Cyclops is spot-on.
Warming Activists cringed when the statement was made and showed their true colors as the REAL DENIERS of the truth. As a formally educated historian, I note that today's Warming Activists are alarmingly similar to the "Flat-Earthers" of years gone by.
If you read the full interview you'd realize what he was talking about.
http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/kli...
Interestingly enough the the people to first bring this to light was the GWPF. The translation, however, is wrong. It should read "But one must say clearly: We distribute the climate policy de facto the world's wealth. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not excited, is obvious. You have to free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole to almost nothing."
Of course people like you and others just read something from some blog or 'think tank' somewhere and take it as fact without doing any fact checking. typical of people who think as you do.
BB: I got it directly from the source. Where did you get it from?
To begin with, it wasn't advise, it was an interview with a news paper.
Secondly he is trying to explain the international political and economic realities in dealing with greenhouse gases. Surely you would agree that the fossil fuel companies are not limited to international boundaries.
Thirdly why did Jeff M gets thumbs down for expanding the quote to the full sentence and linking to the actual article?
And lastly I like to point out that Climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists and that your cherry picked quote does nothing to refute that. See the following study.
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists
Look at the greenies trying to change what Edenhofer said. He clarified the issue later on, (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.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/10...
And you call us the deniers. Ha! Ha!
Why is you DA deniers worry so much about the past when we are living in the present!
The past and all the projections and mistakes of the past are all behind us. We are living today, and living in the reality of man made global warming/climate change.
You can deny it all you want. You can hold on to the Earth being flat of the Sun revolving around the Earth but reality is reality Some day reality will dawn on you and you will finally discover you have been a day late and a dollar short.
Live for today and reduce your carbon footprint for tomorrow
We have to simply accept the fact that liberals are never going to understand the concept that people should be able to own private property or enjoy the fruits of their labor. A tree in Brazil doesn't belong to the person that owns the land because that person cannot possibly own a piece of the earth because the earth belongs to every living creature on the earth. It boils down to an irrational view of whether or not they feel something is good, bad, or fair. If you are successful in life it simply has to be at the detriment of something or someone else unless that success is percieved to be in the persuit of the greater good. Even then the goodness of what you've done doesn't matter if you are also doing something they feel is bad. Take for example ranchers raising endangered species and offsetting the cost by allowing hunters to hunt those animals. You've just saved the species from extinction and they are thriving, doesn't matter hunting is bad, they'd rather see the species go extinct than to thrive and be hunted.
True but international climate change policy also includes the implementation and enforcement of world human depopulation with the creation of a global 1 child per family policy. Some alarmists have even gone as far as to propose forced sterilizations and stricter governmental controls on human reproduction all under the guise of halting global warming.
Even George Orwell would be humble if only he knew what these global warming alarmist's true intentions really were.
Regardless of the words of IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, there is in fact a UN Green Climate Fund, it is funded by developed nations and the money goes to developing nations and it's billions of dollars with a future goal of $100B per year by 2020. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Clima...
You can argue wording all you like, but those are the facts.
If I was in charge, I'd forget about using the UN as an expensive, unaccountable middle man and help developing nations directly. And it would be to build up their energy infrastructure on the cheapest energy to bring them out of poverty which is a proven method of helping the environment. But hey, what do I know?
Jeff M --
>>BB: I got it directly from the source. Where did you get it from?<<
He used the Al Gore Secret Decoder Ring that he got for Christmas.
John Holdren said the same thing at the UN and its on Youtube .
And He works for Obama .
“…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…”
Another lie from the denier industry
