The IPCC gets a billboard at Coors field

In a moment of unusual candor, a UN bureaucrat admitted that global warming is really about wealth redistribution.

CFACT shared his statement on a new billboard, right outside the Rockies 50,000+ seat ball park in Denver, Colorado.


CFACT_billboard_climatepolicy

Source of quote: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

About these ads

61 thoughts on “The IPCC gets a billboard at Coors field

  1. This is so brilliant. Made me smile. Way to go, CFACT. :)

    The greenies won’t like it, P Walker, but they can’t stop it. And just think of the crowds seeing this! Delicious!

  2. “One must say clearly that as unaccountable, unelected, grotesquely irresponsible Enemies of the People we of the Global Commissariat will confiscate any ‘wealth’ we can, shovel it to our insatiable Nomenklatura, and call this ‘redistribution’ for the peons’ benefit.”

  3. Thanks Anthony. Ever once in a while I enjoy reading something that makes me smile.

    :)

  4. Let me get this straight – you (America) borrow from the Chinese to pay the IPCC to pay the Chinese and a few other dictators lacking suitable palaces in Africa and other assorted vacation spots? Seems sensible to me! What’s a dictator to do without a beautiful palace?

  5. Glad to see we’re finally starting to fight back with advertising!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    We can’t just blog to win. “Just blog it” is good but not good enough.
    Anyway, the full quote: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” -Ottmar Edenhoffer

  6. TRUTH WILL WIN!

    Thanks for sharing that refreshing example of freedom of speech in action, A-th-y.

  7. The possessive of “Rockies” is “Rockies’ “, just like the possessive of any other word ending in “s”, with the apostrophe following the “s” rather than preceding it’. “Rockie’s” would indicate something belonging to “Rockie”.

    -Grammar Nazi

    [Fixed, thanx. — mod. "Thanx" is right grammar, correcto?]

  8. Some more quotes:
    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. global warming .. would fit the bill…. humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” -Club of Rome
    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, 1973 [way before the agw scare, so they've wanted to do this from the start]
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
    “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of … how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
    “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
    “[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this.” -Rand Paul, Kentucky
    “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.” -Michael Mann, Climategate Email
    “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling C02′” – Reid Bryson, the ‘Father of climatology’

  9. The famous headline in a regional british rag during the WW2 probably takes the prize for editorial cockups.

    “Eighth Army push bottles up Germans”

  10. “…a UN bureaucrat admitted that global warming is really about wealth redistribution.”

    No he didn’t, but you sure got the mouthbreathers all worked up. You really should not get your news from from far right wing nuts. If you read the actual interview, you can see that Edenhofer is saying that moving away from fossil fuels “could” redistribute the world’s wealth (this seemingly modest misquote that you regurgitated, changing what he said from “could” to an implication of “is intended to” does serve to entirely change the meaning, which was the goal, of course). He clearly is not talking about taking wealth from rich people and giving it to poor people, but rather that the ascendency of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq could come to an end. You would think the mouthbreathers would be okay with that, but that won’t stop a few hundred from stopping by and ranting about this false interpretation.

  11. Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific who reject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/30/polite-discourse-shocker.html

  12. Matt Skaggs,

    From the Newsbusters link I read this exerpt,

    (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

    (EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

    (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    (emphasis added)

    1. Are you saying this is an inaccurate reproduction of the interview?
    2. If so, can you point me to a source you consider to be more accurate and explain why that source is more accurate?

    Thanks,

  13. Matt Skaggs, I’ve seen the same quote unchallenged many times. That doesn’t make it true but… do you have any reference to transcript of the interview that would back your version?

    best

  14. Matt Skaggs says:
    July 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Easy now!, don’t get your knickers in a twist, but the quote attributed to Edenhofer says, if accurately quoted, “One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
    That is a pretty unequivocal statement.

  15. problem is…it’s preaching to the choir
    People smart enough to get it….got it already
    …the rest will never get it

  16. So basically, what the UNIPCC wants is a defacto worldwide socialism. Glad they have finally admitted it. Don’t seem to be ashamed about it either.

  17. Janice Moore at 1:31 pm says A-th-y
    lol, but will that get -nt-ony’s attention? And btw thanks the other night for coining the term of PTW or Precision Targeted Weaponry for sharp language wielded against the doomers. I liked that.
    To all: note that my first quote above, of Ottmar, I said was the “full quote” from the billboard, but a closer examination indicates that they are very similar but separate quotes, for what it’s worth.

  18. As far as I’ve been able to figure, this is the german from the original source here ( http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227 ):

    Das klingt alles nicht mehr nach der Klimapolitik, die wir kennen.

    Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

    De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

    Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

    GoogleTranslate gives me this:

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

    Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we do not have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we must settle only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    This is de facto expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

    First time we’ve developed countries the atmosphere of the world community virtually expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by climate policy de facto the world’s wealth around. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. You have to free themselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing.

    Anybody with good German skills able to comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Newsbusters translation?

  19. I like the line after the bold..

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”

  20. “… moving away from fossil fuels “could” redistribute …”

    What he actually said was: “Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.”

    My schoolboy German suggests that means: “But one must clearly say: We redistribute through the climate policy de facto the world wealth around.”

    Not much sign of a “could”.

    Interview: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    Dictionary:http://www.dict.cc/?s=verteilen

  21. Matt Skaggs,

    He clearly is not talking about taking wealth from rich people and giving it to poor people, but rather that the ascendency of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq could come to an end.

    Who here was suggesting that he was talking about ‘taking wealth from rich people and giving it to poor people’? I see that Jim Watson made an ironic joke, I wonder if Edenhofer was including HIS wealth when he made that statement., but other than that there doesn’t appear to be much support for this idea.

    If you agree that nobody here suggested your interpretation, would you further agree that this is a textbook example of a straw man argument?

    For my part (and I expect most readers feel the same way), I understood what Edenhofer was saying. It doesn’t make me feel any better.

  22. Gosh! Why did “Big Oil” (that we all know funds all skeptic endeavors) settle for just a billboard?
    They have the cash to run the quote every 15 minutes on national, no, international TV!

  23. Mark Bofill:
    Yes, I can translate the German:

    “Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.”

    “The industrialized countries have “quasi” expropriated the world’s atmosphere. We must clearly say: we will use climate policy to redistribute the world’s capital.”

    The key point is that he is saying that climate policy will “appropriate” the right to emit GHGs from the industrialized nations and give it to the poor nations. The implication that he is talking about some sort of social engineering is ridiculous.

    I did make a mistake in my previous post, I tried to find the original German and ended up quoting from a different interview. I apologize for that and the associated implication. However, none of Edenhofer’s statements even hint at the interpretation taken by some elements of the right-wing press, that the real purpose of climate policy is to take from the rich.

  24. Matt Skaggs: while accusing this sit of taking things out of context, turns out it was you who took them out of context. The meaning (as far as I can tell) that EDENHOFER was trying to get accross was that the developed countries have already injected lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, so now we owe a debt to the under developed countries. That we should pay them money so that they can develope without themselves havting to inject a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. That sounds really nice. Matt, are you signing up to send them your money?

  25. Matt Skaggs says:

    “…none of Edenhofer’s statements even hint at the interpretation taken by some elements of the right-wing press, that the real purpose of climate policy is to take from the rich.”

    In this instance I can read Ottmar Edenhofer’s mind. Edenhofer is thinking, “we will use climate policy to redistribute the world’s capital.”

    …oh, wait. That’s exactly what Edenhofer said. Explicitly.

    When someone says “redistribute”, the clear implication is that the redistribution will be in spite of those whose wealth is being redistributed. Because if they really wanted their wealth to be redistributed, why should they hand it over to a middleman like the UN? That middleman is just an unaccountable bureaucrat who will pocket his cut. Instead, just ‘redistribute’ it to whomever you want to have it. That is called “charity”, and it is a virtue. But confiscating someone else’s property is a vice.

    It is also no coincidence that the UN has consistently and adamantly opposed any auditing of its finances. We are expected to “trust” them to spend the money wisely, and to make certain that it goes to the intended recipients, and not to the local strongman. Does anyone really believe the UN will do that? Anyone?

    No, the billboard’s message is clear to me, and to most folks: “Climate policy” is a ruse to justify the UN’s socialist wealth redistribution plan. The ultimate target in this case is the wealth of the citizens of the U.S., and the West. Does anyone seriously believe that China and Russia are going to ‘redistribute’ their wealth to Chad, or the Sudan, out of the goodness of their hearts?

    That ‘redistribution’ also does not apply to nomenklatura like Maurice Strong, Mark Cuban, Warren Buffett, various Hollywood stars, and other guilt-ridden hypocrites who have already got theirs, and who now want to cut you loose from your own personal savings and hand it over to the UN, in order for Mr. Strong and the rest to feel like they have done something noble — with your money.

    The answer to poverty is all around us: a free market, with limited government that exists only to provide a level playing field for competitors. The examples abound: South Korea vs North Korea, Taiwan vs the PRC, East Germany [GDR] vs West Germany, etc. If you want a country to become very wealthy, simply follow proven free market economic policies.

    The evil goblins released by the Russian revolution have very successfully used the most objectionable facets of human nature — especially green-eyed jealousy — to stir up resentment against those who have amassed more wealth through hard work and saving. It is true that capitalism results in unequal rewards. But so what? The poorest citizen in America is much better off than the average worker in North Korea — at least Americans don’t have to eat grass for lunch.

    In general, those who have become wealthy have done it the usual way: saving more than you spend, working hard, accepting reasonable risk, avoiding drink and other vices that distract from the goal, working lots of hours, not giving in to immorality, and so on. And countries are no different than individuals: to the extent that a country lives beyond its means, and becomes immoral, it will eventually fail.

    The whole goal of the UN is made clear in Ottmar Edenhofer’s unfortunate [for him] statement. The UN’s unstated goal is to take from those who have, and give it to those who don’t — with the UN taking its hefty cut of the action along the way. The ultimate goal is for the UN to become a super-EU; a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy, intent on ruling the world by an unelected committee. Eventually they intend to eliminate the Security Council’s veto power, and then the world’s 196 wolves will vote, along with the dozen or two rich lambs, on what to have for dinner.

    Thanks, Mr. Edenhofer, for letting the cat out of the bag.

  26. Wealth redistribution in this case means giving from the people who toil to make money to the people who do not (the rich). When has this not been the case? However, we are the ones who pay taxes to the elite. We could not pay or move. I see this happening already in the Northern US and see the fallout (Detroit). Remember, we have feet.

  27. Exactly, Eve. The money shufflers have made a fortune in the “carbon market”, huge subsidies support wind farms, and so on and so forth. And the poor get screwed, as usual.

  28. ” climate policy will “appropriate” the right to emit GHGs from the industrialized nations and give it to the poor nations.”

    That translation is meaningless rubbish, appropriately enough from the Church of Warmingology.

  29. Hey, Eric Simpson, my pleasure. And, SUPER-precision firing of PTW at 1:44 o’clock…………. INCOMING!!!! Re: A-th-y, I think he reads most of the posts, so, when I don’t spell out his name, I hope he will read my compliment and I feel pretty sure he does (or hope a mo-d-er-ator passes it on). I just hate to burden him or the mode-r-ator-s with having to moder- at-e and, as you know writing out the entire A-th-y makes that happen. If I have something really important to tell him, I use his name. My little squeak above seemed too tiny to bother him about it.

    Solid gold, Bofill, Stealey, and Eve (nice to hear from you!) — Mark, you were too kind to that prevaricating guy — but, WAY TO GO with all the refutation of his original post. Stealey, re: that fellow’s second attempt, SMOKIN’!

  30. In a note to Craig Rucker at CFACT, I expressed the concern that the greenies might actually applaud the IPCC message (while ignoring the “stop the hype” line). I hope I’m wrong about this.

    The problem is that a lot of people besides the most active greens do think redistributing wealth is A-OK (never mind that, for example, in slave times the wealth the slaves created was redistributed to their masters), and these as well as the hard greenies will applaud the IPCC’s statement

  31. A further note: so-called “renewable” and “green” energy schemes are in fact devices by which wealth is redistributed from lower income electric ratepayers and taxpayers to rich investors in uneconomic energy projects. Somehow, such schemes always work in the reverse from what they are advertised to do. Transferring resources to poor countries doesn’t change this, because the money will wind up in the hands of the tiny kleptocratic elites in those countries, and none of it will filter down to the general population.

  32. II havn’t seen any real redistribution to the third world. Out of context, the sentence can mean whatever your bias wants. Historically, there have been many organizations that have effectifely redistributed the worlds wealth. A couple that spring to mind are the Roman and British Empires. Now we have global corporations(bigger than governments) All have taken from the poor and given to the powerful (getting richer) elite. Our Australian Govt. takes from the worker and gives to big coal for clean coal research. So I agree with Eve. Big Oil? Big Coal? Nah! The people to be with are BIG CLIMATE.

  33. Matt Skaggs [July 30, 2013 at 3:00 pm] says:

    However, none of Edenhofer’s statements even hint at the interpretation taken by some elements of the right-wing press, that the real purpose of climate policy is to take from the rich.

    But it is the effect of all climate policy as well as almost all policy from “leftist” governments, and even from governments that you cannot bring yourself to call “leftist”.

    As far as being their “real purpose”, in that case you would need to read the minds and hearts of the people involved. Yes, some are actually dumb enough to believe they can affect climate through legislation and have no ulterior motives, and therefore are naive exceptions to the rule. But many, many more are pure Socialists believing the entire purpose of government is to redistribute the wealth of its citizens who that wealth doesn’t really belong to.

    Matt, it sounds like you fear the phantom “right-wing” more than anything else, more than a government ( or worse, an international body ) that can take from one and give to the another ( and most insidiously gaining praise and votes in the process like a twisted Robin Hood ) in a form of legitimatized mob rule.

    This is exactly how Socialists maintain their power even in our enlightened information age. They speak of the right wing boogey man even though the right and left are both wings of the same dangerous bird. People are either free and independent citizens with a limited government that serves at the pleasure of the people, or the inverse where the people are servants of the “government”. If you think their needs to be a compromise between these two methods then you need to do some more thinking.

  34. Matt Skaggs says:
    July 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    ==============
    Allow me to stand among the common for a moment, just this moment.

    Could you please explain what a “mouth breather” is? I may be one. While running, climbing, and biking, and sometimes yelling I may inhale through my mouth. From biology I seem to remember it connects to the trachea and any obstruction could cause asphyxiation. Is there a problem with me?

    Do you have a different bodily orifice through which you speak and breathe?

  35. Edenhofer is a german speaking German, being interviewed by a german language newspaper, very probably read and, if necessary, corrected what he said prior to publication, and now here we are and tell him what he meant to say. Amusing.

  36. psudrozz said:
    July 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    it’ll probably be destroyed in a violent manner.
    probably by someone who considers themselves nonviolent.
    —————————————–
    Well said!

  37. Matt Skaggs says:
    July 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm: You sir are a fool – one of Lenin’s idiots. The others have been much too nice to you. Go stick your head back into the cesspit of “global fanaticism and robbery, all for a good cause”. From this “mouthbreather”: you disgust me with your stupidity.

  38. that statement makes no sense to 75% of the population. dumbed down stupidity needs dumbed down stupidity advertising, to make the dumbed down stupids, realize just what is really being done to them.

  39. Not so much how it says it as where it is saying it… might make COers stop and think. ;-)
    The proximity to ColoradoU (plus huge gov climate hub) is some great news here.

  40. Is there a billboard across the street from the White House? Congress? The EPA? How about Times Square? I’d contribute to put this up in Times Square.

  41. I wish I could tell you which historian made the following remark about the Founders of the United States but I can’t. To the best of my memory his remark was that the Founders were under the sternest of circumstances to design a political system that had to work rather than chopping logic in a university classroom.

    May I respectfully, or perhaps not so respectfully, consider Ottmar Edenhofer as, well, a logic chopper. I have little doubt that a phD university professor who engages in climate (or financial) conferences in Cancun, Mexico, punctuated perhaps by brief stints of bikini clad girl watching, snorkeling, sun tanning, and tropical drink consumption, is not a person who will truly live with the consequences of the enactment of their own theories. Am I being judgmental in speculating about Edenhofer’s activities at this serious conference? Perhaps, but then why was this conference held in Cancun in the first place? To check on white sand beach tropical sea level rise?

    Perhaps needless to say, one of Ottmar’s studies is Sustainability Theory. Another one, however, is fancier. It’s General Intertemporal Equilibrium Theory. What is that? Well, according to the online Business Dictionary it’s:

    ‘The economic theory that believes it is not possible to correctly analyze the equilibrium of the economy from a single fixed point in time. Financial decisions, according to this idea, need to be made by reviewing their influence over extended periods of time.’

    In other words, Ottmar Edenhofer is, just like all the other beachfront conference goers at the IPCC, trying to somehow, magically, mystically, wondrously, supernaturally (ok, enough), predict the future.

    This brings me back to the Founders. They looked back at over 2,000 years of human history to determine what worked and what didn’t. Our dear Ottmar isn’t even willing to look at the present before subjecting us all to an experiment he himself will escape. If he’d bother to look at the past he might just see that his experiment has been done before; several times in fact during the 20th Century. And not with good results.

  42. Gunga Din says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    Gosh! Why did “Big Oil” (that we all know funds all skeptic endeavors) settle for just a billboard?
    They have the cash to run the quote every 15 minutes on national, no, international TV!

    Yeah. Big Oil could have covered the country with thousands of billboards for the past 30 years, via one of those donation-laundering charities. But it didn’t, although such a campaign would have been very effective.

    Here’s a list of other things that would be done if in fact climate contrarians were well organized and well funded:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  43. Those of you have referred to many quotes from Maurice Strong et al, are right of course. However, the object is quite clear in my humble opinion, it is simply to take from poor people in rich countries & give it to rich people in poor countries, after all, the tribal dictators need the money to oppress their inferior tribes who they have hated for generations. Isn’t Glob As for the likes of Strong, he’s a multi-millionaire, of course he’ out for wealth-redistribution, just not his wealth, but other peoples! The vile stench of sanctimonious self-righteous hypocrisy is overwhelming beyond belief – I am filthy rich, therefore you can’t be, I will make sure of it so that my conscience is clear. Isn’t Global Socialism so wonderful? Honestly, how do these bastards sleep at night? Snip at profanity b a m!

  44. ROM says:
    July 30, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    The famous headline in a regional british rag during the WW2 probably takes the prize for editorial cockups.
    “Eighth Army push bottles up Germans”

    Or the one in my local paper, “Start Christmas with a bang in the ladies department”. Advertising feature rather than news item.

  45. What Edenhofer is really saying is: People in rich countries are not using their property and resources responsibly, and so we must take all these property and atmospheric rights away and then redistribute them in a way that is fair to poor regions and compatible with the environment.

    In a nutshell, Edenhofer and his WBGU are attempting to justify the Great Global Heist of the world’s assets…These guys at the WBGU are very dangerous and completely remote of democratic principles as we know them today. They are advocating a policy tyranny (and not one asserted by military power). They have great influence over the UN and the IPCC and my feeling is that North Americans and other industrialized countries are seriously underestimating them.

  46. Unbelieveable audicity. Madness if we allow these scams to continue.

    The leaches in massive bureaucracies are patting themselves on the back for their cushy jobs, to force Western countries to spend trillions of deficit dollars on green scams that do not work and to set up, monitor, and run massive carbon trading schemes that does not work. The result of the scams: no appreciable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions which is not a problem anyway, massive job losses, and higher and higher deficits. Now they want to sign binding deals to force Western countries to be legally required to send billions of deficit dollars to developing countries which after skimming due to corruption will be spent on green scams that do not work.

  47. Now THAT’S a billboard message… (I hope everyone inclined to rent a billboard is paying attention ;-)

  48. A non-violent greenie will excericse his/her freedom of speech by setting fire to it, and thereby ‘sequester’ the CO2 it releases into the atmosphere.

Comments are closed.