So a few may be. How many signed, and how many others did not.
Edenhoffer has been widely taken out of context. I looked for the original quote some months ago.
His "words" came from a German article that was translated by a British climate denier with dodgy financial backing. The original German can be found on line, and the translation is pretty good. But the meaning has been twisted by the parties "quoting" him. My overview of Edenhoffer’s views, after reading more about him on Google and Wikipedia follows: The science of global warming is sound and not controversial among scientists whose job it is to estimate the truth. By adversely affecting the whole planet, the rich countries have already confiscated some of the wealth of the poorer nations. And if some people must leave oil and coal in the ground, or get taxed to cause CO2 reduction, then that also is a transfer of wealth. This is defacto wealth redistribution. So the problem goes far beyond the science of global warming. The issue is not just the environment. It becomes an economic and political problem. This interpretation is far different from the spin by Sagebrush.
I am not sure why C is calling you a conspiracy nut for this. Conspiracy implies some agenda of some power brokers behind the scenes. This is no conspiracy. It is right out in the open. It is no secret that many environmental groups view capitalism as a means to exploit the planet. Clearly, not all environmental groups hold to this philosophy, but it is rather prevalent.
Now as to whether this makes them communists, I guess you could debate this and call them socialists, but they are clearly wanting the gov't to exert more control.
To a point they are correct. The normal standard of a free market system is that your damage must negatively impact someone else to fall under judicial review. The environment not being a person lacks rights and obviously cannot represent itself. So I would certainly agree that some government control is warranted. Of course, I would never go to the point of wanting an end to capitalism.
Anyone who studies the USSR would know that they were not the most environmentally friendly.
No. I don't even know where your denial sites get all this garbage. I couldn't even find this covered in a legitimate news outlet. Looking at the list of participating organizations, Out of the 130 claimed in the article, I had only heard of one. The website that you link to used quote from the Sierra Club, which did NOT attend and it appears the quote and the Sierra Club had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE CONFERENCE. Kind of makes you wonder about the integrity of "The Daily Caller", doesn't it?
The declaration appeared to be unsigned, so for all we know it was put out by the people that organized the conference, and no one else.
Is this really what you consider to be news? The entire story seems to be made up to foment people like you into getting your hackles up, when the actual significance of the conference is next to zero. In contrast to Raisin Caine (who I'm very glad is no longer with the U.S. military), it's quite easy to see why C would think you were paranoid conspiracy nut. This whole thing is ridiculous. Do you actually take yourself seriously, or are you just feigning insanity as a joke?
Only those who signed it. I'm sure that the vast majority of environmentalists and climate realists didn't sign it and would suggest that you put your tin foil hat back on.
People used to think that you were channeling Maxx, but this question looks more like a question from someone who is channeling Billy.
"Your method of rebuttal is exactly in line with Saul Alinsky and we know which party line he followed. 'C', you just have PROVEN my point. TNX!"
That's hilarious, since your whole argument "is exactly in line with Saul Alinsky".
So what does that make you?
Of course but the irony is Communist pollute more . East Germany was toxic after the Wall came down , North Korea and Cuba are not paradise . USSR very polluted and China Smog is there .
Yes. That would be a 'yes.' The redistribution of wealth by itself is communist - rich countries pay poor countries...global communism, until it becomes totalitarianism under a dictator. They call that a Brave New World.
Yes, you also should note the conference was held in Communist Venezuela. I would take it more seriously if they were meeting in a nation that would allow free and open discussion.
As nobody has signed the Margarita declaration, it shows nothing.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/130-environmental-groups-call-for-an-end-to-capitalism/
This 'Declaration' gives clarification to this quote.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...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."
Hmm Looks like they are finally coming out of the closet.
What a paranoid conspiriacy nut you are No wonder no one takes you aeriously
