AGIR:
Yes, and I agree with him. If it makes it easier to understand, you have to first de-couple “climate policy” and “environmental policy”.

For example, the former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull, are ‘environmentalists’. They are also both ‘right wing’ politicians, and both have had very good ‘environmental’ policies.

However, in terms of ‘international climate policy’, both were hamstrung by their country’s non-ratification of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. The USA is now the only other country (out of 190+) that hasn’t. At the time, both Turnbull and the ‘Guv’ pressured their national leaders/parties to ratify, both failed.

In terms of “international climate policy”, Edenhofer just confirms that political, economic and socio-cultural ideology will decide how the world adapts to, and makes provisions for, a changing climate – whether you (or anyone else) believe in AGW or not. In other words, the world (well, except for a few intransigents) has moved on from the science (WG1) and are focusing more on adaptation and mitigation (WG2 and WG3), see

http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/WoSES

Sure, the UNFCCC conferences are ‘highfalutin’ gabfests - made up of government and business representatives, lobbyists of all sorts, ngo’s, environment organisations, religious groups of all sorts, etc. To my mind, Edenhofer is just stating the bleeding obvious - all member states accept global warming is real and that ‘Man’ has played a significant role. What they don’t accept (hence the ‘beef-ups’ and virtual ‘free-for-all’) is;

1. What should be done (e.g. adaptation, mitigation, both)

2. Who should do it (e.g. us/them, developing/developed, everyone)

3. When to do it (e.g. now, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, whenever)

Moreover, it doesn’t take the sharpest pencil in the pack to realise that the bean-counters tagging along to these ‘fun-in-the-suns’ want to know how is ‘it’ going to be paid (e.g. carbon tax, cap-n-trade, ETS, etc).

Summary? I think it strange that some people find Edenhofer’s statements so off the planet – he is an economist after all. Check him out here:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh

AL,
Yes we have heard all these arguments from you before and yes the whole AL Gore thing has a bad smell. But come on, it does not take a climate scientist to see we are killing the planet with our stupidity.
I do agree that mostly government are barking up the wrong tree, but the real solutions are not acceptable to modern society.
We want profit at any cost and a rising standard of living no matter who we must hurt to do it.
You are clearly an intelligent person, so instead of destructive and negative comment give us some positive directions to head to help the planet.

AGiR, The real test of the impact of this “news” will be to see if it appears on the ABC?

Has anyone seen anything about it in our media at all?

Maurice Newman of the ABC this week criticized the media for “group think” and that the “science is not settled”. Not much evidence of the lightning strike on the road to Damascus.

I just love the way the warmers are dealing with their pain, they respond with anger, rejection, deconstruction and reinterpretation.

Armstrong/Green in their paper on “Public Alarm Phenomena” described perfectly the decline of these phenomena and the horrendous cost legacy they leave our economies.

What is it they say about reality? It bites

Wish I could devote a complete post to each of you... sadly.. I, like Labor and the Greens..am on the 'run' with work :(

Pericles.. your analysis would possibly hold IF... not for this:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." (Edenhofer)

Wobbles.. re Beck I said "I COULD"...but didn't. didya notice that ?
In any case..I never quote 'Becks' opinion..but I'll happily quote sources he refers to.(after checking them)

Do we need to put the brakes on exploitation of the limited earthly resources? of course..but we can do that withOUT a socialist conspiracy to use such issues for world domination. (scary face look)

To all.. it is without doubt that this particular 'round' of using Climate change as an ideological stealth bomber to destroy our freedom, (just like the last time) is nothing more than a progressive/socialist PLOT! there..I said it..now you can call me a whacko :)

The PLOT is for implementation of the Marcusian/progressive/Socialist agenda of:

-Destroying the Nuclear family.
-Redistributing wealth by force from the haves to the have not's.

Unforunately the "have-not's" are seldom asked IF they want the types of changes (like the feminist agenda in traditional societies) that progressives think they need.

The Labor/Green/Watermelon brand will become increasingly TOXIC as I and others continue to expose their machievellian/marcusian/Marxist red underbelly. (hi 5 arjay :) kidding.

Spindoc
I tried to find where Maurice Newman (ABC) said that THIS WEEK. I know he said it last March - but this week? Can you provide the link please?

As to "the real test of the impact of this “news” will be to see if it appears on the ABC?"

Not much impact at all really, imo.

Ok, both you and AGIR think Edenhofer’s statements are "news" - others say he is only stating the obvious.

For what it's worth, I think the real news will be focused on Cancun, Mexico - as we speak.

AGIR
It is disturbing that you still keep banging on about "climate change ... is nothing more than a progressive/socialist PLOT". You obviously have nothing to say in response to:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4137#10334

I should not be surprised - now, am off to work again.

bonmot, << I tried to find where Maurice Newman (ABC) said that THIS WEEK.>>

See two articles in The Weekend Australian last weekend and the transcript is current on the ABC radio website. (Why on there??) When are we going to see this covered on ABC News, the 7:30 Report or ABC 24hr News?

You also say <<Ok, both you and AGIR think Edenhofer’s statements are "news" - others say he is only stating the obvious.>>

This is an interesting comment and raises some serious issues about your thinking. The AGW debate has been soured by those who insist on excluding, trivializing or attacking anything from any source that is contrary to their belief. The compliant media censors contrary (damaging) news on the topic and the warmers seek to dismiss contrary information.

You tell us that this item may be news to “others” but it has not much impact at all really and is just stating the obvious.

“Obvious” to you perhaps, but to “others” it may be a significant item of news upon which they may chose to form their own opinions, if that’s OK with you and the ABC of course?

I would like to continue sourcing my news from all available outlets, with the broadest possible opinion base, to assign my own judgment on balance and value, to research my own data from wherever I chose and, heaven forbid, to actually form my own opinion.

Some might suggest that when they need a puffed up ideological toady to do all this for them, they’ll give one a call.