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

[rdean]

Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.

Only 6% of Rdean posts are worth the electrons killed in the process of making it; this is not one of them

 

[boedicca]

Yep.

Green is the New Red.

 

[boedicca]

I've known this and have been saying so for a long time.

It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.

Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?

Well, Tax definitely deserves blaming for accurately quoting and bringing the remark to people's attention.

Obama had just hired a White House Tsar to identify and punish people who do the same thing to him.

 

[The T]

Warmers are EnviroMarxists.

Control freak manipulators...

 

[Oddball]

Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.

"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.

Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?

What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Nope....East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR and IPCC are already doing a good enough job of it all by themselves.

 

[Cuyo]

"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.

What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Nope....East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR and IPCC are already doing a good enough job of it all by themselves.

Well now, that would be a separate discussion, wouldn't it?

At least we agree on what the OP does, and does not indicate.

 

[Oddball]

The words of the interviewee in the OP speak for themselves.

That the the ranks of anthropogenic gullible warming hoaxers and the IPCC have become the home of displaced communists and central authoritarians of virtually every stripe, is instructive as to the overall ends.

 

[The T]

Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.

Son? Yer outta yer league here...

 

[Cuyo]

The words of the interviewee in the OP speak for themselves.

So does that mean we actually don't agree on the implications?

The words 'Speak for themselves?' What do they say?

I believe I summarized what they say (and don't) very well earlier in this thread. Still waiting for anyone to show me where I'm wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" - IPCC

 

[rdean]

Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.

Son? Yer outta yer league here...

I didn't say Republicans redistributed ALL of it, just MOST of it. We all know it to be true.

 

[daveman]

Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.

"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.

Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?

What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. :confused (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)

I think if you'll examine the issue rationally, it's you that's in denial.

 

[daveman]

Hilarious. Republicans already "redistributed" the wealth to the top 3% starting about 10 years ago.

Spoken like somebody who idiotically believes all money belongs to the government.

 

[daveman]

It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.

Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?

Well, Tax definitely deserves blaming for accurately quoting and bringing the remark to people's attention.

Obama had just hired a White House Tsar to identify and punish people who do the same thing to him.

Remember, folks, it's unfair to quote liberals accurately and in context.

 

[daveman]

The words of the interviewee in the OP speak for themselves.

That the the ranks of anthropogenic gullible warming hoaxers and the IPCC have become the home of displaced communists and central authoritarians of virtually every stripe, is instructive as to the overall ends.

Indeed. These people simply can't be trusted with power or policy-making positions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is about the destruction of wealth. You 'Conservatives' had better take a look at the cost of the weather disasters in the last 11 months. And what is happening right now.

 

[Cuyo]

"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.

What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)

I think if you'll examine the issue rationally, it's you that's in denial.

Well gosh, in denial about what, dave?

We don't seem to disagree on what is actually said. I'm just not sure what you think you accomplish by pointing it out.

 

[RWatt]

By wealth redistribution he means if you put a cap on carbon emissions certain countries will be winners while others will be losers.

This part makes it clear this is about climate:
"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."

The implications are:

"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"

 

[Cuyo]

By wealth redistribution he means if you put a cap on carbon emissions certain countries will be winners while others will be losers.

This part makes it clear this is about climate:
"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."

The implications are:

"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"

Well yes, it's obvious what he's saying and Hank Hill knows it. In the industrialized world, carbon emissions = economic growth. When you tax carbon emissions, it's axiomatic that the wealthiest countries will be hit harder than those whose economies are less centered on burning fossil fuels. The result could be described as "Wealth redistribution."

So, again, what the hell exactly do you people think is proven by pointing this out? Does that somehow impeach the science in some way?