Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have lost all credibility and you demonstrate that you are not a scientist nor can you hold a civilized discussion based on science.
It's clear to me that moving the goal posts all the while slipping in personal insults and side-jabs is all you can contribute in discussions when you are called out for your inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
No I just don't see any point in chasing my tail with a goal post mover and constant personal attacker as well as a poster who does not have the insights to hold a civilized scientific discussion. I've debunked all of Mircea's nonsense in several of my posts. Thus no need to chase my tail.
You moved the goal post when you quoted a climate nutter blog that used a Straw Man.
Let us review for everyone on Earth to see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montroller
I've already addressed this. Ottmar Edenhofer did not make that statement...
I guess no one read my link so I will post a snippet from it.
We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.'
In the run-up to the COP23 (as in, the 23rd Conference of the Parties) climate talks taking place in Bonn, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) used a quote from German climate policy expert Professor Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to suggest a sinister motive for the United Nations Paris climate deal.
EELI, which backs President Trump’s attempts to withdraw from the deal, wrote that Edenhofer had “affirmed” the Paris agreement, saying in a press release:
Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III, affirmed the scheme: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”
If you search for the phrase “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” you’ll find it repeated over and over on climate science denial blogs and sympathetic conservative media outlets. The link given by EELI goes to a page that also claims Edenhofer had “spilled the movement's dirty secret.”
So where did the quote come from, did Edenhofer say it, and was he really admitting a sinister plan to redistribute the world’s wealth?
The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German. Have you spotted the first problem?
How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? It’s OK. You don’t need to answer. By the way, EELI's Christopher Horner wasn't so keen to answer questions about his coal funding in Paris.
The Straw Man is here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montroller
How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? It’s OK. You don’t need to answer. By the way, EELI's Christopher Horner wasn't so keen to answer questions about his coal funding in Paris.
The "Paris Accord" is not the scheme.
The "scheme" is redistributing wealth from developed countries to developing countries.
Ottmar Erdenhofer's statements have nothing to do with the Paris Accord, they're about redistributing wealth and he says that clearly right here:
Quote:
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.
In fact, this is an expropriation of the countries with the natural resources. This leads to a very different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.
[emphasis mine]
If you have a dispute with the translation, then do tell.
I read, write and speak and I wrote, read and spoke German with Germans in Germany, since I lived there for about 5 years.
Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.
Aber = "but" (a conjunction)
man = one but not in the sense of the number "one" (which is ein, eine or einen as declension requires in agreement with the gender of the noun) rather in the sense of a person
muss = must
klar = clear/clearly (an adverb) as in "Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?"
sagen = say (verb)
wir = we (a personal pronoun)
verteilen = redistribute (a verb) and note that teilen is distribute
durch = through
die Klimapolitik = the climate policy or the climate politics as the case may be
de facto = effectively
das Weltvermögen = the world wealth
um = around (literally in a circle) you might be familiar with the phrase "um die ecke" which is "around the corner" like when people give directions to a place.
Your climate nutter blogger links to the site where the original interview in German can be found here:
I don't think we can do anything about global warming and climate change. It's a byproduct of humans living on the planet. We will create and produce and there will ALWAYS be waste that won't decompose and will sit in landfills forever. We will continue to drive gas cars, unless electric ones functioned the same way and as efficiently as gas.
But if money were no issue and imagining that anything was possible, make EVERYTHING recyclable and compostable. Zero garbage whatsoever. Stop making cars to force everyone to ride an electric bus. Airplanes would be electric. Anything but fuel. Waste from factories would be reused.
Or be like "Back to the Future" and use our garbage as energy to power stuff. Talk about the ultimate way to recycle!
You moved the goal post when you quoted a climate nutter blog that used a Straw Man.
Let us review for everyone on Earth to see:
The Straw Man is here:
The "Paris Accord" is not the scheme.
The "scheme" is redistributing wealth from developed countries to developing countries.
Ottmar Erdenhofer's statements have nothing to do with the Paris Accord, they're about redistributing wealth and he says that clearly right here:
[emphasis mine]
If you have a dispute with the translation, then do tell.
I read, write and speak and I wrote, read and spoke German with Germans in Germany, since I lived there for about 5 years.
Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.
Aber = "but" (a conjunction)
man = one but not in the sense of the number "one" (which is ein, eine or einen as declension requires in agreement with the gender of the noun) rather in the sense of a person
muss = must
klar = clear/clearly (an adverb) as in "Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?"
sagen = say (verb)
wir = we (a personal pronoun)
verteilen = redistribute (a verb) and note that teilen is distribute
durch = through
die Klimapolitik = the climate policy or the climate politics as the case may be
de facto = effectively
das Weltvermögen = the world wealth
um = around (literally in a circle) you might be familiar with the phrase "um die ecke" which is "around the corner" like when people give directions to a place.
Your climate nutter blogger links to the site where the original interview in German can be found here:
"How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)?"
The IPCC was formed in 1988.....Edenhofer was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007. Edenhofer served with the IPCC from 2004 to 2008.
Edenhofer's quote.... “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”...
....was 3 years after he helped author the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report
The UN/IPCC is all about "climate policy" and nothing else....
When Edenhofer said that...it had everything to do with the UN/IPCC
.................................it had nothing to do with the Paris Accord..
The UN/IPCC will redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy....
...and he was 100% right....that is exactly what they are doing
What's the proper term then? I still have time to edit. I was thinking proponent but that implies they want global warming. I'm supposing that they don't want it, they are alarmed by it, and want to find a solution.
And for the record where I stand is that global warming is largely irrelevant because a clean earth is beneficial to all of us, global warming or not.
If you want a clean Earth, then you can't ignore the measurable benefits (more green vegetation) of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
This unique greening benefit of CO2 is provided regardless of what people do to make the planet less green.
More vegetation (i.e., food) will be produced because the atmosphere contains more scarce CO2, aand that benefits plants and animals alike.
There really isn't a down side unless you believe a temperature record more than 100 years old actually exists and that not only can we accurately measure worldwide temperature fluctuation of less than one degree over a period of 1-30 years, but we were actually able to make these same super accurate aggregate temperature measurements more than a century ago.
Apart from having that ability, there is no justification for making a claim like, "Hottest summer in 100 years!", etc.
Since the very small changes in surface temperature variation cannot really be measured on something as vast and complex as the Earth, and since no real temperature record predating the satellite era has ever existed, claims of a 1-2 degree temperature swing over a century is a fairy tale.
Given the proven benefits of CO2 and the complete lack of any verifiable side-effects (i.e., warming), the solution to climate change is simply more CO2.
The County of Maui Planning Department (which issues building permits) requires that new construction must have shoreline set-backs and an EIS that accounts for sea level rise: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-...e-in-the-sand/
We have a good friend here who is a RE agent. She has told us that clients looking to buy are more cautious about shoreline property and that they sit on the market longer. The market being what it is, I am sure there are deniers who think it is their lucky day and will buy such shoreline property. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't start whining when the ocean is lapping at your back door.
for the past +100 years the rate of sea level rise in Hawaii has not changed....global warming has had zero effect of the rate of sea level rise in Hawaii
...the rate of sea level rise is exactly the same before global warming....as it is after global warming
...the rate of sea level rise in Hawaii is 1/2 inch a decade......5 inches a century....0.49 ft in 100 years
If it's true, we're ****ed anyway unless every country in the world reduces emissions by 99% by 2045ish, which quite frankly isn't happening. America will survive and Canada (we may just invade them), Russia (China just may invade them), the British Isles, and the Scandinavian countries will thrive. Everyone else probably won't do so well. IMO it's best to let Mother Nature to sort things out, survival of the fittest. The earth will fix itself. This could be the most significant evolutionary event for humanity since the Toba event. The last thing you want is half baked measures that don't fix the problem and just prolong the pain and damage done to the earth.
Last edited by TylerJAX; 07-18-2019 at 07:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
