Posted by Tina
As always we at Post scripts believe in letting our readers decide for themselves…hence the question mark at the end of the title. Having said that, after reading the quotes in the article featured below, I’d say the title is absolutely true. But don’t just take my word for it. Take the word of an environmentalist zealot that has apparently spilled the beans. Former U. N. climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who served as co-chair from 2008 to 2015 on the Intergovernmental Panel’s Mitigation Group on Climate Change:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. … We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
This is the same person who told the press five years ago what the purpose for the Cancun climate summit would be: “…Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Others involved at the same elitist level have also admitted as much (See at link).
This explains many of the policies that have been proposed and enacted in nations across the free world, like letting emerging countries pollute to their hearts content while punishing developed countries with draconian regulations, higher energy costs, and punishing taxes. If the Democrats who play this political game were on the other side, politically, they would call these guys terrorists. Socialists are dangerous, arrogant, control freaks who believe they can fix the world’s economic woes. They are enemies of freedom. If you can find a Democrat today that isn’t a supporter of these socialists I’d like to meet him and have him explain to me why he continues to vote democrat.
That title should be Redistribution: The Actual Goal Behind the Climate Change Fraud!
At least as far as the UN and IPCC is concerned.
đ
Thumbs up, Pie! They do own it!
Tina, darling … who is it that’s been spewing the bulk of the offending hydrocarbons, lo, these last hundred years?
We developed economies made mess. We must clean up mess.
And don’t you worry about those developing economies. A mere 20 years of brown air and the Chinese are hard at work to turn things round.
You just don’t want to own responsibility, pay your share, pull your weight … as always.
Horse hockey Libby. We’ve been cleaning up “our mess” for the past fifty or sixty years at least! Maybe more.
We’ve all taken responsibility through taxes and personal efforts. Industries have found ways to both pollute a lot less and clean up. We and they deserve credit and praise…not your ungrateful, hateful scorn.
Besides, the subject is not good conservation of the planet, something most people support and practice.
The subject is FRAUD, perpetrated on the masses by an elitist bunch of re-distributionists who think they should be able to DICTATE how things will be.
You are obviously one of their useful tools. (Possible because of your smug low opinion of others.)
The quote is from 2010, and is taken out of context in such a way as to reverse the cause and effect.
Evenhofer isn’t saying that the theory of climate change is about the economy rather than science. He’s saying that the *solutions* to the problem will be about the economy rather than science, and he’s saying economic policy will be the driver of those solutions. He’s also saying that wealth redistribution is the solution to the problem; NOT that the problem was invented for the purpose of wealth redistribution.
When he says “This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation and the ozone hole,” he’s partially right, since those problems have pretty much already been solved. He’s arguing that climate change can’t be solved by environmental policy, but only economic policy–specifically, redistribution.
So you’re saying that Odenhofer has “spilled the beans” that climate change theory is based on wanting wealth redistribution, but you have the cause and effect backwards: in the full interview, Odenhofer clearly shows that he believes climate change theory to be true. And because he believes it to be true, and because he’s a Marxist economist, not a scientist, he believes that the only solution is wealth redistribution.
Here’s a fuller excerpt from the full interview, which I found at Watts up With That:
“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 worldâs 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.
Interviewer: Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change â especially in the global south.
It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased â and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.”
Reasonable people can agree to disagree over the solutions to the climate change problem. I don’t expect conservatives to accept that redistribution is the solution.
I do expect us as a society to be able to discuss the solutions, starting from the premise of trusting scientists to know enough to tell us that the problem actually exists.
I expect us to have the common sense to listen to the vast majority of scientists, including NASA, without one political party instead choosing to listen to a fringe group of conspiracy theorists who think they’ve uncovered unadulterated proof of fraud at the highest echelons of the scientific community every time they open their keyboard to read an out of context quote from an economist that’s taken from a translated interview that was originally in German.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Again, the quote is from 2010. If this were really proof of the fraud that climate skeptics claimed it was, we wouldn’t be discussing this today. But climate skeptics have been finding “proof” that climate change is a scam about every two weeks for the past two decades, and nearly every time it’s turned out to be a nothing burger. You’re still saying ClimateGate was a thing when the scientists involved were cleared by multiple independent investigations.
Climate change is not a hoax simply because a lot of people who believe in it propose economic solutions you don’t like. Propose your own solutions. But it is a real problem.
Tina
That is malarkey.
You fall for the worst propaganda. Guess what only the Republicans who follow the fossil fuel industry propaganda do not recognize Climate change and the human contribution to it. A small group of people in the world.
The Pentagon and the rest of the world admit we have a serious problem.
So as more and more corporations and people come to recognize the problem will you ever admit you are wrong?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
You say the whole world and all the reputable scientists are wrong.
Only Republicans know what is best. Drill baby drill to heck with life!
Dewey, That is NOT what Republicans say, which is why having a conversation with you about it would be a useless exercise and a complete waste of time.
Our readers deserve balance:
Global Warming? Global Sea Ice levels Defy Alarmist Predictions
See chart: Global Sea Ice Area 1979 to Present
Google “clear sky flooding Miami Beach” and you’ll find out that climate change is real and already a problem in the US.
The Miami Beach streets now regularly flood even without a storm.
Jim I googles and the opinions expressed are the opinions of the radical political left and it’s cadre of dishonest so-called scientists and media hacks.
National Review rebuts, “clear sky flooding Miami Beach,” with, “Miami floods conclusively cause climate-change hysteria.” A few Highlights:
Thanks to Celina Durgin of National Review who rightly concludes, “The causal factors involved in any instance of inclement weather are complex, and regarding climate change, they are inconclusive.”
I would add the “causal factors” embraced by the radical left greens are also politically driven!
As Ottmar Edenhofer indicated, the idea that the “international climate policy is environmental policy” is an “illusion” that one must “free” himself from. Here, here!
What ever the cause, the streets of Miami Beach regularly flood. If it continues at the rate it’s going, Billions of dollars in real estate will be lost in the next 20 – 30 years.
There is little doubt something is changing, the question is why, and can anything be done about it.
“developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere”
Utter nonsense!
“…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this”
Guess what? The people are not happy about it either. The people are on to the scheme that drives their energy prices sky high, debt into the ozone, and wastes tax dollars on alternatives that fail to deliver and cannot possibly replace coal and oil.
“I do expect us as a society to be able to discuss the solutions, starting from the premise of trusting scientists to know enough to tell us that the problem actually exists. … without one political party instead choosing to listen to a fringe group of conspiracy theorists…”
An arrogant, and completely asinine statement. The people in the “one political party and the “so-called “fringe” scientists are as much a part of society as this nut-bag blowhard. The “fringe” scientists are as educated and capable as any with an opposing opinion, sometimes more so. If WE are truly going to “discuss” the issue, we cannot marginalize and dismiss that portion of society that disagrees and has evidence to support it’s opposing view. The man proves he is not to be trusted by these inanities.
Chris: “…and nearly every time itâs turned out to be a nothing burger.”
Only to people who have bought into the hoax, like you.
“Youâre still saying ClimateGate was a thing when the scientists involved were cleared by multiple independent investigations.”
“Cleared” by the Hoaxsters’ sycophantic believers and fellows isn’t “cleared,” it’s cover-up and spin.
Figure out your own solutions but, please, pay for them yourself and make sure they’re viable. We’re done with your expensive, ugly, destructive, pig-in-a-poke alternatives and tax-redistribution schemes.
And stop using the power of government to oppress the people and destroy the industries and jobs that “society” needs and depends on every single day.
The climate has always changed…the sky is not falling.
Readers will enjoy browsing through Climategate over at Anthony’s blog, Watts Up With That?
Me: “âI do expect us as a society to be able to discuss the solutions, starting from the premise of trusting scientists to know enough to tell us that the problem actually exists. ⌠without one political party instead choosing to listen to a fringe group of conspiracy theoristsâŚâ
Tina:”…The man proves he is not to be trusted by these inanities.”
Hey, those were my inanities! đ
(I seem to have messed up on the quoting. Everything up to “…But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies” is part of the interview).
“If WE are truly going to âdiscussâ the issue, we cannot marginalize and dismiss that portion of society that disagrees and has evidence to support itâs opposing view.”
But you don’t have evidence to support your opposing view.
If you did, you wouldn’t constantly post articles like this one, which relies entirely on an out of context misinterpretation of this economists’ argument; again, he was saying the *solutions* will be economic, not that climate change theory only exists for economic reasons.
You do this all the time; the majority of your articles refuting climate change are based on misinterpreting experts or scientific studies, or misunderstanding basic science. For example, it would take a quick Google search to inform yourself that higher levels of Antarctic sea ice do not disprove climate change.
The Climategate scandal was based on similar misreadings of scientific language. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times the phrase “hide the decline” is explained to you, you’ll always believe it’s something sinister, just as it doesn’t matter that they were cleared by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US); you’ll always believe that you know more about science than these organizations do, and that they’re in on the conspiracy.
Off topic.
In case you missed the CNN Town Hall last night here’s a good wrap-up. Watching Trump’s and Cruz’s whole event is well worth the time. I didn’t watch Kaisch.
The Only Four Things Really Worth Knowing From Tuesdayâs GOP Town Hall:
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/30/four-things-to-know-cnn-town-hall-kasich-cruz-trump/?utm_content=buffer32f34&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Tina, you have explicitly confimed my original assessment here. There is no “you” pay. “We” pay. I’ve said it before, you don’t want to be part of the “we”, Somalia is the place for you.
The current consensus reputable economists is that the carbon tax is the way to go, and we’re going to give it a shot.
“you donât want to be part of the âweâ
If you are dumb enough to want to pay for a politically motivated fraudulent cause, go ahead. In the mean time I have had no choice but to be a part of the “we” because collectivists like you. Your solution is force through a policy of power over the people instead of innovation by the people. You are the ultimate cynic who distrusts that people are smart enough to want clean air and water themselves. You think only the strong fist of a fascist government works. Well, Dearie, that’s a “we” I have no desire to support, even as I am forced into its clutches to pay the onerous, odious, tax.
Thanks Peggy. This nails it for me. My reasons for preferring Cruz over trump have to do with policy, a steadfast commitment to conservatism and keeping his word, and his willingness to confront Republicans who refuse to fight for republican ideas. All of the garbage about his looks and manner is fodder for the political correctness cartel and their thought police, which itself is a much more damaging and dangerous phenomenon in our society. We can survive a crass blowhard, we will not survive if PC wins the day.
Last night should be the beginning of the end for Trump. He sounded more like a confused democrat than a republican. He was not able to list three federal gov’t primary functions. He responded with “security” three times and then added on housing, health care, education and a few others. He also talked about letting So. Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons. It was like watching a train wreck happening.
The internet is full of memes today. Here is one I shared.
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10649488_1529024133793701_6642588393491736428_n.jpg?oh=2d9ecabf79508a04287a7039621e391e&oe=578AA93F
Well, if tax collecting is the criteria, our government (and every other thoughout human history) is fascistic.
I wish you’d stop applying that word to anything you don’t like. It’s not possible to argue with people who won’t accept defined terms as defined.
I don’t suppose you’ve ever wondered why I put conservative in quotes when applied to you all? It’s because you may call yourselves conservatives, but you’re not really.
Conservatives own responsibility and pay up.
Conservatives foresee consequences and pay up.
You guys are all: what? who? me? No, not me, somebody else gleefully supported policy that ripped Iraq into pieces and spawned the Islamic State. Somebody else gleefully embraced suburbia spewing billions is tons of muck into the air.
What’s done is done, and you all are bloody well going to accept your little bit of responsibility for it … and for pity’s sake, from now on, put people smarter than you into the government.
Conservatives prefer to pay through the private sector. Progressives coerce through a heavy handed government that doesn’t give a crap about the dependency they promote or the damage they do to the economy and to the future prospects of generations to come.
You are bloody well going to be exposed and eradicated…and stop trying to preach about “smart” people. Criminals, womanizing men who assault women and are admired and promoted, Dolts who keep the economy at a lousy 2.0 o average ARE NOT SMART PEOPLE. They are opportunists and control freaks. Sadly you can’t even own up to that!
Slow growth?
Or destroy planet?
Cookie Monster say: slow growth!
Cookie Monster is lovable but doesn’t have a clue about what’s good for him!
And the truth is we can have both a clean planet AND strong economic growth. How?
1. Reasonable regulation
2. Tax policy that empowers both individuals and business to work and frees them to save and spend as THEY see fit according to THEIR OWN needs and wants!
3. Give Democrats a bunch of blocks and a few Sesame Street characters to keep them busy and out of the way…works every time it’s tried!