IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”


Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

Former WG III Co-Chair Bert Metz (left) congratulates Ottmar Edenhofer on his election in Geneva.

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

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.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita 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.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

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.

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.

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

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.

Full Interview h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser at the GWPF

About these ads

146 thoughts on “IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

  1. Well doesn’t that just put the “D” in “Duh”. I have been saying that it was just a scam to scare people into buying into a “wealth redistribution” scheme for years.

  2. How many years have people been saying this? 4, 5? At least. So it’s now coming out in the open as if it were a good thing. That’s the spin. The progressive agenda is a GOOD THING . It’s a good thing that we will all be “equal” ( equally miserable in reality). My answer to that: BITE ME.

  3. Could this guy be drumming up IPCC ‘agenda’ support from the less developed countries in advance of Cancun?
    I mean – if you said to 150+ or so countries that they are doomed to poverty if the current economic status quo remains – or we can set about giving you some ‘free cash’ via climate change ‘aversion therapy’ – which way are those countries likely to vote?

  4. Ah, at last! Now all sceptics who saw the scam, and were castigated by lukewarmer’s and CAGW believers alike, have been vindicated by this admission from a spokesman for the IPCC. The cards are on the table at long last, but the people trying to redistribute the wealth of the world have weak hands and the outcome of Cancun will go the same way as Copenhagen – when will these idiots learn!

  5. I wonder how many times the ‘wealth redistribution’ meme will go around? Some people are better at creating wealth than others. Some people are better at hitting a nine-iron or a tennis racquet than others. Some people are better than baking cakes than others.

    Why do we labour under the pretension that wealth creation is a skill any different from all the other human skills? Why don’t we return to celebrating those who are adept at creating wealth, for creation of wealth for one person in a free society means generating wealth for us all.

    The frustrating thing is that people think that the reason some countries are poor is because another country has all the resources. They think that giving them a boatload of money will somehow fix this. It’s governments and, by extension, education systems that create poor people, not lack of resources. Look at Taiwan – very wealthy, very industrious, zero natural resources. There’s no reason any number of other countries couldn’t emulate this success.

    Besides, even if African agricultural yields somehow did get lower as a result of climate change (a very large stretch), what good would giving them a couple of billion do? Feed them for a year? Then what? How about giving those African farmers free and equal access to the world’s markets, so that they can build their export businesses and be better placed to adapt to any changes that might occur. If you want to help, go and build a railway, some roads and a deep sea port for them. As a private enterprise. Keep their sticky-fingered local despots well away from the money pot.

  6. Before, it was political science masquerading as “climate science”. Now it’s climate policy as a tool for economic policy, for wealth redistristribution policy. Pres. Vaclac Klaus’ terminology of “global ecological central planning” is 100 percent correct.

  7. Suppose they threw a World Conference and only five people came?

    That would mean either:
    1) The big meteorite hit OR
    2) It was a UN-sponsored climate circle-jerk with Mann, Hansen, Gore, Jones, and Pachauri in attendance.

  8. Always nice to have a first hand confirmation from the other side.
    Especially when the good news comes so short before the Cancun meeting.
    I am sure they will now get al the back up they need to sign a Global Treaty.

    Thoughts like “the enemy from within” comes to mind in a way nor Kafka or George Orwell could have imagined or is this the script of a bad Bond movie script?

    My first thought is when we are going to sweep our Governments and Administrations clear of these radical elements before they manage to enforce their rule upon us and we wake up in the Dark Ages.

  9. I’ve done a post today about how at least four people named to work on the IPCC’s AR5 report are employees of something called the United Nations University.

    So one UN body – the IPCC – appoints employees of another UN entity, whose “research” is assisted by still other UN bodies. That research is then brazenly presented to the press under the guise of a Media Training Workshop sponsored by the UNFCCC – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Talk about inbreeding and nepotism.

    Should UN Employees be IPCC Lead Authors?

  10. As Dr. Edwin X. Berry has said about environmental groups (and you can throw in the IPCC and socialist UN): “They are constructed like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.”

  11. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

    As a result Cancun will be a bigger failure than Coenhagen. How many rich countries would agree to this? What if just China said no way?

  12. Almost twenty years ago, Maurice “Mr Carbon” Strong spilled all the beans about the true agenda of the environmentalist movement to the also Canadian prize-winner journalist Elaine Dewar. It’s all in her book “Cloak of Green” (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1995), that is mandatory reading for the understanding of this stuff. Last January, Potsdam Institute’s Herr Hans Joachim Schellnhuber also admitted to Der Spiegel that he was – literally – the inventor of the 2 degree “magic limit” mentioned by his countryman Edenhofer. So, there’s nothing new in such “confessions,” they come out from the self-sufficiency and arrogance of those who regard themseleves as the self-appointed movers and shakers of the world.

  13. Anyone still under the misconception that the U.N. is about world peace? It is well past time for the nations of the world to withdraw from such an enterprise. What is interesting, though, is that this economist is correct in many assertions he made.

    That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not.

    But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

    But the most important quote, Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. This remains true today and will tomorrow.

  14. Maybe this is why the Canadian Senate (under the guidance of Harper) voted the green bill down. Canada does not want to be pillaged by those Eco-facists with a social agenda.

  15. And yet we have been called conspiracy nuts for claiming that this was their real agenda..
    Shows who the real “nuts” are…

  16. Ottmar Edenhofer

    ‘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’.
    ———————————————————————————-
    Who said so? What is the basis for this claim? Where is the evidence that emitting only 400 gigatons per annum is the appropriate limit for carbon (di oxide) emissions?

    These ‘birks’ have no idea of what generates revolution. So they think that ‘wealth redistribution’ can be enforced in countries like the US and Europe putting possibly millions out of work and causing widespread poverty will be accepted lying down? This arrogant myopia can only come from academics so wedded to a utopian theory that they cannot perceive the anger that wells up when people are forced into these situations. He should have a look at what is happening in Greece for example, over what is, by comparison, only a minor economic disruption. The whole of Europe is close to economic collapse right now and he is entertaining this insane notion.

    ‘Let them eat cake mentality perhaps. Take a look at history Dr Edenhofer. It takes only little co2 to pull out the tumbrels

    Douglas

  17. “And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.”
    And we already know the answer is no and that Cancún will be full of people who are eager to deal with so much money.

  18. I expect that he is just cashing out. He has just written a new book and he is on a book tour. Controversy will help increase media attention (though in this case the MSM may completely censor this interview), which will increase sales. The book is not about the environment; it is about making him some money and perhaps line up a new job after Cancun.

  19. Someone at the IPCC is finally stating the obvious. Let’s hope more follow. There’s no quicker way to kill this monster than to shine a light on their true objectives.

  20. Ray says:
    November 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Maybe this is why the Canadian Senate (under the guidance of Harper) voted the green bill down. Canada does not want to be pillaged by those Eco-facists with a social agenda.

    Too bad Harper is hemmed in by a minority government. This is what allowed the bill to pass in parliament in the first place. And it might mean we will see this nonsense repeated.

    I still find it weird that Canada’s Labour Party, the NDP, or any Labour Party for that matter, would purposefully destroy the jobs and prospects of jobs of their supporters. Liberals I can understand, they believe in all sorts of idiocy, but unions (and their political parties) are supposed to protect their members.

  21. jimbo –

    bloomberg suggesting China will come on board, one day, somehow…

    18 Nov: Bloomberg: China Is Studying Cap-And-Trade System to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    The government may set emissions quotas for large enterprises and a certain portion of them may be traded, Zhang Junkuo, head of development strategy at the State Council’s development research center, told reporters in Beijing today…
    “It’s likely that China will introduce some kind of cap- and-trade system, although it’s not clear when and how it will operate yet,” said Wang Fan, an analyst at Ping An Securities Ltd. in Shenzhen. “The idea of a carbon tax seems much more unlikely to me, as China is a developing nation and I don’t think there’s much support for this idea.”…
    A cap-and-trade market in China could be functioning as early as 2013, Richard Sandor, who helped found London-based Climate Exchange Plc in 2003, said at a climate-change forum in Hong Kong this month…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/china-studies-cap-and-trade-system-to-spur-reduction-in-carbon-emissions.html

    nice to see Sandor now has time to fly to “climate change” forums!

  22. 18 Nov: CBC: Consumerism causes climate change: poll
    The survey, conducted by Environics Research for eight advocacy organizations and unions, found that 80 per cent of those questioned feel the climate is being negatively influenced by economic and social priorities…
    The survey also indicated 77 per cent of Canadians believe a tribunal should be established to penalize countries whose economic actions damage or threaten the environment…
    “These polling results indicate willingness on the part of Canadians for significant change in how we understand and respond to the climate crisis,” stated Rick Arnold, co-ordinator for Common Frontiers Canada, a group opposing North American economic integration that co-sponsored the poll.
    Other organizations involved in commissioning the survey were the Council of Canadians; Kairos, an ecumenical group that last year had its federal funding reduced; the Canadian Union of Postal Workers; the Public Service Alliance of Canada; the Indigenous Environmental Network; Common Frontiers; and Toronto Bolivia Solidarity…

    http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/11/18/climate-change-poll-consumerism.html

    18 Nov: CBC: Greg Watson: The inconvenient truth about the climate change bill
    The latest figures from Environment Canada show the government could send the country back to using the horse and buggy and still not satisfy the greenhouse gas reduction targets in the climate change bill axed by the Senate.
    In fact, eliminating all the cars, trucks, bulldozers, railways and airlines in the country wouldn’t get even halfway to meeting the requirements in the bill — namely, cutting annual greenhouse emissions by about 290 million tonnes by 2020.
    Similarly, turning off the heat in every home and commercial building in Canada would reduce annual emissions by less than 80 million tonnes.
    The largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country is the network of electrical power-generating stations fuelled by gas, oil and coal.
    Shutting them down would plunge much of the country into darkness. But it still wouldn’t cut emissions by more than about 40 per cent of the annual targets demanded in the bill killed by the Senate.
    The bottom line is that unless Canadians would settle for freezing in the dark, no government of any political stripe was going to come close to meeting the emission-reduction targets in the proposed legislation…

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/greg-weston-climate-change-bill.html

    note on above page: Greg Watson
    Award-winning columnist, investigative journalist and best-selling author Greg Weston has won numerous awards for his enterprise and original journalism.
    Among other accolades, he has won two National Newspaper Awards and the coveted Michener Award for Meritorious Public Service in Journalism, the country’s highest journalism honour
    He joined the CBC in 2010

    18 Nov: Nature Blog: Canada’s climate bill flattened – November 18, 2010
    Posted on behalf of Hannah Hoag
    “Spitting mad,” is how the Victoria Times Colonist described Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, following the news that Canada’s climate change bill had been defeated in the Senate late on Tuesday. “Retiring with a bottle of Jack Daniel’s sounds good right now,” Weaver said…

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/11/canadas_climate_bill_flattened.html

  23. I’ve been saying this for years. These “greens” want to use AGW to redistribute wealth, both within and between nations, they want us to transfer our technology and tech know-how to the world, they are using AGW to help start a global government that will manage the world’s resources, and they expect our standard of living to be significantly lowered in order so that there’s more oil and other natural resources for the rest of the world to use.

    AGW probably really means (in the inner green circles) Apportioning Global Wealth.

  24. One percent growth means one percent more emissions.

    This is the fundamental flaw in all of these peoples thinking. Its shouldn’t be written like this … what it should say is “one percent more emmissions IS one percent more growth”.

    The emmissions are the growth and vice-versa. Outr economic prosperity and our emissions are one and the same.

  25. “So now we officially know what we have been fighting whereas before we only surmised.”

    No, a former Canadian government minister categorically stated some years back that it was all about redistributing wealth. It’s the dullards among us who kept focussing on the “science” etc and who did not realise the main game in play.

    Unfortunately those among us who believe that socialism is a plausible system to organise human society find history somewhat challenging and blithley continue to repeat it. Forrest Gump said it all.

  26. “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.”
    Newsflash for Mr. Edenhofer: It Never Did.

  27. [Question] 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.

    [Edenhofer] That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed.

    Apparently Edenhofer has missed the fact that someone’s going to have to take over the World first in order to “distribute” and enforce the emission rights? Meanwhile, the U.N. hasn’t even been able to make Iran follow the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and it wasn’t able to make Iraq follow its Gulf War I surrender accords.

    Other than that, the ipcc’s brilliant plan for its fabricated emergency is still only the same old grandiose, completely nutty Totalitarian redistribution of another resource made artificially scarce – coal.

    No thanks, we ‘evil’ freedom and profit loving Capitalists want the World Wealth GDP Map above to become totally blue via energy resource expansion! How would that be for a Utopia?

  28. This has always been a goal of the climate agreements for a long time now. Even the Copenhagen Conference was supposed to agree to a $100 billion fund for developing countries (with a $30 billion immediate start-up amount).

    But there is a “climate justification”.

    The developed countries are the ones who put most of the CO2 into the atmosphere to start with. If we are going to slow-down emissions, the developing countries cannot adopt the developed world’s high-CO2-emitting lifestyle. If they are going to catch up in terms of standard of living, (and no agreement should entail the assumption that they shouldn’t catch up), it will have to be with less-emitting technology.

    Hence, the funds/transfer would be both a “price” on the developed countries for causing the problem in the first place and two, a “subsidy” for the developing countries to modernize with lower emitting energy technology.

    So, its a little more complicated than the initial reaction but lots of left-wing transfer-wealth types can buy into the idea and support global warming “action” simply on that basis alone with no regard to the climate at all.

  29. brc said: The frustrating thing is that people think that the reason some countries are poor is because another country has all the resources. They think that giving them a boatload of money will somehow fix this.

    Just recently I was pointed in the direction of Ronald Reagan’s speech in support of Barry Goldwater from 1964.

    In it he says:

    “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?”

    The cheapest and most agreeable way to redistribute wealth is by choice through free trade. Developed nations buying goods and services from developing nations raises the wealth *of the people* in developing nations and lowers living costs *of the people* in developed nations. Both parties then have more spare money to afford to spend money on adapting to climate change, *if it has malign consequences for them*.

    The central planning method is bad for everyone except those doing the planning. Developed nations see their cost of living increase due to taxation, the revenues of which are then shuffled into the Governments of developing nations to be spent buying the goods and services of developed nations (engineering project, luxury goods etc). It perpetuates a parasitic elite in both rich and poor nations – in rich countries the ability to pay tax is being exploited and in poor countries their lack of wealth is being exploited. And that is before you begin to investigate whether the forced redistribution of wealth is buying any benefit in terms of combating any negative effects of climate change.

  30. Ray says:
    November 18, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    I don’t mind selling oil, gas and coal to Africa if it’s to help them industrialize.

    Are you assuming that Africa does not have sufficient oil, gas and coal for its needs? I think it’s more about a lack of investment.

    Africa Report – 2010
    Africa’s gas reserves are finally being utilised after decades of waste. Oil companies with no market for the gas have routinely flared reserves, burning away millions of dollars each day.

    Africa Gas Summit 2011
    Oil and gas map
    Coal
    Africa expected to pass North America as the 3rd largest producer of oil by 2011.

  31. “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer”
    ======================
    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. ”
    H. L. Mencken

  32. ***** DEEBEE says:
    November 18, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    From each according to his mental acuity, to each according to his procreative energy.
    ******
    That is a big DOUBLE-PLUS GOOD!

  33. Mr. Ottmar Edenhofer = Jesuit shill. See CV for further information. Thanks, but no thanks. Time to bring in various religious actors into debate.

  34. Jimbo said:
    As a result Cancun will be a bigger failure than Coenhagen. How many rich countries would agree to this? What if just China said no way?

    The democrats (and a few RINOs) in our country would. For example, remember Clinton and Gore? They tried to get us to sign onto Kyoto and according to Cass Sunstien, America would have probably paid up to 80% of the costs of Kyoto and China and India would have probably received the bulk of these funds.

    http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/96-5/Posner-Sunstein.PDF

    I believe this move by Clinton to get us signed onto Kyoto was payback for the illegal contributions the communist Chinese government gave Clinton (and the DNC) in the ’90s. (Clinton also paid them back with PNTR and the result since then has been millions of jobs lost to China over the last 10 years.) What a legacy he left behind. And I didn’t even get into his role in the subprime economic mess.

  35. Further to my last comment, this is why restricting poor countries access to their own fossil fuels will only fuel deforestation.

  36. “That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita 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.”

    He’s basically saying that throwing money at the problem is the preferred choice,
    If it’s true, then why is Africa still a third world continent?

    Could it be because…..wait for it…. Wealth Distribution isn’t economically viable?
    Or, to put it bluntly: a failure.

  37. Well, of course we know how that wealth redistribution works: out of the pockets of working people, into the wallets of dictators, juntas and oligarchies, and then into the vaults of the banks.

  38. Wealth Redistribution= “Stick-em up USA, Australia, Canada, ” and I bet it all goes into
    UN Coffers.
    So they can buy more ammo to shoot unarmed, sick hungry Haitians -if what I heard
    last night about what is happening in Cap Haitien …

  39. 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.

    His response:

    That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita 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.

    Let’s see if we can understand those two possibilities. 1) Huge amounts of money will flow into Africa which will allow them to industrialize and become huge emitters of CO2 or 2) the money will go down the drain through graft and corruption and there will be no net gain to the people of Africa.

    Certainly sounds like two laudable outcomes! Who are they kidding (besides themselves?)

  40. I get *SICK* to the point of barfing when I see those european socialists trying to spread their FAILED socialism… Happily the superior US democratic system gave socialist Obama a beating and probably the USA will not become another failed stagnated european welfare state.

    Africa in the 1960s was richer than Hong Kong and Singapore, which were really really poor. Africa received tons of foreign aid and “advice” by the “geniuses” from Academia and look where Africa is now…

    The “genius” economists and nobel prize winners at Academia considered Hong Kong and Singapore hopeless in the 1960s, so poor they were…But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to folow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” and from other “genial” bureaucrats and remainde with a small government instead of “stimulating” themselves with GIGANTIC european style government…

    The result: Today Hong Kong https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html and Singapore https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html are richer than Sweden https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html ; Sweden was one of the world richest countries in the 1960s (about 4th place) but followed the “advice” of the Nobel Prize in Economics keynesian “geniuses” and “stimulated” its economy with big government… You see the results. And Africa today is much poorer than any of them, eventough it receive huge aid and “advice”

    You see that socialism is a big failure. Centuries ago England was the world superpower… The REAL science from Adam Smith as stated in Wealth of Nations was maisntream then. But now England it has “stimulated” itself with big government and the pseudoscience of John Maynard Keynes… Today England, as an economic superpower, is a joke…

    Western Europeans are just becoming everyday a less relevant part of the world thanks to PSEUDOSCIENCE that pretends to “justify” socialist opression but in fact ruins them…

    Sweden was one of the richest nations

  41. >>>To WattsUpWithThat Moderator. Dear Sir or Madam. Please ignore the comment that I just submitted in this same thread, it has some typographical errors. This comment is the same comment but with those errors corrected. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks<<<

    I get *SICK* to the point of barfing when I see those european socialists trying to spread their FAILED socialism… Happily the superior US democratic system gave socialist Obama a beating and probably the USA will not become another failed stagnated european welfare state.

    Africa in the 1960s was richer than Hong Kong and Singapore, which were really really poor. Africa received tons of foreign aid and “advice” by the “geniuses” from Academia and look where Africa is now…

    The “genius” economists and nobel prize winners at Academia considered Hong Kong and Singapore hopeless in the 1960s, so poor they were…But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to follow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” and from other “genial” bureaucrats and remained with a small government instead of “stimulating” themselves with GIGANTIC european style government…

    The result: Today Hong Kong https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html and Singapore https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html are richer than Sweden https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html ; Sweden was one of the world richest countries in the 1960s (about 4th place) but followed the “advice” of the Nobel Prize in Economics keynesian “geniuses” and “stimulated” its economy with big government… You see the results. And Africa today is much poorer than any of them, eventough it did received huge aid and “advice”

    You see that socialism is a big failure. Centuries ago England was the world superpower… The REAL science from Adam Smith, as stated in Wealth of Nations was maisntream then. But in the 2oth century England has “stimulated” itself with big government based on John Maynard Keynes pseudoscience… Today England, as an economic superpower, is a joke…

    Western Europeans are just becoming everyday a less relevant part of the world thanks to PSEUDOSCIENCE that pretends to “justify” socialist opression but in which in fact is actually ruinning them

  42. But isn’t it all, and hasn’t it always been about redistribution of wealth?

    Cash for clunkers
    Bucks for bunkers (mortgage bailout)
    Paying off the unions
    Stimulus (look where the money really went)
    Health care reform
    Cap and trade
    etc etc etc and on and on

    Spread the wealth around………….

  43. mr.watt:
    have you read the article in Scientific American about the “poll”???
    you and yours readers are very “obnoxious”…

    please it is a must read

  44. I am always amazed at the GOOD economics that I read in this forum of NON ECONOMISTS….

    I am always horirfied by the piles of GARBAGE that I read from professional economists and from many nobel prize winning economists…

  45. The lead quote is fake. Read the interview carefully – though I’d be leery of the translation too. They pasted together some of Edenhofer’s remarks out of context and added a few words out of thin air. This is a propaganda trick. The headline looks like a quote and frames how you read the interview. In fact many readers won’t even read the whole interview but will come away with a false impression. Some of you above have already taken the fake quote and put quotation marks around it. This will spread to other blogs and even op-ed pieces. This is how the propaganda mill works. You are seeing happen. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

    REPLY: The original headline:

    Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu

    The online translation:

    Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.

    Seems OK to me. – Anthony

  46. While Pachauri is a loose cannon, Edenhofer belongs in a league of his own:

    “…..distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
    “…..most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.”
    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    These lunatics are building empires in their fevered imaginations!

  47. Call it global warming or climate change or anything you want. It has always been about redistribution of wealth. A pittance to third world countries and a large amount from the middle class to the rich and from America to Europe.

  48. SouthAmericanGirls says:
    November 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    “But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to follow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” ”

    This is not entirely true. There was one Nobel winning economist who was profoundly influential in the economic revolutions there.

  49. CONGRATULATIONS, this thread seems to be so popular that sending a link with this title as subject gets it bounced as being spam !

    I did a “send link as email” to a friend earlier and it came back. I tried about a dozen permutations to see whether it was the IP, sender’s address or subject or body that triggered the bounce.

    original title was:
    “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth” | Watts Up With That?

    testing showed it was not the quotes or the “Watts Up With That?”
    Unrelated different text in the body did not help either.

    finally it seems the bounce was due to :
    Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth | Watt

    I should point out that the recipient is a proud user of gmail who seem to be using Tucows to transit traffic. This has given spurious bounces in the past.

    It seems that there has been such a surge of email traffic on this subject that it is triggering some heuristic spam detection software.

    How’s that for success?!

    [Reply: Just send http://wattsupwiththat.com The article is at the top of the page. ~dbs, mod.]

  50. Ottmar Edenhofer is a typical professional government bureaucrat.

    He lives in a fairy tale land rather than the EU with its massive deficits and high unemployment.

    The transfer of money he is proposing is to corrupt third world governments in Africa. His concern stated in the interview is whether the corrupt third world governments will be able to handle the responsibilities of the massive transfer of wealth his believes will occur. What do you think is the most likely outcome?

    As it appears the planet’s response to an increasing in forcing is negative (cloud cover increases when the planet is warmer) rather than negative, the world will warm less than 1C due to a doubling of CO2. (The safe limit in warming has been stated arbitrary as 2C.) As it appears also that the warming will primarily be at high latitudes and beneficial, it is not necessary to transfer trillions of dollars from countries that have massive deficits to corrupt third world governments.

    That is not going to happen. AWG is rapidly becoming a significant political liability. During times of high unemployment people start to question deluded leeches.

  51. I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any “evil CO2″. Money transferred from the US, Canada, etc, will just end up in the pockets (read Swiss bank accounts) of the oligarchs & tyrants.

    I see the AGW people as basically racist. They want to maintain something like their current lifestyle, by driving Prius hybrids, while denying the world’s poorest people access to energy & markets, the two things necessary for those poor people to have a chance to lift themselves out of their poverty.

  52. Hows it go? “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life”.
    Seems to me the third world has been given daily fish for decades now. No wonder they can’t stand on their own two feet.
    This Ottmar bloke needs to open his eyes and see that African “leaders” are jetting around the globe attending various UN functions, eating caviar and lobster and throwing the fish bones to their people, GENERATION AFTER FRIGGING GENERATION.
    Crimes against humanity indeed.

  53. The fallout may wipe out the liberal useful idiots as a political force for years.For our politicians and elites have brayed about the dread co2 for years and proposed destruction of our nation as the only solution.I call that treason. For they have always lacked the guts to say what they really support and now the attempt to cloak the agenda in science has failed they stand exposed as fools or 5th columnists.

  54. I see the AGW people as basically racist.

    Are you frigging kidding me? That must be some sort of joke that I am not getting. Quite ridiculous otherwise.

    To Baa Humbug:

    African leaders have been propped up and neutered in equal numbers by the UN, and it is the fact that the UN chooses to prop up UN stooges, like the current President of Rwanda (yes, he ended the 1994 massacre, but where was he during the 1993 massacre in Burundi?), that speaks most about the failure of the UN as a body.

  55. Betsy says:
    November 18, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any “evil CO2″. Money transferred from the US, Canada, etc, will just end up in the pockets (read Swiss bank accounts) of the oligarchs & tyrants.

    I see the AGW people as basically racist. They want to maintain something like their current lifestyle, by driving Prius hybrids, while denying the world’s poorest people access to energy & markets, the two things necessary for those poor people to have a chance to lift themselves out of their poverty.
    ===============================
    I don’t believe it is intentional, just misguided.

  56. Wealth redistribution to poor countries doesn’t work. The problem is that in order for a country to remain ‘rich’ it needs to keep generating its own money. Just giving a country a boat load of money when it has nothing of its own to spend it on and hence keep the value of that money in their economy results in a massive ‘spending spree’ on all sort of things sourced from elsewhere. In the end the money will just do a massive return trip either directly or via some Swiss bank account (psst don’t tell the African dictators about deposit coverage ratios…).

  57. All that dark blue over the long-term capitalist democracies! Sheer luck, most likely. One would like to blame oppression and imperialism, but since all the other coloured bits have dished out their own forms of oppression and imperialism, of a far more savage nature, there must be something else at work. What can it be?

    It can’t be that Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were right. We know from The Guardian and New York Times and Paul Krugman that can’t be so. So how did all those long-term capitalist democracies get to be dark blue?

    In any case, all one has to do is spread the dark blue out over the other stuff and…problem solved!

  58. Wow!

    The toothless, retarded wolf has just shed his sheep’s costume.

    Let him (them) keep talking. Its just plain fun listening to fools continue to make fools of themselves.

    Christopher Monkton has been talking about this being a disguise for “wealth redistribution” for quite some time.

    Would like to hear his invective about now. Lord M….you out there??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  59. Betsy says: “I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any ‘evil CO2′.”

    Bingo, despite some of the protests I see. I was reading through the comments waiting for someone to point out what is the real goal of the global governance/redistribution agenda. The agenda isn’t about helping the poor. It is about the effort to “make sure there is not another United States.” I wrote about this at length a while back on The Air Vent (thanks Jeff):

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/#more-10157

    A few comments here have touched upon the real agenda, but I am surprised at how many of the posters here are surprised. I’m sorry to echo crosspatch’s comment right out of the gate, but DUH! None of this was conspiracy theory or far-fetched in any way and the UN’s Emissions Scenarios was written a decade ago. As I point out in my article, this information is all out there in their own words! This might have been a hint:

    “Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.”

    Whodathunkit. Using their own figures, the dent in global GDP by 2100 following their Sustainable Development B1 Scenario will be $200 trillion annually! The annual per capita income among the poor will be $35,000 instead of $70,000. Those are their numbers folks.

    So, as Betsy points out, this is about controlling the world’s resources, stifling development in Annex 2 countries, and “de-developing,” as John Holdren calls it, the U.S. and other Annex 1 countries. As I note in the article, the only things sustained under SD B1 are misery and poverty, and that prolonging of poverty will be a death sentence for millions. As others have pointed out, the climate agreements transparently reflect this agenda. The only conspiracy involved was the conspiracy of not admitting to the real global governance agenda despite the readily-available evidence to the contrary.

    I cannot tell you how many times I was called a conspiracy theorist, involved in black helicopter talk, wearing a tin-foil hat, etc. when bringing this up. Always the response was the same old nothing to see here with a “crackpot” thrown in for good measure. Well I’ll be sure to share Edenhofer’s admissions with the next AGW zealot who tries to claim that the IPCC is all about the science. The claim is right but they have the wrong scientific field in mind. These puppets are activist scientists engaged in wholly political science. Thanks for yet another exoneration AGW cultists, not that any skeptic needed it.

    And the thing that angers me to no end is Edenhofer’s admission that this is not about the real environmental issues facing the planet. As an environmentalist myself, this diversion of resources, attention, and, last but not least, scientific credibility, has been one of my primary bones with these AGW control freaks all along. This “movement” has set back real climate science and true environmentalism for who knows how long.

    While Hansen, Mann et al were pre-occupied with their misguided AGW advocacy, the last white rhino in Krugersdorp was killed, ridiculously huge areas of habitat was destroyed to make way for ends-justify-the-means biofuels and solar arrays, and many other environmental/humanitarian issues that could have been directly affected with proven results were put on the back burner to focus on the CO2 phantom menace. By-and-large the real environmental degradation taking place worldwide remains largely unaddressed. It is a travesty. Thanks for nothing. Since many of you are surprised and most might miss this in the article I reference above, here are some of the terms/phrases from the Copenhagen negotiating text I gathered that you should familiarize yourself with:

    Historical climate debt; transparent system of governance; compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity; environmental justice; green fund; levies on CO2 emissions; taxes on carbon-intensive products and services; levies on international and maritime transport; levies on international transactions; penalties or fines for non-compliance; ODA additional to ODA targets; adaptation debt; 2 per cent of gross national product; and uniform global levy.

    Open up your wallets folks. Oh, I almost forgot. As Doug says, this won’t go down without a fight. I’d say it’s high time to put up your dukes if you haven’t already. I hate to keep quoting myself, but the fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth. Get out of the world’s way or, quite simply, you’ll be pushed out of the way. I sure intend on fighting this fight until this people-punishing agenda in dead and buried. Ding. Ding. Cheers!

  60. We’ve got to throw these quotes into the faces of our politicians and ask them point blank if they agree with Mr. Edenhofer. This has to be read into Hansard and the Congressional Record, and shouted from the rooftops so that Joe Average is forced to think about what it means and what the IPCC really is.

  61. Having worked in African agriculture for five years I can say with confidence that pouring in ‘aid’ in the way these bureacrats propose will be as useful as providing free booze to an alcoholic.

  62. It’s easier to make fast money from a position of privilege when the global economic motors are revving fast. It’s boring at idle speed.
    Those of us younger than I who allowed these carpetbaggers to get a foot on the throttle have a bit to answer for. In my time we used to drag them off at the lights so they paled into insignificance.

  63. Hmm. Well, it has been a good while since I posted this and it may have disappeared (never got the “awaiting moderation” notice, it just vanished). I hope this isn’t a double post, but if it is, I apologize in advance. Though I didn’t think I committed any fouls, I tried messing with it a bit in case I triggered a filter somehow. Hopefully this one passes through.

    Betsy says: “I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any ‘evil CO2′.”

    Bingo, despite some of the protests I see. I was reading through the comments waiting for someone to point out what is the real goal of the global governance/redistribution agenda. The agenda isn’t about helping the poor. It is about the effort to “make sure there is not another United States.” I wrote about this at length a while back on The Air Vent (thanks Jeff):

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/#more-10157

    A few comments here have touched upon the real agenda, but I am surprised at how many of the posters here are surprised. I’m sorry to echo crosspatch’s comment right out of the gate, but DUH! None of this was c0nspiracy theory or far-fetched in any way and the UN’s Emissions Scenarios was written a decade ago. As I point out in my article, this information is all out there in their own words! This might have been a hint:

    “Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.”

    Whodathunkit? Using their own figures, the dent in global GDP by 2100 following their Sustainable Development B1 Scenario will be $200 trillion annually! The annual per capita income among the poor will be $35,000 instead of $70,000. Those are their numbers folks.

    So, as Betsy points out, this is about controlling the world’s resources, stifling development in Annex 2 countries, and “de-developing,” as John Holdren calls it, the U.S. and other Annex 1 countries. As I note in the article, the only things sustained under SD B1 are misery and poverty, and that prolonging of poverty will be a death sentence for millions. As others have pointed out, the climate agreements transparently reflect this agenda. The only c0nspiracy involved was the c0nspiracy of not admitting to the real global governance agenda despite the readily-available evidence to the contrary.

    I cannot tell you how many times I was called a c0nspiracy theorist, involved in black helic0pter talk, wearing a tin-f0il hat, etc. when bringing this up. Always the response was the same old nothing to see here with a “crackp0t” thrown in for good measure. Well I’ll be sure to share Edenhofer’s admissions with the next AGW zeal0t who tries to claim that the IPCC is all about the science. The claim is right but they have the wrong scientific field in mind. These puppets are activist scientists engaged in wholly political science. Thanks for yet another exoneration AGW cult!sts, not that any skeptic needed it.

    And the thing that angers me to no end is Edenhofer’s admission that this is not about the real environmental issues facing the planet. As an environmentalist myself, this diversion of resources, attention, and, last but not least, scientific credibility, has been one of my primary bones with these AGW control freeks (sic) all along. This movement has set back real climate science and true environmentalism for who knows how long.

    While Hansen, Mann et al were pre-occupied with their misguided AGW advocacy, the last white rhino in Krugersdorp was killed, ridiculously huge areas of habitat was destroyed to make way for ends-justify-the-means biofuels and solar arrays, and many other environmental/humanitarian issues that could have been directly affected with proven results were put on the back burner to focus on the CO2 phant0m menace. By-and-large the real environmental degradation taking place worldwide remains largely unaddressed. It is a travesty. Thanks for nothing. Since many of you are surprised and most might miss this in the article I reference above, here are some of the terms/phrases from the Copenhagen negotiating text I gathered that you should familiarize yourself with:

    Historical climate debt; transparent system of governance; compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity; environmental justice; green fund; levies on CO2 emissions; taxes on carbon-intensive products and services; levies on international and maritime transport; levies on international transactions; penalties or fines for non-compliance; ODA additional to ODA targets; adaptation debt; 2 per cent of gross national product; and uniform global levy.

    Open up your wallets folks. Oh, I almost forgot. As Doug says, this won’t go down without a fight. I’d say it’s high time to put up your intellectual dukes if you haven’t already. I hate to keep quoting myself, but the fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth. Get out of the world’s way or, quite simply, you’ll be pushed out of the way. I sure intend on fighting this fight until this people-punishing agenda in dead and buried. Ding. Ding. Cheers!

  64. This should be an outrage to everybody that believes in individualism. There should be an outpouring of angst against such ideas. Sadly, I can’t see any real anger occurring in the populace…………..A said day for humanity.

  65. One World Government spokespersons are now emboldened, and saying publicly:
    “Sure, it’s true – so what are you going to do about it?

  66. Economic Aid – the process where money from the bank accounts of poor people of rich countries in moved to the bank accounts of rich people in poor countries.

  67. If you laid all the economists in the world end to end you still would’nt reach a conclusion, (not sure who said that).

    Then again, if you laid all climate scientists end to end you still would’nt reach a consensus.

  68. I will have a nice little letter ready to go out to a few GOP Congresstypes tomorrow, including Mr Boehner, with Herr Doktor Edenhoffer’s quote and his relationship to the IPCC, emphasizing the utterly crucial importance of having all the committees responsible for oversight of EPA, NOAA, NASA, DOE, etc. chaired by individuals of appropriately critical mindset.

  69. Dissembling is not an ability the German national holds in high esteem – bless them all! China and the US saw this coming at Copenhagen so manufactured a cat-fight. I wonder what Can-cun has in store for us? Whatever transpires, it’ll be just in time for the English pantomime season-how apposite!

  70. So, I see someone has spilled the beans and exposed the real agenda. I guess Edenhofer thought no one in America would pay attention to what he said. But it has been apparent for quite a while now what the real agenda was – not “climate change” but redistribution of wealth world-wide, with the UN bureaucrats and their lackeys, the NGO environmental groups, gaining a lion’s share of the wealth and power. Along with all of the corrupt leaders of the backwater governments who have been feeding at the international trough for years, at the expense of their people.

    The UN and most of their affiliated agencies need to be abolished. World peace, my foot. They’ve been turned into a device for world domination and repression.

  71. What I marvel at, is the way that people think that rising CO2 emissions at best loosely coupled with GDP growth and at worst totally independent.

    I don’t how many people remember the “endogenous growth theory” of the naughties – but in principle this was a theory that it was possible to grow an economy without rising CO2 emissions (for those who do know – I’ve jumped a few steps). And it did appear to happen for a while. UK and US manufacturing emissions began to drop at a time that the economy seemed to be massively increasing in size without any apparent growth in manufacture.

    … but then the idiots who weren’t already in the know learnt the truth: the economy had been pulled up by its own bootlaces on rising house prices. The economy hadn’t grown, only the level of borrowing had borrowed from future economic activity to fund the naughties economic “boom”.

    … similarly, the reason we didn’t see a rise in UK/US emissions due to manufacture was because all that manufacture had gone abroad, mostly to china.

    The simple fact is that I’ve yet to see any evidence that GDP and energy consumption are not one and the same thing. It appears to be a universal truth that you can’t grow the (real size of the) economy without increasing energy consumption … so it would seem economic growth is impossible without energy growth and as thing like solar panels are unenerconomic (On average they use more energy in manufacture than they give out in their lifetime), such things will never grow the economy!

  72. @Anthony:
    “The original headline:
    Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu
    The online translation:
    Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.
    Seems OK to me. – Anthony”

    Not quite. “The world’s new wealth” would be “das neues Weltvermögen”.
    Actually “neuverteilen” means redistribute”.
    So the exact translation would be: “Climate policy redistributes the world’s wealth”.

  73. Years ago a psychologist told me that “psychotics build castles in the sky and the psychologists who treat them collect the rent.” Seems to me that the extremely psychotic European Super Greens in the UN think they are smart enough to build castles in the sky, collect the rent then redistribute that rent! But their schemes are now out in the open for the world to see the horrifying extent and depth of the malignant and extreme psychosis these would-be ‘world leaders’ suffer from. Giving more funds to totally corrupt regimes such as that of Mugabe and his henchmen and women in Zimbabwe will only further enrich those leaders and their regimes and do nothing for their hard-pressed countymen already facing starvation in a geographic area which was once termed ‘the breadbasket of Africa’. Perhaps these psychotic ‘environmentalists’ in the UN who believe that every living creature on earth, with the exception of Man, is unique and precious, and the unhinged Greens really do favor the concept of mass starvation of almost entire human populations to acheive their lunatic aim of ‘sustainability’.

  74. REPLY: The original headline:
    Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu
    The online translation:

    Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.
    Seems OK to me. – Anthony
    =========================================

    Hi Anthony.

    ‘Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu’ means:
    ‘Climate policy redistributes the world’s wealth.’

    The german ‘verteilen‘ translates as ‘to distribute’. ‘Neu verteilen’’ is ‘to redistribute’.
    Headlines are concentrated and notoriously hard to translate with a computer program.
    The ‘world’s new wealth’ would be ‘das neue Weltvermögen’.

  75. These people (like Edenhofer) are unashamed fascists, and aren’t even ashamed to admit it anymore. They consider it their Gaiya-given right to steal from the hard-working, prosperous and once-free, and to give to the backward, undeveloped and shackled, and to deny individuals and nations the ability to better themselves. I do fear for the future of the once-free world now that these sick and twisted b….rds are running it.

  76. We call it ‘overseas aid’ in the UK – defined recently (and spookily correctly) as: Taking money from the poor of a rich country and giving it to the rich of a poor country…
    Oh – and we’ve just promised to stump up £7bn (which I didn’t think we had) to help out the Irish..

  77. So does this “Economist” count as a “Climate Scientist” as he chairs (Or co-chairs, does this mean one keeps the seat warm while the other goes for a crap?) a chunk of the IPCC?

  78. The UN and IPCC are naive, corrupt, selfish fools. I’ll do some redistribution for them – their faces across a road

  79. “David says:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:11 am”

    The Irish govn’t has been receiving EU/UK grants since the very early 1980’s. The Irish economic “miracle” was a taxpayer funded bubble just waiting to burst.

  80. I agree that wealth redistribution is the aim; but, you do not impoverish the wealthy to enrich the poor. You get the wealthy to show the poor how to enrich themselves so the poor can develop.
    Show a man how to fish and he feeds himself for life. Give him a fish and he has one good meal then starves.
    The IPCC methods are typically soviet socialist in style which have been shown NOT TO WORK. Never have.
    The Socialist way is to give what is needed. This produces a reliant society waiting for the next handout. Wrong! Educate that riches must be earned by dint of hard work. This way is shunned by socialism. They still do not understand that to keep giving to the poor someone has to provide the riches to do this and this wealth base is getting smaller as more and more hold out their hands.

  81. Now we know for sure:
    It´s politics and money that counts.
    Science is not essential to reach the goal.

    Edenhofer is a university professor of “Economics for Climate Change” at the Technical University Berlin, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC – deputy director and chief economist of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (by the way he is no scientist in climate research or physics, may be he is not a scientist at all).
    The more it is astonishing that he mixes reserves and resources of coal.
    The resources of coal in total are 722 Gigatons carbon (not 11,000 Gtons). The reserves are what we might realize with today prices and technology. May be he means Ressources, but these are 14,856 Gtons).

    All reserves of fossile fuels are around 1200 Gtons carbon equivalent.
    If all reserves would be burnt this century, and most probably will, we end up with doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The temperature increase will significantly remain under 2°C.

    According to an articel in “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” in Nov 2009, he was an admirer of the books and ideas of Karl Marx. He is a member of the Jesuit Order.

  82. Well I for one think it is rather more complicated that this. There have been many attempts to re-distribute wealth from rich to poorer countries and all of them have either met with considerable resistance from the wealthier nations or failed in their attempts to improve the lives of the poorer due to corruption or fecundity in those poorer nations. I don’t see this new strategy fooling anyone, so we can safely assume that the reds coming out from under the beds and exposing their intentions will only make it easier for us to dismiss their child-like nonsense.

    However, this still leaves me with a puzzle. Why does Germany insist on building so many windmills but at the same time happily produce so many cars with huge engines? The simple answer to the latter part of that question is money – big German cars make money. So if the German government is motivated more by money than environmental concerns, why the windmills? The answer must surely be money again. Then it clicked with me that the rise of the Euro-windmill has corresponded with the rise of globalisation. It is now clear to me that windmill building by Germany and other European countries is not about the environment – it is protectionism in the face of globalisation. The whole point is to reduce or prevent an open market in energy source trading that would surely mean greater imports of energy from developing countries. The environmental angle is just an excuse to prevent the UN crying “foul”. Germany is trying to protect its balance of trade and reduce the possibility of wealth re-distribution from Germany to developing countries like Russia. Look at the map – there has already been significant wealth re-distribution from the developed world to dubious under-developed countries like Saudia Arabia thanks to the West’s energy demand and this is something Europe is keen to stop. That is not something they would like to see spelt out in print anywhere, however.

    The West is rich because it consumes 6 horsepower for every family for every minute of the day, and with that kind of power output you can do a lot of great stuff that one man cannot do by himself. Any country wishing to achieve the same level of wealth will be forced to consume the same amount of energy (but not necessarily by consumption of coal).

  83. “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – Ottmar Edenhofer

    “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.”

    I cannot sufficiently express in words my utter hatred and contempt for these swine. Well actually I can, but it would likely result in a visit from Men In Black at my doorstep, which would be a very ugly scene.

    So instead I wholeheartedly second the motion for asteroid strike, earthquake, flood, pestilence or drug running mayhem in Cancun. There isn’t law against praying for divine intervention, yet.

  84. Frankly…I’m relieved. These elitists from George (Shwartz, is his REAL last name) Soros ~ to the weirdo Greenies walkin’ hand n’ hand with Gilliard’s government and wanting to destroy the Murray Basin by taking the water from farmers ~ to ~ GET THIS ~ The Communist Party of North America putting out their book this week on the supposed NEW CONSTITUTION of the U.S.A. (which they call North America right now.)

    This is it. These Egos are coming out from under their rocks, guys. We’ve had so many weird things going on, like our TSA Agents feeling up American passengers and their children while they will only check around the berka of Muslim females… It’s
    becoming more and more criminally insane….

    I suggest that we break out the pop corn (and of course, I’D invite you to light up a smoke with a good stiff drink) as SOME of us watch what will be happening in Cancun ~ ’cause I HIGHLY suggest that others of us ~ watch THE OTHER HAND while Cancun is in process… History has often been about only two things:

    1. EGO
    2. Slight of hand trickery ~ ie: signing the FED into existence in the middle of the night with only 3-4 politicians present…

    Whatever happens ~ we have a front seat for viewing the most interesting HISTORY this globe has EVER SEEN.

    I’d also suggest viewing Glenn Beck’s show from two days ago with that Rabbi ~
    the one who told us about the Tower of Babel and Nimrod ~ It was amazing. Essentially these Elitists equate all of us as ‘bricks’ rather than God-Made Stones ~ which are unique. I’m gonna go research Tower of Power and see what that Rabbi
    was talking about….

    This stuff repeats itself ~ but, not on this ‘grand scale’ considering Clinton’s ‘Global Village’ scenario ~ I’d say all our VILLAGE IDIOTS are coming out for us to view???
    And, lastly ~ a quick question!!!

    How can………(this IS simply ridiculous!)GEORGE (SHWARTZ) SOROS BE A TRUE ATHEIST WHEN HE HIMSELF BELIEVES HE’S ‘GOD’????????????????????????
    Does thinking like that come from a REALLY poor self image???

    They’re all megalomaniac kooks, my friends. Let’s just keep calm and see this unfold a bit ~ and do what we are able to help others while we’re at it.

    Cynthia Lauren Thorpe

  85. The point for the beurocrats is surely to justify their high salaries and ensure they are buried in a much larger cash flow, along with the power of being able to select who to distribute the vast amounts of money to. As long as nobody is in a position to question them, and they presumably do not want to question their own belief that they are doing something.

    By setting themselves fuzzy goals they can never be held to account, and have no intention of checking whether what they did achieved anything useful. That will always be the problem of unbridled morality.

  86. I did a search for the word “theft” on this thread and didn’t find it, so I shall add it.

    “Redistributing The World’s Wealth” is simply equivalent to global theft.

    Period.

    And people that attempt to make global theft a policy of whatever government or organization they belong to are criminals of the highest magnitude. (There is nothing worse than a thief.)

  87. Hah, a Jesuit Marxist! Yeah, I know. Let it be said, so shall it be done. Slap another water buffalo dung patty up against the wall, brother.
    ================

  88. To Dave Wendt:

    OOPS! You are right! I made mistakes in EVERY comment that I posted yesterday. I meant that Hong Kong and Singapore never followed the “advice” from Mainstream academia.

    But Milton Friedman is a shallow economist. With “tight money” (ridiculously high short term interest rates) his theories created a DEEP recession in the first part of the Reagan years, and the pro growth effect of the Reagans tax cuts were not seen for a while because of Friedman’s bad theories. His theories have a childish side because he confounds increase in consumer price index with loss of value of currency and in such a way his theories are continuously bringing us”tight money”. I think “tight money” in the 2nd part of the 1990s brought us the housing bubble (of course mainstream academia says the exact opposite)

    It is crystal clear that “tight money” triggered the 1929 Recession that horrifiying taxes and regulations transformed into the Great Depression, you can read Robert Mundell on that matter http://www.robertmundell.net/NobelLecture/nobel3.asp . But Hayek, another libertarian (I am libertarian too), said the exact opposite and such colossal errors by libertarians allowed the fascist / socialist utter nonsense theories of John Maynard Keynes to become mainstream

    It is Robert Mundell that was behind the Reagan tax cuts that actually ended stagflation and Mundell too was behind the Kennedy tax cuts that stopped the multiple recessions that happened before Kennedy. Friedman actually never understood well how money works, that is why his theories are always bringing “tight money” (helping keynesianism in such way). The man that actually transformed economics is Robert Mundell, who in 1961 wrote a famous pro tax cuts paper wildly diverging with mainstream academia “advice” and Kennedy was smart enough to follow Mundell. It is Mundell and other supply siders that actually eliminated stagflation under Reagan, not Friedman as some allege.

    But Mundell is a modest man that travels often to Brazil, China, Russia to stop the nonsense that is so abundant in modern economic theories. Friedman was a very hungry for media coverage person.

    Your video suggests that Reagan brought the fall of communism. That is nonsense. It is Gorbachov and his people that brough the fall of communism, if Stalin was alive today we would still have communism, as there still is communism in Cuba.

  89. Correction: IMHO “tight money” TRIGGERED the housing bubble in the second part of the 1990s. But democrats made it much worse with the Community Reinvesment Act that forced banks to make loans to people that were not qualified for them; moreover, by making the government -through Fannie and Freddie- bear the risk of billions in mortgages, they encouraged billions in careless lending to people that were not qualified for those loans.

    As for how foreign aid HARMS countries, just search [William Easterly Foreign Aid] on the net. Horrifying high taxes and regulations in Africa and Latin America are enough to explain a big chunk of the poverty (an inequality) found in those regions, but according to Easterly foreign aid has an important role in explainning Africa’s problems.

  90. The ‘progressive’ mentality of the people running the IPCC is outstandingly exemplified in this little snippet:
    “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.:

    Rrrrright!
    Expropriating the atmosphere … that isn’t even economics, that is pure communist twaddle.
    I wonder if he’ll now also blame China and India for, ahem, ‘expropriating’ the atmosphere of their neighbouring countries?

    It is so satisfying to read/hear the CAGW proponents dropping their oh-so-scientific masks.

  91. Cynthia Lauren Thorpe,

    You might find the Soros article here interesting: click

    [It's in the "Friday morning links."]

    Soros is moving to China, where he’ll be safe to do his meddling.

  92. OT…Lord Stern the so called climate change ‘economist’ is warning the US in todays UK Times that the US will have a real problem within 10 years because the other countries will refuse to buy US goods because they will have the unfair advantage of being produced without paying for the carbon ‘pollution’..as an indicator of his thinking he says the Chinese are much more serious about dealing with climate change because of all their ‘cities on the coast’!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  93. “The next Climate Summit is an Economy Summit …”
    This at least explains the otherwise senseless term “Climate Disruption”.
    So those successful climate guys are going to rule the world economy now.
    From who exactly came the mandate for it?

  94. RockyRoad,

    You are exactly right. Too many crooked people are coveting the property of others – and by ‘others’ I mean mainly the citizens of the U.S.A., who have honestly worked and saved, only to see their savings handed over to the totally corrupt UN.

    The kleptocrat in the article has simply admitted what everyone here knows. This article should be linked far and wide. “Carbon” is just the latest code word for theft. The connection can be seen every time “carbon” is used in the context of AGW. And the primary instigator of international kleptocracy is the unelected UN/IPCC, which is still pushing its debunked CAGW fantasy, despite zero evidence supporting it.

    More than $80 billion US taxpayer dollars have already been wasted in the search for real world evidence of AGW. They have found none. Still, the incessant demand to transfer the honest earnings of Americans into the pockets of international thieves based on the “carbon” scare continues unabated.

    The UN adamantly refuses all requests for an outside audit. Their accounting is completely fabricated, and amounts to false advertising. As the Oil For Food scam showed, the great majority of funds sent to the UN ends up in the pockets of their pals.

    Little of the $trillions that have gone through the UN has done any good for ordinary folks. Where are the UN-built bridges, airports, dams, roads and factories? There are none. The money has been stolen, using excuses like “Millennium Development Goals”, which develop nothing but the bank accounts of UN functionaries.

    Making the UN a central issue in the 2012 election would raise the ire of hardworking Americans, when the spotlight is put on how much of their money is being taken – and where it ends up. Cancun, Copenhagen and Bali are just a few of thousands of examples of self-serving scoundrels living high on the hog at the expense of taxpayers. If it were put to a vote, the UN would likely be cut off. We can send our tax money directly to people in need if we wish, without having the UN thieves pocketing most of it. What do we need them for?

  95. That those of us who live with 60 days of -40 Celsius winter are going to do without energy so some mythical tipping point can be reached 20 years later is absolute madness. Neither Canada nor Russia will EVER accept such as it also would equate to political suicide. Its the very reason the Liberals in Canada went down in flames. Global greenie goodness and wealth redistribution will never be a working sales pitch in any FREE country. Case closed.

  96. “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.”

    Gee, what an ignorant statement. But he knows that. Political ground gained by blaming oil,….etc. The truthful version should be: Obviously, the poor and middle class of the entire earth will not be enthusiastic about this.”</

  97. SouthAmericanGirls ,

    Surely it is cheap money that leads to bubbles occuring. That they are then triggered by ‘tight money’ ignores the fact that money was previously too cheap for too long.

  98. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.”

    The most dangerous emissions are coming from the warmists, in the form of destructive policy recommendations.

  99. During the last very nasty little war in what my generation always referred to as ‘the Balkans’, a much younger friend volunteered to drive heavy goods vehicles in convoys carrying much-needed food and medical supplies to war-riven communities there; he returned with absolute contempt for the UN staffers, who, he felt, were growing fat on the misery of others and who frequently hindered the efforts of various national peace-keeping forces to do good works. The UN may have had honest motives and good intentions once upon a time, but any of those qualities attributed to today’s UN seems like a fairy story from long ago and far away..

  100. Mike Haseler says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:15 am
    “so it would seem economic growth is impossible without energy growth and as thing like solar panels are unenerconomic (On average they use more energy in manufacture than they give out in their lifetime), such things will never grow the economy!”

    Solar panels produce a net energy gain after about 10,000 hours of peak production. In Germany, we have about 780 hours of peak production per year; so it would take 13 years to pay back the energy. In sunnier climates, this would happen 2 to 4 times faster depending on your sun hours. Energy needed to create the electronics not included; energy expended for maintenance and replacement parts (electronics, not solar panels – the panels are pretty durable) not included.

    So, a complete installation might well consume more energy for its creation than it produces in 20 years. It depends on many factors – personally, i see no reason to deploy this technology now; it’s still too little gain.

  101. “Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas.”

    I was so stunned to learn that there was no economic growth or rich people before the widespread use of mineral hydrocarbons that I was unable to keep reading.

  102. Mr Vince Causey:

    I am not denying that LOOSE money may trigger bubbles, but I am making a correction and I am stating that TIGHT money seems to trigger bubbles because I still want to see a bubble that was triggered by LOW interest rates.

    Where was the cheap money before the 1929 Dow Jones bubble if there was very tight money for several years, since after 1925 big industrial countries were entering the gold standard greatly increasing the value of gold and bringing “tight” money?

    Which bubble was triggered by LOW interest rates? I Just want to see examples. Why Latin America never had zillions bubbles when it had all those ridiculous loose money policies and crazy inflations?

    The Standard & Poors 500 bubble started EXACTLY when they started “tightenning” in 1995, see any LOG chart and you will see it.

    House prices started to increase around 1997, just see a LOG chart, already TIGHT money was there.

    Hayek OBLITERATED libertarianism with his nonsense theories, because he was unable to understand the causes of the Great Depression and that made fascist Keynes theories become mainstream. It is crystal clear that there was “tight” money at least since 1925. I posted Robert Mundell Nobel Prize Lecture explaining that.

    Cheers

  103. Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

    When you begin with false assumptions it is impossible to find the truth. Of course, there is also the fact that these people are not interested in the truth.

  104. SouthAmericanGirls,

    “Which bubble was triggered by LOW interest rates? I Just want to see examples.”

    The housing bubble 2003 to 2007.

  105. “The Standard & Poors 500 bubble started EXACTLY when they started “tightenning” in 1995, see any LOG chart and you will see it.”

    Generally, there is a stock market correlation with interest rates, but not in the way you describe. The stock market is generally weak when interest rates are advancing and usually strong when the interest rates are declining. When the general trend of interest rates was up, between 1965 and 1981, the stock market was fairly flat. However, post 1981 as rates began moving down, the stock market advances strongly: 1981 to 1998 was one of the biggest ever secular bull markets, and interest rates came down from 17.5% to between 3 and 5 %.

    Of course, there are up down movements in both the market and interest rates, and on short periods it can look as if the stock market is moving up with interest rates, but over decadal time scales this is not the case. Economic theory should also cast doubt on the idea that high interest rates are good for stocks. If interest rates go up, it becomes more expensive for firms to borrow, and the cost of capital rises. Investment tends to come out of riskier assets into higher yielding bonds.

    The 1929 expansion was on the back of loose money. If money was tight, as you suggest, then retail investors would not have been buying stock on 10% margin. That is the sort of thing that happens in a low interest environment.

    In the early 90’s, Alan Greenspan lowered rates while monitoring consumer prices as indicators of inflation. The fed ignored bubbles in the stock market that was caused directly by an inflationary monetary policy. When the dot.com bubble burst, they lowered rates even more and the housing bubble resulted. The fact that interest rates where higher in the 90’s than post dot.com bubble may have led you to conclude that the nineties where a period of tight money. But that is only relative.

  106. Of course the UN IPCC program is designed to redistribute wealth. The problem is that redistribution seems to end when the wealth gets into the hands of the global oligarchs, NGOs and rent seekers. The poor nations will remain impoverished. The entire AGW alarmism scam is the tool used to syphon the wealth of the world into the hands of the most ambitious and dangerous criminal enterprise in history.

  107. Dunno if anyone is interested, but at this link I made three (not extremely structured) comments on the roots of this issue, which may also holds prerequisites to tackle it:

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/17/postdam-institute-foe-climate-impact-research-global-warming-could-cool-down-temperatures

    I’ve seen prof. Schellnhuber — in a presentation by syndicalists — state that AGW is to 90 — or 95 — percent social politics (saved somewhere in my kompjuter…).

  108. I listened to an interview on the radio a few days ago. It would appear that China has been printing money to keep its currency cheap. I thought there was a story in this, not so those on the radio. A quick google found this from 2006

    http://cij.inspiriting.com/?p=42#

    Printing the Yuan and buying Dollars, then lending it back to the American people. Thats what I call a redistribution plan.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11797026

    It’s likely to give them an inflation problem though.

  109. Oh, come on, Ottmar Edenhofer, quit pussy footin’ around. Tell the whole truth:

    ‘And in private sessions, the world’s super elite will discuss how global wealth distribution will result in massive depopulation, hopefully around 90%, thus resulting in the return of feudalism – our favorite form of governance and ultimate goal.’

  110. galileonardo says:
    November 18, 2010 at 9:08 pm
    Bingo, despite some of the protests I see. I was reading through the comments waiting for someone to point out what is the real goal of the global governance/redistribution agenda. The agenda isn’t about helping the poor. It is about the effort to “make sure there is not another United States.” I wrote about this at length a while back on The Air Vent (thanks Jeff): ….
    ________________________________________________________
    Thanks for pointing out what I was going to say.

    I would like to add that the REAL redistribution is from the poor to the very wealthy. For example the Grace commission report to President Regan found:

    “Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

    Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

    * One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

    * Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.

    * With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

    Here are a few other key points to remember every time you see a politician create more bureaucracy:
    As Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada stated:

    “That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created… “

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm

    In contract law (U.S. Universal Commercial Code) a contract (mortgage) is null and void if there is no exchange of “consideration” (value) or if the exchange of “consideration” is vastly unequal.

    As legal precedence has shown in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure. The judge, Justice Mahoney stated:

    “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.” http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php

    THIS establishes that the banks have no moral, contractual, or legal right to collect the debts they have created out of nothing! So where the HECK has the money (wealth) come from and to WHOM is the debt owed???

    Luckily better brains than I have pondered that question and came up with the answer:
    From Mises on Money:

    “When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money.

    It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the bankers and the groups most closely connected with them. “ http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north84.html

    This of course is well known among the thieves stealing from us and they make sure THEY get their “just” pay.

    “In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.” http://timelines.ws/subjects/Labor.HTML

    So the next time your Socialist/Communist/Progressive friends bring up the subject of “Redistribution of wealth” you now have the ammunition to show how all the “socialist programs” from FDR’s New Deal on have moved the wealth straight into the bankers and their friends pockets!!!

    Please note that FDR CONFISCATED all gold owned by U.S. citizens and gave it to the Federal Reserve Banks who in turn gave it to the Bank of England (Rothchild)

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Apostle of Irredeemable Paper Money
    SPEECH OF LOUIS T. McFADDEN of Pennsylvania
    In the House of Representatives Wednesday, January 24, 1934.

    “….You see, Mr. Chairman, under this bill the United States Treasury has to pay for the gold. Although the gold belongs to the people and was taken away from their bank deposits and their cash registers and their pocketbooks in the first place and put into the Federal Reserve banks, and although the Federal Reserve banks tricked and fooled the people into giving it to them for Federal Reserve currency, which they now refuse to redeem, and although that gold does not belong to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks, the United States Treasury has to pay the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks for it….

    The gold certificates will give the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks legal title to the gold, and the United States Treasury will be nothing more than its physical custodian. The Secretary of the Treasury will give the Federal Reserve banks gold for their new gold certificates whenever they ask for it. It is a fraudulent transfer.

    When the individual citizens of the United States were required to surrender their gold they were required to surrender their gold certificates as well as their gold coin and bullion. The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are private corporations, but they did not obey the gold orders. They did not surrender any gold coin, gold certificates, or gold bullion. On the contrary, the gold which was commandeered from the people was given to them as a free gift, … “ http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/fester/mcfadden-exposes-fdrs-protocols-gold-swindle

    More on the connections of the bankers and TREASON:
    “Dall, who was married to Franklin Roosevelt’s daughter Anna, …
    portrays the legendary president not as a leader but as a “quarterback” with little actual power. The “coaching staff” consisted of a coterie of handlers (“advisers” like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by “World Money”

    …But FDR advisers Henry Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White arranged for U.S. treasury printing plates to be sent to Russia so the Communists could print their own US money. They arranged $8 billion in lend lease aid to Russia after the war was over. Col. Dall personally confronted Louis Howe over Russian agents he saw meeting Howe in the White House. FDR Advisors as Wall Street Bankers were for supporting Communism and prefered to enrich themselves from wars…. http://hubpages.com/hub/FDR__my_exploited_father-in-law_by_Col_Curtis_Dall

    The infamous and evil IMF and World Bank was formed during FDR reign too.
    “Harry Dexter White: the man behind Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the IMF was a Soviet Spy: Harry Dexter White (1892 – 1948) was an American economist and senior U.S. Treasury department official. He was a primary mover behind the Bretton Woods Conference, the formations of the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund).” http://hubpages.com/hub/Harry_Dexter_White

    And do not forget the author of the Federal Reserve Act was German Banker Paul Warburg. His brother Max funded Lenin and his revolutionaries.

  111. “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”.

    We have even more natural gas and shale gas “under our feet” and we are swimming in oil.

    That’s good news.

    Our only problem is this abundance of fruit cakes who intend to ruin the future of our civilization.
    Fortunately our history teaches us how to deal such an inconvenience.

  112. The quote allegedly from Edenhofer at the top of the article is fake. It has been ‘massaged’ if you will.

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer”

    But also the headline is not a quote from an IPCC official. It does not appear in the interview. Edenhofer did not say it. It is someone else’s take or spin on what he said. This is about learning how to read critically. This means reading past the headline for a start.
    —————
    Mike says:
    November 18, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    The lead quote is fake. Read the interview carefully – though I’d be leery of the translation too. They pasted together some of Edenhofer’s remarks out of context and added a few words out of thin air. This is a propaganda trick. The headline looks like a quote and frames how you read the interview. In fact many readers won’t even read the whole interview but will come away with a false impression. Some of you above have already taken the fake quote and put quotation marks around it. This will spread to other blogs and even op-ed pieces. This is how the propaganda mill works. You are seeing happen. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

    REPLY: The original headline:

    Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu

    The online translation:

    Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.

    Seems OK to me. – Anthony

  113. Let’s look at the German:

    «Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»

    Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ressourcen gehe. Interview: Bernhard Pötter

    And compare with:

    IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

    Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

    ——————

    In the original, the headline is not directly attributed to anyone. GWPF added the “IPCC Official:” as though this was direct quote. It is not. “However, it looks like you added the “– Ottmar Edenhofer”. That’s not on the GWPF version. Probably that was an honest mistake. Only you know.

    The German says “Klimapolitik” which is “Climate politics” not “Climate policy.” Climate politics is not, in most of the world, about debating the science – like here. It is about solving the problem. And “Klimaschutz” means “Climate protection” not “Climate policy.” These are subtle differences but they affect the tone. That last sentence should read: “The next world climate summit in Cancún will actually be an economic summit concerning the distribution of the resources. ”

    It is true that purpose of the Cancun summit is not to debate the science. They will assume the overwhelming majority of scientists are correct – as they should – and instead discuss economic issues like who should pay for adaptation measures in poorer countries. And if there is a price on carbon then the net wealth of coal and oil reserves will decrease and the value of nuclear power plants with incraese. These are important matters on which reasonable people can disagree (and I’m sure will). But, saying the purpose of the summit is to redistribute the world’s wealth is putting a great deal of right leaning spin on it.

    The interview itself was interesting a worth reading. I do wish I had the time to check the entire translation for accuracy and “interpretative license.”

    —–
    BTW: It you want to read something interesting check out the December issue of The Atlantic.

    Dirty Coal, Clean Future

    To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The good news is that new technologies are making this possible. China is now the leader in this area, the Google and Intel of the energy world. If we are serious about global warming, America needs to work with China to build a greener future on a foundation of coal. Otherwise, the clean-energy revolution will leave us behind, with grave costs for the world’s climate and our economy.
    By James Fallow

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/dirty-coal-clean-future/8307/

  114. Thanks SO much, Smokey (and, to Jimbo and Douglas, of COURSE to Anthony for providing this site for all of us to gather… and to ALL OF YOU, at other times ~ ’cause when I think I’m surrounded by Village Idiots, I come here, read your comments and am once again inspired to keep believing in humanity.)

    I’m also gonna keep prayin’ for Mr. George Schwartz AND even that non-American Barry Soetoro, or whatever Soros wanted his name to be, (and I’ll be smoking, while I do it!) ~

    I smoke Winfield Reds right now, at least while here in Australia… I ‘saw’ on the pack about a year ago, that around the logo where these words: “FORCE NO FRIEND ~ FEAR NO FOE” ~ so, that in itself, inspired me to keep buying them! (warm truthful smiles) But, now with ‘Greenies’ labeling efforts, they’ve taken away the words, but they’re still in my heart, regardless.

    P.S. Guys……… I loathe being crude, but my background pre-Jesus was pretty intense, (I’ve been forgiven MUCH MUCH MUCH) and if ANYONE wants to ‘view’
    the ‘essence’ of the GREEN MOVEMENT the only thing they need to see ~ (but, I’d advise a WHOLE LOT OF PRAYER BEFORE YOU DO) is to rent the movie “THE
    GREEN DOOR” (it’s awful, it’s wickedness in it’s basest form) and you will see that this is ALL ABOUT evil and masking it. After watching it, you’ll never need to read
    another article or have to wonder about what the top-most “Greenies” are all about.

    While we ‘reduce’ ‘reuse’ and ‘re-cycle’ they’re behind us ~ laughing at how we’re such ‘Sheep’……… BUT, they don’t yet ‘see’ that SOME OF GOD’S SHEEP WERE JUST LIKE THEY WERE and we’ve learned to be as wise as serpents while maintaining our innocent dove-heart natures which He instills within each of us. You don’t MESS with a sheep that KNOWS WHAT’S GOIN’ ON ~ ’cause his SHEPARD WILL WHUP YOUR ASS!!!

    An’ like that little girl on Laugh-In…….I’m sayin': “An’ that’s the TRUTH…”

    C.L. Thorpe ~ a grateful sheep (who tends to over 800 of them in our paddocks)

  115. The Brazen Ones are trying to double down and sweep the table. The odds don’t look good for them, so I don’t know if it’s sheer delusion or if they actually have some hope of pulling it off.

    To the ramparts!

  116. Yawn. 5 years ago I would have thought this impossible. 3 years ago unlikely. 2 years ago likely. 1 year ago, certain.

  117. Woodnfish “Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

    When you begin with false assumptions it is impossible to find the truth. Of course, there is also the fact that these people are not interested in the truth.”

    No, I disagree here – these people actually believe it to be true – and this the frightening aspect of it – ignorant sincerity that is in charge of the world’s governments and bureaucracies. Irrespective of what advances me make in demolishing CAGW, it is all to naught because they are simply ignoring us. They have cut us some slack but that is all, and the program continues as planned.

    Mike’s point about the translation from the German is correct – heck there are some phrases in German (and Dutch for that matter) that have no literal analogs in English.

    Anthony’s work here has simply highlighted the problems institutionalised science always had – mediocrity and its elevation to power. More pointedly it’s scientific incompetence more than anything that is in play here.

    That said, or wrote :-), it’s also due to the phenomenon of cargo-science as defined by Feynman – that aping the scientific method does not necessarily mean you understand the scientific method, especially when you come from a back ground of intellectualism as defined by Thomas Sowell where the power of argument trumps all.

    CAGW happened because that particular science became disconnected from physical reality and stalled itself in a computerised mathematical cul de sac. Heck, despite the falisfiication of Keynesian economics that fallacy is still being used to direct economic policy here in Oz, the US and Europe. So battling on irregardless of the scientific falsification of CAGW is to expected frome the IPCC and its minions. They have talked themselves into believing its true, and act on that assumption.

    This things has not played itself out at all.

  118. brc says: November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm and DCC says: November 18, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    Good points- remains to be seen whether the new Stock Exchange or trade will be used to re-distribute wealth or improve industry for eg Zimbabwe or any other for that matter. In Australia we have the Indigenous Stock Exchange.

    http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/zimbabwe/6582.html

    Gail Combs says: November 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm and Baa Humbug says: November 18, 2010 at 7:17 pm and John Marshall says: November 19, 2010 at 2:59 am
    When is the parable of the fish or any other crustacean for that matter going to remain in the Bible, where it belongs?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mugabes-lobster-and-caviar-binge/story-e6frg6uf-1111118806804

    _____________________________________________________________
    Comment on original article, albeit with no knowledge of the German language

    The parable at the end of interview http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
    Could we the ethics in order to break the gridlock?
    was vaguely familiar …………………..
    ‘The Alchemist’ Paulo Coelho (originally O Alquimista, published in Portuguese, Brazil 1988)

    The key character, Santiago (Andalusian shepherd-boy) travels to the Egyptian desert in search of treasure. On the way he meets various characters, the main one being The Alchemist. Naturally Santiago learns to speak with the desert, the sun, the wind and so on. And learn of love (Soul of the World), his own Personal Legend and the mystery of the Emerald Tablet (the direct passage to the Soul of the World) which has a code on it.

    The novel writes such gems as ……..’She knows that men have to go away in order to return.’ and ..’Let me tell you what will happen. You’ll be the counselor of the oasis. You have enough gold to buy many sheep and many camels. …..You’ll learn to love the desert and you’ll get to know every one of the fifty thousand palms. You’ll watch them as they grow, demonstrating how the world is always changing…..And you’ll get better and better at understanding omens, because the desert is the best teacher there is.’……. p118-9

    …….’The boy turned to the hand that wrote all. As he did so, he sensed that the universe had fallen silent, and he decided not to speak.’……… p151
    (English version, 1993, Harper Collins Publishers)

    Of course it should be remembered the novel provided mid-way, this parable: ……..’Then during the fourth year, the omens will abandon you, because you stopped listening to them. The tribal chieftains will see to that, and you’ll be dismissed from your position of counselor. But, by then you will be a rich merchant, with many camels and a great deal of merchandise ..’

    I wonder if the poor (thats not in $ but life quality or not) people in Zimbabwe will get something from their own (internal) government?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mbeki-tries-to-stop-zimbabwe-poll/story-e6frg6uf-1111116685770

    But as Coelho writes …‘Sit down. We’ll have something to drink and eat these hawks, said the alchemist. The boy suspected that they were the same hawks he had seen on the day before, but he said nothing…… When a person really desires something, all the universe conspires to help that person to realise his dream…echoing the words of the old king. The boy understood….’
    Isn’t that consensus?

    PS Someone has been busy on wiki with Mugabe.

  119. Re Bill Illis says:
    November 18, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    You are correct Bill, but the reality is they take the money and “claim” how it reduced emissions, while developing ever more fossile fuel energy production.

  120. Socialists always redistribute wealth to themselves and “equalize” things by pulling the top down rather than by raising the bottom up thereby creating a wealthy class of those who are politically connected and a huge lower class and avoiding the creation of, or destroy an existing, middle class. “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he will never be hungry again”. Look at all the millions of dollars that have been “given” to Haiti and they are still poor. I thought that we had thrown socialism on to the trash heap of history long ago. Where do these idiots come from?

  121. Jim G says: November 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
    Look at all the millions of dollars that have been “given” to Haiti and they are still poor. I thought that we had thrown socialism on to the trash heap of history long ago. Where do these idiots come from?

    =========================

    Years ago, just after the Berlin Wall came down, a friend of mine – a socialist who was doing pretty well in banking at the time – told me that now false socialism had been exposed, we could now move onto real socialism.

    Right, so we’d had decades of socialist experiments of various sorts which had ended in ruin and cost millions of lives, but these weren’t proper socialism and it was time to carry out a new variation on the theme……….

    This is the same. Is anyone being asked if they want their wealth redistributed? Of course not. This particular scheme has had to be done under the lie of CAGW. Is there any evidence that chucking money at the Third World has done anything but harm, as in the Haiti example?

    But, here we go again. I don’t think it’s so much stupidity as a streak of human nature which starts movements which begin as altruistic and which quickly turn into something which is self-serving, wasteful, dangerous and counter-productive.

  122. It is not called Eco-Socialism for no reason at all, it is because the discourse has been switched from outright ‘Wealth Redistribution’ to ‘Saving The Planet from X Crisis’.
    However the fact remains the same, it is a spin-off of Socialism.
    The Taxation goes to several interested parties; fund the third world countries for their vote in UN and COP15/16, fund the Institutional Investor Group for Climate Change (IIGCC) led by Goldman Sachs (USA and Australia), provide provide capitalists for the contracted solar/wind/geothermal infrastucture (Siemens), provide returns on investment by having the funds lent to governments (Deutsche Bank), allow corrupt ‘scientists’ a career path as advisors, investors and consultants in corporate, think-tanks and government agencies.

    Socialism or a comprehensive system of corruption and exploitation?

    The Carbon Tax which is supposed to be the Solution is but the tip of the Global Warming’s Iceberg; it is meant to fund several layers of finance, infrastructure, institutional funds, energy trade, regional integration, free movement of labour and much more.
    It goes by the names of Smart Grid, Desertec.org, Global Green Grid, National Broadband Network (the brain rationing power for the smart grid, Kyoto Targets in Australia).
    Without the ETS, Carbon Tax, Price and subsidies the construction of the “renewable” Energy Infrastructure can’t be released thus dashing the plans of economic and eventual political integration as done with the EU’s original coal and steel community.

    The Carbon/Energy Economy has its origins in the 1920’s Technocracy Inc and its system of central planning with the Energy Card, at the time the technology was missing element to bring the plan into fruition.

    http://www.global-green-grid.com/content/content-paie-economics/cb-therollout.html

    http://www.dii-eumena.com/

    http://www.technocracy.org/transition/energy-distribution-card/118-energy-distribution-card

    The Technocratic Origins of the Smart Grid and the Renewable Energy Infrastructure

    http://www.augustforecast.com/2010/03/03/smart-grid-the-implementation-of-technocracy-2/

    The Report on the role of EU, North Africa (NA) and Middle East (ME) project to merge the trans-continental Solar Power, Wind and Geo-thermal Power Grid knowns
    DESERTEC-EUMENA from the Australian Parliament Record Hansard.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/2008-09/MediterraneanUnion.htm#conclusion

    The Union for the Mediterranean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_union

    DESERTEC.ORG from the Club of Rome

    http://www.desertec.org/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSmart_Grid

    http://www.roadmap2050.eu/

  123. JPeden’s assertion that Iran has not abided by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is patently false.

    Under a deal forged with Turkey and Brazil, Iran would hand over 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey. In exchange, Tehran would receive further enriched nuclear fuel.

    Iran has repeatedly proposed solutions to assuage fears that it could be developing nuclear capability for means other than power generation. One of these proposals involved handing low-enriched uranium impossible to use for weaponry over to Turkey, which would provide Iran with nuclear fuel in return. But that wasn’t acceptable to those who only get their news from Tel Aviv and its minions in the mainstream media.

    Meanwhile, Israel, a known nuclear superpower getting $30 billion worth of the most advanced fighter jets ever developed just for temporarily delaying the construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, is not even a signatory to the treaty.

Comments are closed.