Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate Change Compensation

Climate Change Compensation

+2
Sal
boards of FL
6 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1Climate Change Compensation Empty Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 9:57 am

Guest


Guest

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/54528a78-52e0-11e5-b029-b9d50a74fd14.html

The US and other wealthy countries are inching towards a deal with poorer nations on one of the most divisive issues in UN climate change talks: dealing with the damaging impacts of global warming.

The question of how to help people displaced by the extreme weather that scientists say is likely to intensify as global temperatures rise has become a festering sticking point in UN climate negotiations over the past five years.

Some poorer nations insist rich countries,whose carbon pollution initially caused the climate change problem,should compensate them for weather-related losses that have risen to well over $100bn a year, according to the World Bank.

Wealthier countries,which have already agreed to mobilise $100bn a year by 2020 to help poorer countries tackle climate change,have resisted any measures that could make them legally liable for billions of extra dollars in compensation.

2Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 10:11 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

So tell me I'm understanding your conspiracy theory correctly.

Dirt poor countries were somehow able to raise enough money to pay off every scientist on the planet to produce bullshit research for several decades so that they could convince the world superpowers to believe that climate change is a real thing.  And once those superpowers buy in, they would then issue payments back to the dirt poor countries, thus earning them a profit.

If that isn't it, can you clarify? Because if that is in fact your theory, there are several glaring problems.


_________________
I approve this message.

3Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 12:02 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

So...still got nothing? You subscribe to a conspiracy theory that you can't explain or put into words?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Who has been displaced by climate change? Be specific.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Who has been displaced by climate change? Be specific.


I don't know.

Is that it? Do you feel that asking me a question equates to explaining your conspiracy theory?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Well I guess we're done here then.   Add this one to the mountainous pile of other threads where PkrBum can't seem to communicate his political beliefs.



Climate Change Compensation Ed-mcmahon-6


I hold in my hand an envelope.  This envelope has been hermetically sealed and hidden in a bucket of Crisco kept underneath Kim Davis's marriage licenses.  No one knows the contents of this envelope.

(Holds envelope to forehead)

Nutjob climate change theory

(Opens envelope)

Something PkrBum will never be able to coherently explain!

(play video below after reading this)


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

The modern conservative movement in the United States cannot discuss, and has no interest in discussing, issues and policies.

It is now simply an expression of, and outlet for, butthurt.

You can see that on this forum every single day.

It's fueling the Trump phenomenon.

It's just an immature emotional response to losing.

Guest


Guest

Boards dodges questions constantly... I'm not going to waste my time answering his or entertaining his childish demeanor.

I've gone into great detail many many times. There are probably no aspects I haven't covered. Fuck off.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Boards dodges questions constantly... I'm not going to waste my time answering his or entertaining his childish demeanor.

I've gone into great detail many many times. There are probably no aspects I haven't covered. Fuck off.


I didn't dodge your question.  The answer was "I don't know".  If you had a point to make, that would be your queue to make it.  But that is beside the point.  You just created a thread about climate change and you posted a link to an article suggesting that large superpowers may need to begin offering payments to poorer countries who are experiencing weather-related loses.  I interpret that as your way of saying "Ah ha!  Do you see?  It's just as I have always said!  This whole this is a big scheme to redistribute wealth!  Here is the proof!"

Was that not your point for creating this thread?  I'm trying to reason with you here on a topic of conversation that you brought up.  For whatever reason, it's like pulling teeth.  Can you clarify your theory or can you not?  

Don't you find it out that you're constantly on the receiving end of this cycle?  You post an idea, I try to engage you directly on that idea, and then all you're ever able to come back with seems to be....


PkrBum wrote: I'm not going to waste my time answering his or entertaining his childish demeanor.


Well then why waste your time starting these threads at all?

Here, I'll state it again.  This is how I interpret your conspiracy theory.  Am I interpreting your theory correctly, or am I not?  If I am, you can simply reply with "Yes".  How hard is that?  If I am not, then you can reply with "No, here is my theory...", or "Well, almost.  Here is my theory..."

boards of FL wrote:So tell me if I'm understanding your conspiracy theory correctly.

Dirt poor countries were somehow able to raise enough money to pay off every scientist on the planet to produce bullshit research for several decades so that they could convince the world superpowers to believe that climate change is a real thing.  And once those superpowers buy in, they would then issue payments back to the dirt poor countries, thus earning them a profit.

If that isn't it, can you clarify?  Because if that is in fact your theory, there are several glaring problems.  

There.  Is that accurate, or is it not?  If not, why is it not accurate?  Help me understand your point of view here.

Is it really that hard for you to simply find the words to explain your opinion on a subject that you yourself brought up?


PkrBum wrote:I've gone into great detail many many times. There are probably no aspects I haven't covered. Fuck off.


Well then how about this. If you can't seem to lay out your theory here, and if you have already done that before in great detail, can you simply link me to whatever thread contains that explanation? If you don't have the time to link me to the thread, can you take a guess at what the thread title was and then I'll try to go dig it up and read it there? All you have to do is tell me where you apparently explained all of this in the past, and then I'll go find it and read it.

Can you at least do that?



Last edited by boards of FL on 9/4/2015, 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

10Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 4:50 pm

Guest


Guest

It's not whether the un has a global redistribution plan that relies on their global governance... they admit it... and you ignore it. Further they plan to redistribute more than just money... they plan to redistribute industry. How will that lower over all emissions? It simply moves production from prosperous countries to developing countries... zero sum.

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The interview went as follows:

(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 capital 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 the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

11Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 4:58 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:It's not whether the un has a global redistribution plan that relies on their global governance... they admit it... and you ignore it. Further they plan to redistribute more than just money... they plan to redistribute industry. How will that lower over all emissions? It simply moves production from prosperous countries to developing countries... zero sum.


OK.  So now we're getting somewhere.  The UN is ultimately behind the conspiracy, and their motive is to redistribute not only wealth, but industry as well.  Fair enough.  There are several problems with this theory that need explanation:

1)  Where would an organization like the UN get the type of funds that would be needed to pay off every single scientific organization on the planet for several decades?

2)  Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that - even assuming they had the funds - they would really be able to pull that off?  Wouldn't at least one organization be honest and blow the whistle?  Wouldn't there be at least one scientist - just one on an enormous planet populated by billions - that would be above board and draw attention to this conspiracy?  

3)  As the conspiracy takes hold and minds are changed, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose the most, and their funding dwarfs that of the UN.  And the term 'dwarfs' doesn't even do justice to the description of funds available to the fossil fuel industry versus funds available to the UN.  Wouldn't the fossil fuel industry be capable of combating such a scheme?  In fact, assuming such a scheme even existed it all, wouldn't the fossil fuel industry - more than anyone else - be in the best position to even attempt something like this?

4)  And to what end is all this taking place?  Where is the big payday for the UN - the mastermind of this conspiracy?  When do they reap their reward and what will it be?


_________________
I approve this message.

12Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 5:43 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:It's not whether the un has a global redistribution plan that relies on their global governance... they admit it... and you ignore it. Further they plan to redistribute more than just money... they plan to redistribute industry. How will that lower over all emissions? It simply moves production from prosperous countries to developing countries... zero sum.

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The interview went as follows:

(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 capital 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 the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Pkrbm, you need to provide links to this information, as this is very interesting. I have assumed all along that the climate change movement was a political movement more than a science movement, and that its main goal was to push world government, which is what the globalist financiers have been pushing for an infinite number of years. That interview lets the cat out of the bag on this, unfortunately.

Nice catch.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

13Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 6:41 pm

Guest


Guest

The original version in german.

http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

This is the link that I had copied the translation from... oddly it no longer carries the transcript.

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

14Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 7:32 pm

Guest


Guest

http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “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.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

15Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 7:34 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:The original version in german.

http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

This is the link that I had copied the translation from... oddly it no longer carries the transcript.

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

Fascinating. I put the German transcript in Google translator and it transcribes to what you posted earlier. The response proposed to counter climate change involves human engineering on a scale never before seen by mankind. It involves global government, redistribution of wealth, and close regulation of likely every aspect of human existence. Eventually, this could also involve enforced depopulation. Megalomaniacs of old could only dream of holding such power.....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

16Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 7:36 pm

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:So...still got nothing?  You subscribe to a conspiracy theory that you can't explain or put into words?

For decades, as you know, a primary goal of the United Nations is to redistribute wealth around the world. Wealth means taking more from the United States which they see as a huge pot of gold.

The easiest way, as the UN sees it, is through the scam of "Global Warming".

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

For anyone to even think that little countries are paying, is just foolish. Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore and the rest of his henchman, fall over laughing when they think of all the work oil, coal and gas companies have to do just to get their product to market.

Meanwhile Al Gore and his buds, simply sell carbon credits. So funny because he actually cleanses his energy soul by buying energy credits from his own company.

This all could be a great sit com if it wasn't so unbelievable.

17Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/4/2015, 8:06 pm

Guest


Guest

It's about more than just redistribution... it's about the eradication of capitalism. It created power in we the people.

Therefore is a major obstacle to global governance and authoritarian transformation... population control... etc.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change , (IPCC) “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. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

18Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 9:39 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:It's not whether the un has a global redistribution plan that relies on their global governance... they admit it... and you ignore it. Further they plan to redistribute more than just money... they plan to redistribute industry. How will that lower over all emissions? It simply moves production from prosperous countries to developing countries... zero sum.


OK.  So now we're getting somewhere.  The UN is ultimately behind the conspiracy, and their motive is to redistribute not only wealth, but industry as well.  Fair enough.  There are several problems with this theory that need explanation:

1)  Where would an organization like the UN get the type of funds that would be needed to pay off every single scientific organization on the planet for several decades?

2)  Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that - even assuming they had the funds - they would really be able to pull that off?  Wouldn't at least one organization be honest and blow the whistle?  Wouldn't there be at least one scientist - just one on an enormous planet populated by billions - that would be above board and draw attention to this conspiracy?  

3)  As the conspiracy takes hold and minds are changed, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose the most, and their funding dwarfs that of the UN.  And the term 'dwarfs' doesn't even do justice to the description of funds available to the fossil fuel industry versus funds available to the UN.  Wouldn't the fossil fuel industry be capable of combating such a scheme?  In fact, assuming such a scheme even existed it all, wouldn't the fossil fuel industry - more than anyone else - be in the best position to even attempt something like this?

4)  And to what end is all this taking place?  Where is the big payday for the UN - the mastermind of this conspiracy?  When do they reap their reward and what will it be?


So where are we with this? We have established that it is the UN who is behind the conspiracy, so I'm OK on that. But what about the rest? This is quite an extraordinary claim that you're making here. You're proposing a massive global conspiracy involving all scientific organizations on the planet that has lasted for decades. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, and thus far you haven't even been able to lay out your conspiracy theory, much less actually support it with evidence. The best we have here is some NewsBusters BS.

Is that it? Is this the sum total of PkrBum's climate change conspiracy theory? Let me see if I can put this into words for you.

You see, it's like, a conspiracy, brah. It is! And, like, the UN is behind it! It's all about redistribution of wealth and industry! It just is!!

Am I missing anything or is that it? I'm trying to learn your theory here but you're not giving me any substance or addressing any of the obvious issues.


_________________
I approve this message.

19Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 9:40 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:It's not whether the un has a global redistribution plan that relies on their global governance... they admit it... and you ignore it. Further they plan to redistribute more than just money... they plan to redistribute industry. How will that lower over all emissions? It simply moves production from prosperous countries to developing countries... zero sum.

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The interview went as follows:

(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 capital 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 the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Pkrbm, you need to provide links to this information, as this is very interesting. I have assumed all along that the climate change movement was a political movement more than a science movement, and that its main goal was to push world government, which is what the globalist financiers have been pushing for an infinite number of years. That interview lets the cat out of the bag on this, unfortunately.

Nice catch.



Here you are. He didn't want to link you to NewsBusters so I'll do it for him.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy


_________________
I approve this message.

20Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 9:50 am

Guest


Guest

It's impressive how much you can ignore when acknowledging it would undermine what you so desperately wish to believe. This is the link I listed only one page ago... no surprise here that you accidentally missed it... lol.

http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

Here are numerous corresponding quotes (that you missed too) that prove he isn't alone in his agenda and ideology:

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “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.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

21Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 10:00 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:It's impressive how much you can ignore when acknowledging it would undermine what you so desperately wish to believe. This is the link I listed only one page ago... no surprise here that you accidentally missed it... lol.

http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

Here are numerous corresponding quotes (that you missed too) that prove he isn't alone in his agenda and ideology:




And here are the glaring problems with your conspiracy theory - that you haven't even laid out yet, by the way. One more time, all you have done here is 1) Claim that there is a massive conspiracy and 2) Identify the UN as the party behind it. That's it.

This is where we are in the back and forth...

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.


OK. So now we're getting somewhere. The UN is ultimately behind the conspiracy, and their motive is to redistribute not only wealth, but industry as well. Fair enough. There are several problems with this theory that need explanation:

1) Where would an organization like the UN get the type of funds that would be needed to pay off every single scientific organization on the planet for several decades?

2) Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that - even assuming they had the funds - they would really be able to pull that off? Wouldn't at least one organization be honest and blow the whistle? Wouldn't there be at least one scientist - just one on an enormous planet populated by billions - that would be above board and draw attention to this conspiracy?

3) As the conspiracy takes hold and minds are changed, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose the most, and their funding dwarfs that of the UN. And the term 'dwarfs' doesn't even do justice to the description of funds available to the fossil fuel industry versus funds available to the UN. Wouldn't the fossil fuel industry be capable of combating such a scheme? In fact, assuming such a scheme even existed it all, wouldn't the fossil fuel industry - more than anyone else - be in the best position to even attempt something like this?

4) And to what end is all this taking place? Where is the big payday for the UN - the mastermind of this conspiracy? When do they reap their reward and what will it be?


_________________
I approve this message.

22Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 10:07 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

As an aside, I just read through the german interview a bit more on a different site using google translate.  The guy is clearly talking about cap and trade policy (or, cap, at least).  

How does a german economist discussing cap and trade policy = Massive global climate change conspiracy?


PkrBum wrote: This is the link I listed only one page ago... no surprise here that you accidentally missed it... lol.


Yes. I saw that. You linked to the article in german...because you didn't want to link to NewsBusters. My guess is that credibility was an issue for you.


_________________
I approve this message.

23Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 12:58 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

Well I guess that concludes this chapter of "PkrBum makes wild claims that he cannot effectively communicate or support with evidence."

Until next time...


_________________
I approve this message.

24Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 1:09 pm

Guest


Guest

I showed you the quotes... they aren't speaking in code there comrade. They promote un global governance.

Now go fuck off pencil neck.

25Climate Change Compensation Empty Re: Climate Change Compensation 9/8/2015, 1:25 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:I showed you the quotes... they aren't speaking in code there comrade. They promote un global governance.

Now go fuck off pencil neck.


You posted quotes from a conversation involving a German economist discussing the possibility of distributing emission rights.  This is basically cap and trade policy.  You're probably familiar with that phrase as Obama floated the idea here as well.  Many businesses already participate in voluntary cap and trade markets.  This is nothing new or revolutionary, and it certainly isn't evidence for a massive, clandestine conspiracy involving climate science.  

Is that really all you've got?  I mean really, this is the beginning and end of the entire breadth of details that you have managed to communicate about this conspiracy:  The UN is conspiring to bribe the entire planet's scientific community to produce fraudulent research for several decades, with the ultimate goal being to redistribute wealth.

What have I left out?  That really is it, isn't it? You really haven't thought all of this out, have you? You haven't managed to explain why that is even likely (it is highly unlikely), why there isn't at least one scientific organization out there producing legitimate work, why anyone would even pursue such a highly risky conspiracy such as that given the ease with which it could fall apart, or any of the other obvious, glaring problems with such a conspiracy theory.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.  Thus far, you're still working on the part where you clearly lay out your extraordinary claim.  Should you ever find the words to get past that part, perhaps you will one day move on to the part where you back your claim up with extraordinary evidence.

Highly unlikely, but perhaps.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate Change Compensation

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum