• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,045
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“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,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
...
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
Click to expand...

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

I'd have said the jig is up but, really, it's been up for a long time and many of us have known it.
Only the deadenders here and those who still use climate change for the reason described above still cling to the scam and they're not about to give up the power or the dream.
 
Yes its all one big conspiracy and every major scientific society on earth as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's climate scientists are all in on it..... Why they have even convinced the world's alpine glaciers to rapidly melt as well just to fool everyone. ;)

Its just like that big "evolution" conspiracy that all biologists are in on in their attempts to discredit religion.
 
Not this **** again... :doh

Climate change does exist and always has existed. It is monumentally stupid for anyone to suggest we can plateau the climate to some point indefinitely.

What we should be talking about are the "other" motivations for climate policy.

I am not convinced it is all one or the other, or even has to be. Policy is always about control, it makes sense that politicians no matter where from would look at opportunity for climate policy to also be about wealth redistribution purposes. All the climate summits have proved this conclusively.

But even more than that factor of whom picks up the tab is also the ability though policy to apply fault and also who gets a pass. Usually in terms of where a given nation is in the process of an industrial revolution and what their current economic model is.

The arguments for whom ends up paying have become what you think they would be, disputes between bickering politicians all with their own self serving interests not always about climate.

Scam? Perhaps a bit much, but environmental sciences and the subject of climate change is yet another subject lost to political objectives. We are no longer just talking about conditions for climate direction, that was discarded almost the moment politicians knew it could be used for other control reasons.

We screwed this up, almost as early as when the debate was in its infancy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes its all one big conspiracy and every major scientific society on earth as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's climate scientists are all in on it.....
Click to expand...

By "vast majority of the worlds' climate scientists", you mean....

43-percent-climate-consensus-m.jpg

Why they have even convinced the world's alpine glaciers to rapidly melt as well just to fool everyone. ;)

Its just like that big "evolution" conspiracy that all biologists are in on in their attempts to discredit religion.
Click to expand...

Meh. More like Eugenics. Which was also widely accepted Science, preached by all those who Knew Better.
 
cpwill said:
By "vast majority of the worlds' climate scientists", you mean....

View attachment 67199598



Meh. More like Eugenics. Which was also widely accepted Science, preached by all those who Knew Better.
Click to expand...
Your so wrong, buddy.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals*show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
 
TheGoverness said:
Climate Change is not a sham.
Click to expand...

I don't think the assertion is that climate change is a sham. You might want to re-read the assertion in the OP. The assertion is that climate change - to whatever degree it's occurring - is used for other ends not associated with science.
 
humbolt said:
I don't think the assertion is that climate change is a sham. You might want to re-read the assertion in the OP. The assertion is that climate change - to whatever degree it's occurring - is used for other ends not associated with science.
Click to expand...
But even then, that's still not true.
 
humbolt said:
Maybe you can tell me exactly how wealth transfer will alter climate, then.
Click to expand...
Until you can prove that scientists are using climate change and global warming research to increase their own personal wealth, maybe.
 
TheGoverness said:
Until you can prove that scientists are using climate change to increase their own personal wealth, maybe.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue here. The issue is an agency stating that their purpose is to use climate change to underpin an agenda for wealth redistribution on a global scale.
 
humbolt said:
That's not the issue here. The issue is an agency stating that their purpose is to use climate change to underpin an agenda for wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Click to expand...
And I still don't believe that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes its all one big conspiracy and every major scientific society on earth as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's climate scientists are all in on it..... Why they have even convinced the world's alpine glaciers to rapidly melt as well just to fool everyone. ;)

Its just like that big "evolution" conspiracy that all biologists are in on in their attempts to discredit religion.
Click to expand...

I always love this retort.

The fact is that while climate change is real, the social engineers who want to use that reality to funnel wealth from first world nations to third world nations as well as crooks and thieves is also a reality. There's virtually nothing about the "solutions" proposed by climate change politicians that has any positive effect on climate or remediation of the problems. All it does is feed government coffers to confer benefits upon their chosen winners and losers.

The United Nations is on record as supporting proposals such as carbon taxation/trading as a means of wealth redistribution and they are also on record as hoping such a process will lead to the United Nations being in a position of world governance through such wealth control.

Those concerned with the climate are badly served by those in political power who are bastardizing the issue for political/financial gain with no interest in climate remediation.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I always love this retort.

The fact is that while climate change is real, the social engineers who want to use that reality to funnel wealth from first world nations to third world nations as well as crooks and thieves is also a reality. There's virtually nothing about the "solutions" proposed by climate change politicians that has any positive effect on climate or remediation of the problems. All it does is feed government coffers to confer benefits upon their chosen winners and losers.

The United Nations is on record as supporting proposals such as carbon taxation/trading as a means of wealth redistribution and they are also on record as hoping such a process will lead to the United Nations being in a position of world governance through such wealth control.

Those concerned with the climate are badly served by those in political power who are bastardizing the issue for political/financial gain with no interest in climate remediation.
Click to expand...
And where's your evidence for these claims?
 
cpwill said:
By "vast majority of the worlds' climate scientists", you mean....

View attachment 67199598



Meh. More like Eugenics. Which was also widely accepted Science, preached by all those who Knew Better.
Click to expand...

You realized you just cited an article and graphic written by a guy who makes his living as a lobbyist for Oil and Gas companies, right?

Just want to point out how bad your argument is when the first thing you cite is from a paid spokesman.
 
TheGoverness said:
And where's your evidence for these claims?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in rehashing this again, in this thread - there are other threads here and lots of resources on the internet that can help you out, if you're truly interested in researching and learning about the issue.
 
TheGoverness said:
Your so wrong, buddy.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals*show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
Click to expand...

This is a different way of saying the same thing - you are conflating impact with primary impact or overwhelming impact, and ignoring confidence levels. Furthermore, "actively publishing" is a way to filter out climate scientists who are less certain, or allow for non-anthropogenic effects.
 
Threegoofs said:
You realized you just cited an article and graphic written by a guy who makes his living as a lobbyist for Oil and Gas companies, right?
Click to expand...

:shrug: the data is the data. Are those who receive grants to study climate change falsifying their results because they get paid by people who expect them to show anthropogenic global warming?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have no interest in rehashing this again, in this thread - there are other threads here and lots of resources on the internet that can help you out, if you're truly interested in researching and learning about the issue.
Click to expand...

From the article and links within are these quotes:

"For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“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,” she said."

They are attempting to do exactly what they claim.
 
cpwill said:
This is a different way of saying the same thing - you are conflating impact with primary impact or overwhelming impact, and ignoring confidence levels. Furthermore, "actively publishing" is a way to filter out climate scientists who are less certain, or allow for non-anthropogenic effects.
Click to expand...

No, it is not conflating the issue when it is said, correctly, that 97% of actively publishing climatologists support AGW. That is indeed a consensus and an overwhelming consensus.

The question of how certain those 97% are in regards to climate change being attributed to humans or what percentage of that 97% attributes the majority of the warming to humans are two separate issues. You are the one who is attempting to read more into the statement of consensus than is necessary by assuming that either the people who make these statements also mean an affirmative to the two separate issues or that people are making the assumption, when reading the statements of consensus, that those two separate issues are one and the same.

The data is the data - 97% of actively publishing climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and that humans are playing a significant role in that warming. The percentage of actively publishing climatologists that attribute more than 50% of the warming to humans is closer to 70%.
 
TheGoverness said:
Climate Change is not a sham.
Click to expand...
Well...true. More appropriately its The AGW movement (after all...the claim of 'Climate Change' is just their latest fall back position) and its more a 'scam' than a sham.

"****...we KEEP getting it wrong and it keeps blowing up in our face. Quick...what can we call it that CANT POSSIBLY fail...I know...we'll call it Climate Change and pretend thats what we meant all along. And the beauty of it is...thats the ONE THING that we KNOW we can always rely on...'climate change'."

Nice shirt, man.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes its all one big conspiracy and every major scientific society on earth as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's climate scientists are all in on it..... Why they have even convinced the world's alpine glaciers to rapidly melt as well just to fool everyone. ;)

Its just like that big "evolution" conspiracy that all biologists are in on in their attempts to discredit religion.
Click to expand...
You have the direct words from the Co Chair of the IPCC. Do you have anything to actually COUNTER that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom