More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Doug S.

I may be 70, but still trying to age disgracefully
Lifetime Supporter
And the rediculas part of all of this bull dust, its been proven scientifically beyond any shadow of doubt that the climate is actually getting cooler not warmer, so you will probably have noticed the change of heading in all the rhetoric from "globing Warming" to now its Climate Change" funny that.
Doesn't seem to me that there can be much argument with the fact that there IS climate change...as to whether or not it's related to human "sources" may remain to be seen...as is whether or not we can do anything to change it at this late date. I submit that we as a WORLD should do something about it...not just the farmers with cattle or the European Union...no, the entire planet needs to be aware of and attend to the disastrous climatic changes that are occurring with even more intensity and regularity than before.

Doug
 

Doug S.

I may be 70, but still trying to age disgracefully
Lifetime Supporter
...and, in this country, CONGRESS is supposed to be the body that creates laws.
...and it seems to me that Congress's failure to act is the crux of the matter. We need to find more members of Congress who are there for the good of the country, not just themselves...or, even, the constituents in those members "zone".
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
"In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.​
In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."​


Several of us here have been insisting for years the whole CC/GW 'movement' is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. Evidently, IF the above report is legit (and I see no reason to doubt it is - my personal bias admitted), we now have the smoking gun.

I wonder what "the other side's" rebuttal will be? 'Dismissal of the above just 'out of hand'? Screaming at the sky? Mob demonstrations in opposition to the above revelations? Or perhaps some actual FACTUAL evidence that the above truly is "fake news"? If the latter - I honestly WOULD like to see that evidence. 'Dead serious.

Personally, I've grown sick and tired of the whole CC/GW farce.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
"In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.​
In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."​


Several of us here have been insisting for years the whole CC/GW 'movement' is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. Evidently, IF the above report is legit (and I see no reason to doubt it is - my personal bias admitted), we now have the smoking gun.

I wonder what "the other side's" rebuttal will be? 'Dismissal of the above just 'out of hand'? Screaming at the sky? Mob demonstrations in opposition to the above revelations? Or perhaps some actual FACTUAL evidence that the above truly is "fake news"? If the latter - I honestly WOULD like to see that evidence. 'Dead serious.


Crickets...

'Guess word "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, is a bit more than somewhat difficult to rebut.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Crickets...

'Guess word "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, is a bit more than somewhat difficult to rebut.
OK so you have gone fishing, I'll take the bait.

Playing Devil's advocate because I don't believe he meant what has been purported he meant, eight years is a long time has he changed his mind since then?. I honestly don't know. However, it can be rebutted but is there any point? I have come to the conclusion any rebut certainly by me won't change your mind, only you can do that. If you are interested read his whole speech (which I believe was translated from German) not just sections cherry picked from it.

Why? you may ask, to try and explain, for example you could ask someone the question “Why are you going to school tomorrow? It’s Saturday! ?” and get a completely different understanding, conclusion of what is being said and answer, than if you leave a few words out and ask the question, “Are you going to school tomorrow?”

Remember as Abraham Lincoln once said.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Like I said: "'Guess word "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, is a bit more than somewhat difficult to rebut."...however, you gave it one heck of a try, I'll grant you that. ;-)

No amount of "meaning" can be lost in translation sufficient to completely reverse whatever someone says in sentence after sentence.

There's little to NO doubt he said what he said exactly as it was translated/interpreted. However, if you have some, "actual FACTUAL evidence that the above truly is "fake news"...I honestly WOULD like to see that evidence. 'Dead serious."
 
The EPA, like any other governmental agency, is subject to the whims of agency leaders and the occasional failings of the rank and file staff. It's not perfect, never has been, and never will be. However, the EPA has done an incredible job of reigning in the worst of the polluters and environmental abusers over the long haul. It's a long term effort, and there's mistakes made along the way. The important thing is that the overall trend is towards much better monitoring and regulation of gross environmental degradation by the worst of the pollution sources. It's not really broke, so it doesn't really need a fix.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Like I said: "'Guess word "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, is a bit more than somewhat difficult to rebut."...however, you gave it one heck of a try, I'll grant you that. ;-)

No amount of "meaning" can be lost in translation sufficient to completely reverse whatever someone says in sentence after sentence.

There's little to NO doubt he said what he said exactly as it was translated/interpreted. However, if you have some, "actual FACTUAL evidence that the above truly is "fake news"...I honestly WOULD like to see that evidence. 'Dead serious."
OK re your claim

In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit"


No He didn't just say that, what he actually said was this, which is a big difference, especially if you read the rest of what he said.


That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

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 The 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.

So leaving 10,600 gigatons of carbon in the coal in the ground is obviously going to have an effect on the economy hence why he said before it "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit"" . Leave the rest of what he said out and to me it changes his meaning.


As for "during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

What he actually said (again a big difference) was :-

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Please provide a link to wherever you found all that.

A number of things contained in John's OP would certainly seem to stand on their own. For instance, the statement, "We must STATE CLEARLY that we use climate policy to REDISTRIBUTE de facto the world's wealth" would seem to mean exactly what it says whether read in full context or not - especially when read in combo with THIS statement in your post above (#2090), "If this happens (global emission rights ["rights"???!] are distributed), on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY WILL FLOW THERE". The latter CLEARLY indicates huge amounts of money from other countries will flow into Africa...IOW, there'll be a redistribution of wealth...which 'backs' exactly what many of us have been saying from day-one. Not only that, but it ALSO suggests by itself that global emissions would simply be 'allowed' (?!) to be created over THERE instead of over HERE, so to speak. The emissions will still happen - they'll just be 'allowed' to emit from Africa (and wherever else the 'greenies' dictate) as opposed to being emitted from the countries from which the money will be sucked. So, "globally", what's the DIFF emissions-wise?

If you have the link I requested above, I'd truly like to see it.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Larry,

Straight YES or NO answer, have you actually read Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, translated interview in its entirety?, your response above would suggest not.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
No. To this point anyway, I've seen no reason to.

So, do you have the link or not?

Now...'straight answer from you: What statement/statements I made above do you contend is/are NOT an accurate interpretation of statements you posted in #2019? (Much of what you quoted ITSELF was "out of context"...and gobbledygook as well I might add.)
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
No. To this point anyway, I've seen no reason to.

So, do you have the link or not?

Now...'straight answer from you: What statement/statements I made above do you contend is/are NOT an accurate interpretation of statements you posted in #2019? (Much of what you quoted ITSELF was "out of context"...and gobbledygook as well I might add.)
Yes I do have the link.

What I quoted was out of context and gobbledygook, really that's interesting. It was the direct translation from Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer interview with a Swiss newspaper. The bold shows the questions asked by the interviewer, the text below the bold are Mr Edenhofer's responses.

The reason you need to read it is because as I keep saying you will see it is not what you reported him as saying and made a challenge for a rebuttal, saying it was from the horse's mouth. i.e.

"In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.​
In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."​

.

Now this once again is turning into an exchange just between me and you. If you want to ignore my (requested by you) facts then fair enough that is your prerogative, but do not take my or anyone else's silence, as an indication that a rebuttal is not possible. More an indication that it is not possible to debate with someone who asks for facts and when given them with evidence proving they are facts, i.e. a translated transcript of an interview you highlighted and used in your argument, still dismisses it as "Much of what you quoted ITSELF was "out of context"...and gobbledygook", even though in this case it was directly from the horses mouth. OK we are all different but how you can see no reason to doubt an opinion written by someone else, about something you haven't even read is quite frankly beyond me.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
"...Much of what you quoted ITSELF was "out of context"...and gobbledygook", even though in this case it was directly from the horses mouth."

'Directly from the horse's mouth, perhaps...but single sentences seldom provide full context.


"...we are all different but how you can see no reason to doubt an opinion written by someone else, about something you HAVEN'T EVEN READ is quite frankly beyond me."

...even though God knows I've asked, what, 3 times or so now (?) for the link you've said you have so I CAN read it, and you've yet to provide it. I want to read the EXACT article to which you've referred.


Incidentally, you didn't answer my question; "What statement/statements I made above do you contend is/are NOT an accurate interpretation of statements you posted in #2019?" To which I'll add, "...and why?" Specifically:

"...the statement, "We must STATE CLEARLY that we use climate policy to REDISTRIBUTE de facto the world's wealth" would seem to mean exactly what it says whether read in full context or not (one of the rare occasions referenced above wherein that appears to be the case) - especially when read in combo with THIS statement in your post above (#2090), "If this happens (global emission rights ["rights"???!] are distributed), on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY WILL FLOW THERE". The latter CLEARLY indicates huge amounts of money from other countries will flow into Africa...IOW, there'll be a redistribution of wealth...which 'backs' exactly what many of us have been saying from day-one. Not only that, but it ALSO suggests by itself that global emissions would simply be 'allowed' (?!) to be created over THERE instead of over HERE, so to speak. The emissions will still happen - they'll just be 'allowed' to emit from Africa (and wherever else the 'greenies' dictate) as opposed to being emitted from the countries from which the money will be sucked. So, "globally", what's the DIFF emissions-wise?"

Where is any of that in error?




Mrs. and I have to catch a plane. 'Will continue this when we get back if I have the ambition...after I've read the elusive link that I still don't have. ;)
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
"...Much of what you quoted ITSELF was "out of context"...and gobbledygook", even though in this case it was directly from the horses mouth."

'Directly from the horse's mouth, perhaps...but single sentences seldom provide full context.


"...we are all different but how you can see no reason to doubt an opinion written by someone else, about something you HAVEN'T EVEN READ is quite frankly beyond me."

...even though God knows I've asked, what, 3 times or so now (?) for the link you've said you have so I CAN read it, and you've yet to provide it. I want to read the EXACT article to which you've referred.


Incidentally, you didn't answer my question; "What statement/statements I made above do you contend is/are NOT an accurate interpretation of statements you posted in #2019?" To which I'll add, "...and why?" Specifically:

"...the statement, "We must STATE CLEARLY that we use climate policy to REDISTRIBUTE de facto the world's wealth" would seem to mean exactly what it says whether read in full context or not (one of the rare occasions referenced above wherein that appears to be the case) - especially when read in combo with THIS statement in your post above (#2090), "If this happens (global emission rights ["rights"???!] are distributed), on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY WILL FLOW THERE". The latter CLEARLY indicates huge amounts of money from other countries will flow into Africa...IOW, there'll be a redistribution of wealth...which 'backs' exactly what many of us have been saying from day-one. Not only that, but it ALSO suggests by itself that global emissions would simply be 'allowed' (?!) to be created over THERE instead of over HERE, so to speak. The emissions will still happen - they'll just be 'allowed' to emit from Africa (and wherever else the 'greenies' dictate) as opposed to being emitted from the countries from which the money will be sucked. So, "globally", what's the DIFF emissions-wise?"

Where is any of that in error?




Mrs. and I have to catch a plane. 'Will continue this when we get back if I have the ambition...after I've read the elusive link that I still don't have. ;)
link http://variable-variability.blogspo...r-climate-politics-redistribution-wealth.html

Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010 on international climate politics and redistribution of wealth

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Cardinal Richelieu (or his circle)



[[Ottmar Georg Edenhofer]] (born in 1961 in Germany) currently holds the professorship of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin. He is deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change".
Some hold the view that climate scientists are conspiring against humanity to bring down capitalism. (Not so sure whether a natural science is the best place to start the biggest, longest, global conspiracy, whether an abstract, slow and distributed environmental problem is the best way to motivate people, whether an economic sector whose business model is political corruption is the easiest one to topple, nor whether using another energy source would change capitalism.)

As evidence they occasionally cherry pickfrom an article by Ottmar Edenhofer, then the co-chairman of Working Group III on solving climate change (mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was describing the political reality and explained why "the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic" about fighting climate change when he wrote: "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate politics."

The quote comes from an interview in the Swiss Newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung. So I can use my comparative advantage of knowing a little German. Fortunately people in Switzerland merely speak Swiss German, Schwyzerdütsch, they write standard German, Hochdeutsch, which is hard enough for a poor Dutch natural scientist.

This is the key part of the NZZ interview with Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010:
Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.​
I would translate that as:
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at 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 under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​
That is a wordy way of saying that climate policies have large economic implications and that these impact different countries differently. For most governments economics is more important than the environment. That means that the world leaders sit at the table and not the environment ministers. Ironically in the sentence most often quoted by the mitigation sceptics Ottmar Edenhofer is expressing understanding for the owners of coal and oil.

They were used to violating the property rights of others without paying for it, the large-scale equivalent of dumping your trash in your neighbours garden. Then it is annoying if the neighbour finds out what you are doing, wants you to stop and clean up the mess.

Also doing nothing is redistributing wealth: "we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community." This is a kind of redistribution social Darwinists may find natural, but it goes against the property rights our capitalism system is based on. That is socialism for the owners of coal and oil.

I guess it is natural for people who are willing to pretend that climate science is wrong to defend their political views to assume that people who accept climate science do so for political reasons. That is [[psychological projection]] and Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your own weakness. My impression is the opposite: most people prefer to be grounded in reality, not just in my science bubble.
 
It's easy and convenient to blame the owners of coal and oil (ie. Dirty Energy) for some (or most, or all in some people's opinion) of the fault of environmental pollution...but the fact of the matter is that it's not Dirty Energy that's at fault. It's the people that create a market for dirty energy that are at fault. And guess what? That's you and me and everyone else living in an industrialized country. Yup, we're the guilty party - we create demand for products and services and conveniences that consume large amounts of fossil fuels. We're the ones that are at fault, not some "evil corporation" or "conspiracy" or other crazy theory. Look in the mirror and you'll see who is facilitating the environmental degradation which is becoming more apparent by the day. We drive cars, we fly on planes, we buy plastic toys for our kids, we buy new TV's, new cars, all manner of consumer goods and services.

Ultimately, it comes down to individual choice. Live your life in a manner in which you try to lessen your contribution to the decline? Or just keep the party rockin' on the ship of fools? Nobody needs to go live off the grid out in the woods, but we can all do something to diminish our contribution to the accelerating decline.
 
Top