Climate Change Compensation

PkrBum wrote:See post #20. It's not just one german bureaucrat. I'm not wasting my time while you ignore their own words.

I suspect somewhere deeeep inside you know their agenda and aspirations... and have no problem w it.

From each to each collectivist crapola... eh comrade?

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.

PkrBum wrote: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.”

PkrBum wrote: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."

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:

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.”

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.

PkrBum wrote:See post #20. It's not just one german bureaucrat. I'm not wasting my time while you ignore their own words.

I suspect somewhere deeeep inside you know their agenda and aspirations... and have no problem w it.

From each to each collectivist crapola... eh comrade?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Pkr useful idiots are such fun.....it's like watching a ball in a pinball machine...

gatorfan wrote:
I read through this thread and came to the conclusion that Pkr introduced some information, BoF created some elaborate "conspiracy" and, as usual, ignored most of the information while attempting to construct another theory then whines about not having his usual 500 BoFshit "questions" answered.

It is like watching a ball in a pinball machine (where BoF is the ball).

I'm just amazed BoF didn't post some kind of labor chart.

gatorfan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Pkr useful idiots are such fun.....it's like watching a ball in a pinball machine...

I read through this thread and came to the conclusion that Pkr introduced some information, BoF created some elaborate "conspiracy" and, as usual, ignored most of the information while attempting to construct another theory then whines about not having his usual 500 BoFshit "questions" answered.

It is like watching a ball in a pinball machine (where BoF is the ball).

I'm just amazed BoF didn't post some kind of labor chart.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Pkr useful idiots are such fun.....it's like watching a ball in a pinball machine...

I read through this thread and came to the conclusion that Pkr introduced some information, BoF created some elaborate "conspiracy" and, as usual, ignored most of the information while attempting to construct another theory then whines about not having his usual 500 BoFshit "questions" answered.

It is like watching a ball in a pinball machine (where BoF is the ball).

I'm just amazed BoF didn't post some kind of labor chart.

He introduced several quotes from people speaking about climate change, the future, and how it may impact society.  This was a way of vaguely suggesting, circumstantially, that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.  The first post in this thread is suggesting a motive.  I think it is well known that PkrBum does not believe in anthropogenic global warming.  I think it is also well known that every single scientific organization on the planet unanimously agree that it is very likely that anthropogenic global warming is taking place.  

If not by way of conspiracy theory, how else does one reconcile a disbelief in anthropogenic global warming with the fact that every single scientific organization on the planet holds the official position that it is very likely that anthropocentric global warming is in fact taking place?

gatorfan, can you explain PkrBum's beliefs on climate change?  He claims to have clearly and coherently laid them out many times.  Outside of "He doesn't believe in it", do you have any details?  How does he reconcile his beliefs with the science involved?  How does he reconcile his beliefs with the unanimous consensus in the scientific community?

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Pkr useful idiots are such fun.....it's like watching a ball in a pinball machine...

I read through this thread and came to the conclusion that Pkr introduced some information, BoF created some elaborate "conspiracy" and, as usual, ignored most of the information while attempting to construct another theory then whines about not having his usual 500 BoFshit "questions" answered.

It is like watching a ball in a pinball machine (where BoF is the ball).

I'm just amazed BoF didn't post some kind of labor chart.

He introduced several quotes from people speaking about climate change, the future, and how it may impact society.  This was a way of vaguely suggesting, circumstantially, that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.  The first post in this thread is suggesting a motive.  I think it is well known that PkrBum does not believe in anthropogenic global warming.  I think it is also well known that every single scientific organization on the planet unanimously agree that it is very likely that anthropogenic global warming is taking place.  

If not by way of conspiracy theory, how else does one reconcile a disbelief in anthropogenic global warming with the fact that every single scientific organization on the planet holds the official position that it is very likely that anthropocentric global warming is in fact taking place?

gatorfan, can you explain PkrBum's beliefs on climate change?  He claims to have clearly and coherently laid them out many times.  Outside of "He doesn't believe in it", do you have any details?  How does he reconcile his beliefs with the science involved?  How does he reconcile his beliefs with the unanimous consensus in the scientific community?

Your opinion is highlighted in red and allows me to rest my case. And no, I won't attempt to explain what someones believes, it's not my concern but apparently it's driving you insane worrying about it. Please continue.

PkrBum wrote: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.