.

Yeah, let me know when an objective consensus is reached on that. In the meantime, scientific progress in any field is usually a good thing, and doing what we can to save the environment has obvious benefits. Why not advance in that area?

 

[IGBT]

the carbon-CON is on.

 

[drebo]

Yeah, let me know when an objective consensus is reached on that. In the meantime, scientific progress in any field is usually a good thing, and doing what we can to save the environment has obvious benefits. Why not advance in that area?

Conservation is not an inherently bad thing. However, when conservation is legislated to the obvious detriment of the economy, it is a VERY BAD THING.

People should strive to make the best use of their resources, regardless of what those resources are. If that means that the guy who heats his house with a wood-burning stove has to ration his wood for the winter, or if the guy heating his house with natural gas has to put on a sweater a couple days of the week because he lost his job, they both need to take it upon themselves to make their resources last.

The federal government has no business being in the business of energy. We don't need them (or a pseudo-world government) telling us how we can and cannot use our resources. If I want to buy coal and build a steam-powered automobile to drive myself to work in, I should be allowed to. They should not have the power to tell me otherwise.

When the technologies have matured in their own time, we will move away from coal and oil. Trying to legislate us toward specific technologies is counterproductive, because it redirects experimental research which might lead to a better source of energy to research that pays immediately. There's nothing wrong with government grants, but they should not be used to push a certain adgenda or as a way to drive a specific industry.

Let the science sort itself out and we'll find ourselves with a viable alternative to oil well before peak oil.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Who said this?

Ottmar Edenhofer
UN Co-Chair of the UN IPCC
November 14th, 2010.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4437320/inconvenient-truth-about-green-agenda/

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wisse...verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

He goes on to admit that the UN environmental policy has nothing to do with the environment, and their Science policy has nothing to do with the climate and says,

"One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Is there really any doubt left?

There was never any doubt in my mind.

All of the "climate negotiations" have revolved around the West reducing its "carbon emissions" (read: industry) with no cuts in developing & undeveloped nations, unless you call the West paying ransom to help them create a more "green economy" a curb.

 

[CycloWizard]

The silence is deafening in this thread and the thread where it's shown just how useless all of the TSA methods really are. Then again, this is hardly surprising - fascism is difficult to defend.

 

[Amused]

The silence is deafening in this thread and the thread where it's shown just how useless all of the TSA methods really are. Then again, this is hardly surprising - fascism is difficult to defend.

Yep

 

[yllus]

Yeppa, it's been a wealth transfer scheme from day one.

Climate 'debt' comes due

But as much as anything else, the Copenhagen treaty calls for the payment by rich countries of what can probably best be described as climate reparations.

This may be what Yvo De Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, alluded to last month when he doused expectations that Copenhagen would produce a "comprehensive" international climate treaty.

It would be "impossible to craft and draft" a detailed plan to effectively combat climate change in time for December. "That is not possible. But it is also not necessary," Mr. De Boer said. "I think what Copenhagen has to achieve is a basic political understanding."

These are some of the understandings proposed in the treaty's current working version: Industrialized countries should compensate developing nations for not just the cost of preventing and adapting to climate change, but for "lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" triggered by it; industrialized countries are to commit "at least 0.7%" of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress (in Canada's case, roughly $10-billion a year, based on current GDP levels, on top of the $4-billion already spent on foreign aid); and that the money will be deliverable to the United Nations, which will be in charge of handing it all out.

"By 2020," the treaty insists "the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [either] at least US$67-billion [or] in the range of US$70-to US$140-billion" every year. If Ottawa signs on to Copenhagen, the size of our resource-based export economy means Canada may pay more dearly for the UN's latest climate-change arrangement than almost any other country on the planet.

And in the end, because it may only shift carbon-intensive production from cleaner countries to less-efficient ones, the entire exercise may do very little to limit emissions.

 

[LumbergTech]

its entirely possible that the "climate stuff is true" AND that this possible truth is being used for corrupt purposes

 

[Chaotic42]

its entirely possible that the "climate stuff is true" AND that this possible truth is being used for corrupt purposes

Politics + Science = Failure

 

[werepossum]

Not at all surprising considering that the solutions for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming are exactly the same as those for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling. I don't think anyone following the climate change debate is surprised at this, although obviously some (who will mostly ignore this) think these "solutions" should be implemented anyway as social justice. I'd be surprised at this point if there is anyone who honestly thinks we need global taxes and carbon limitations to save the planet/ecosystem.

 

[monovillage]

We all knew that this was the point of the whole man made climate change fear mongering, here's another proposal by these "climate scientists/political advocates" about forcing the economically successful countries to strictly ration goods and energy. At least they're out in the open now about their authoritarian and economic plans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ts-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html