UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz2fUeVygG2.

The headline in a EU paper of high respect.

A number of EU countries including Germany, Hungary & the UK are all trying to stop the latest IPCC report admitting that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years.

It would appear that their, & the UNs con job is finally falling apart, as some scientists are belatedly growing a back bone, & refusing to go along with the fraud.

Perhaps the scientists are ready to retire, rich on climate research grant money, or perhaps they are no longer prepared watch the destruction of the western world, & their kids future by the UN using the climate fraud.

What ever it is, the IPCC is leaking like a colander as scientists refuse to have the results rewritten falsely by governments who don't like the facts. That they have allowed it in the past is bad, but that they are now standing up against the politicians is great.

Scientists involved with the IPCC have for years rolled over, & let the politicians rewrite the reports, totally ignoring the science, but it looks like they are about to stop that right now.

The politicians may find they have to bring foreword their retirement plans as the scope of the con job starts to unfold.

I don't think our ABBOTT can claim responsibility, but as the first Polly with the guts to sack a "climate commissioner", effectively saying out loud, climate change is CR4P, has us leading the world. Go Tony you good thing.

Now lets stop building these fool windmills, making companies like General Electrics huge profits, & get back to sanity.

'Go Tony you good thing' ?
Really?

The only reason Abbott does not believe in climate change is because his religion and his invisible god supposedly don't believe in it.
He, and all the far right conservatives, believe that only their god can cause climate change.

As it happens, I don't believe us humans can have any effect on the climate.
There is one certain thing in our world, and that is that the climate has always changed over the years, no matter what us mere humans do or don't do.

I agree that a tax should be put on companies that produce pollution, but not because it causes climate change, but because pollution has a detrimental effect on human health.
.

Hazza, you’re off the planet with this stuff!

You can’t be sure that climate change is some almighty hoax. The chances are, despite the occasional reference you find to indicate otherwise, that it is very real indeed.

And as I’ve said to you a whole bunch of times on this forum: if you are not sure, you should err on the side of caution. Which basically means being on the same side as the ‘warmists’!

You should be supporting all measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewables.

What I don’t get --- and again I’ve put this to you a whole bunch of times without ever getting a meaningful response --- is that you can be concerned about population growth and strongly onside with me on that issue, but not at all concerned about our grossly unsustainable use of fossil fuels… and at an ever-increasing rate!

Even if you think climate change is grossly overstated, you should still be supporting the same things anyway!

That is: we should be developing alternative energy sources and weaning ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels, striving to improve efficiencies, and stopping the demand from ever-increasing.

It would appear that you can appreciate the last of these three basic requirements, but completely not appreciate the others!

IDNC! – it does not compute!

Luddy old mate, it is time for you to come out from behind your self imposed shield, the one you are using to avoid seeing the truth. It is not an occasional reference, but every meaningful bit of research to appear in some years.

Everything coming from the IPCC, & EAU for years has been nothing but concocted rubbish, trying to defend the no longer defensible. Open your mind, & you can come to no other conclusion. Climategate 2 left nothing for the hoaxers to hang their hat on. Only those who don't want to see this, you included unfortunately, can do a three monkeys act & ignore the facts.

You are too smart to continue this way.

Yes I know you want to use Global warming as a hook to hang your sustainability argument, but that is a mistake. If you want to argue sustainability, do it on it's own strength. Hanging it on a flawed concept, overblown by those who want to use it with another axe to grind, in wealth redistribution, is not going to help your cause.

Global warming is finished. It is still running around, but only like that chook you accidently let go, after chopping it's head off. Associating your dream with it is only going to degrade your concept, to sink along with the fraud.

So mate, have a look at JoNova, WUWT, Tallbloke's Talkshop, & Judith Curry. Argue with them, they won't delete you like warmist sites delete those who query them, then come back & argue with me. You know I'll argue any time.

On that renewables front Luddy, I'm right offside.

Now we definitely know CO2 is not a warming agent, we should use our coal to fuel cheap energy. That & our minerals is about all Oz has going for it.

In fact you would have more chance talking me out of coal with the argument that CO2 is a coolant, rather than having a green house effect. It is used as a refrigerant, & is perfectly capable of conducting heat into the upper atmosphere to be more easily lost. There have been a couple of interesting papers on this effect, & on it's ability to intercept & dissipate quite a bit of the suns radiation. The more honest science on this is about to be heard, & could actually damn CO2 more than the global warming fraud.

I hope I'll be around long enough to see where this all actually goes. I'd really like to know.

When it comes to ethanol & biodiesel, these are a disaster in every way, environmentally, economically & socially, I'm sure you'd agree. They even produce more CO2 than hydrocarbons, so no help to the greenies either.

The only thing wind & solar have been good for has been to enable Obama to slip a few billion of taxpayer money to his Crony capitalist mates without getting locked up, & to make General Electrics even richer. Same huge cost as ethanol & biodiesel, more total pollution than conventional power production, & even more of that plant fertiliser CO2.

So while you could win me on Hydro, & nuclear, the other stuff is just another con, hung on global warming, & about to fall over, as the taxpayer learns how they have been had.

I'm sure we will come up with alternatives, before they are actually needed, & it won't be hot rocks either, although that sounds like a fun way to spend a winter Saturday afternoon. None of the stuff being touted today is anything but pie in the sky, & a good way of separating the poor bloody taxpayer from their hard earned.

There is no suggestion that AGW is a myth, Hasbeen.

Better to read the whole thing. Choose to translate to English at http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

The term "de facto" is in reference to a world economy based around the resultant effect of an emissions offsetting, not the intent of some Fabian plot.

"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. "

Something to add from Ottmar Edenhofer:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-goal-is-to-change-course-not-slow-down-a-588203.html