Is the AGWCult a "Reality Denier!!!"?

[jc456]

Sad, sad, SAD 57Frank. Context, look into it

I think perhaps you should

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's what he said. So now that he's not some irrelevant nobody expressing his unqualified personal opinion, as you first suggested, you're trying to tell us he said something other than the IPCC is using climate policy to redistribute wealth

WHAT IS WHAT HE SAID?

Again, he never mentioned climate science and he never mentioned the IPCC. Your comment is FALSE Frank. You need to withdraw it or you will be guilty of a willful lie.

Pull your head out of your ass Crick.

Edenhofer was acting in his official IPCC capacity during an interview..

You are one dense piece of fecal material.. The only one lying here is YOU!

 

[Crick]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

 

[Crick]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

But apparently do NOT stand behind the claim to which all my comments have been addressed for the last five or six exchanges:

One of the lead authors of IPCC 4 told us flat out the the AGWCult has nothing in common with science but is a ruse to redistribute wealth.

This statement has been demonstrated a falsehood, Frank. Withdraw it.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion

Show us a quote of me saying such a thing Frank. And he was expressing his personal opinion. The IPCC has a written charter Frank. No where in their controlling documentation is there ANYTHING supporting your ridiculous charges. Edenhofer was expressing his opinion as an economist on how global warming will be stopped by the policies of the governments of the world. Get a goddamned education, Frank. Isn't English your native language? I have to tell you, your frequent failures to understand it make the answer to that question dubious.

and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

In the statement I quoted, he was not describing the IPCC and you're an idiot to think he was.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

Pack it up your ass and jump, Frank. The quote tells us you're a lying piece of shit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you'd only accepted that when it first came out. This long attempt at deflection has made you look as unprincipled as unprincipled could be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

But apparently do NOT stand behind the claim to which all my comments have been addressed for the last five or six exchanges:

One of the lead authors of IPCC 4 told us flat out the the AGWCult has nothing in common with science but is a ruse to redistribute wealth.

This statement has been demonstrated a falsehood, Frank. Withdraw it.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion

Show us a quote of me saying such a thing Frank. And he was expressing his personal opinion. The IPCC has a written charter Frank. No where in their controlling documentation is there ANYTHING supporting your ridiculous charges. Edenhofer was expressing his opinion as an economist on how global warming will be stopped by the policies of the governments of the world. Get a goddamned education, Frank. Isn't English your native language? I have to tell you, your frequent failures to understand it make the answer to that question dubious.

and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

In the statement I quoted, he was not describing the IPCC and you're an idiot to think he was.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

Pack it up your ass and jump, Frank. The quote tells us you're a lying piece of shit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you'd only accepted that when it first came out. This long attempt at deflection has made you look as unprincipled as unprincipled could be.

Edenhofer made it crystal clear what the UN and the IPCC's goals were and you cant run from it or spin it..

YOU LOOSE!!! Your CAGW lie has been exposed..

 

[Crick]

I don't have to do a goddamned thing. I'm the one with the quote. You're the ones with the idiotic fantasy.

 

[jc456]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

But apparently do NOT stand behind the claim to which all my comments have been addressed for the last five or six exchanges:

One of the lead authors of IPCC 4 told us flat out the the AGWCult has nothing in common with science but is a ruse to redistribute wealth.

This statement has been demonstrated a falsehood, Frank. Withdraw it.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion

Show us a quote of me saying such a thing Frank. And he was expressing his personal opinion. The IPCC has a written charter Frank. No where in their controlling documentation is there ANYTHING supporting your ridiculous charges. Edenhofer was expressing his opinion as an economist on how global warming will be stopped by the policies of the governments of the world. Get a goddamned education, Frank. Isn't English your native language? I have to tell you, your frequent failures to understand it make the answer to that question dubious.

and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

In the statement I quoted, he was not describing the IPCC and you're an idiot to think he was.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

Pack it up your ass and jump, Frank. The quote tells us you're a lying piece of shit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you'd only accepted that when it first came out. This long attempt at deflection has made you look as unprincipled as unprincipled could be.

crick, so you highligte that Edenhofer stated that "global warming will be stopped by the policies of the government of the world" And Frank posted what the man stated here:

""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" - Ottmar Edenhofer"

So please explain how he, Frank, is wrong?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

But apparently do NOT stand behind the claim to which all my comments have been addressed for the last five or six exchanges:

One of the lead authors of IPCC 4 told us flat out the the AGWCult has nothing in common with science but is a ruse to redistribute wealth.

This statement has been demonstrated a falsehood, Frank. Withdraw it.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion

Show us a quote of me saying such a thing Frank. And he was expressing his personal opinion. The IPCC has a written charter Frank. No where in their controlling documentation is there ANYTHING supporting your ridiculous charges. Edenhofer was expressing his opinion as an economist on how global warming will be stopped by the policies of the governments of the world. Get a goddamned education, Frank. Isn't English your native language? I have to tell you, your frequent failures to understand it make the answer to that question dubious.

and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

In the statement I quoted, he was not describing the IPCC and you're an idiot to think he was.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

Pack it up your ass and jump, Frank. The quote tells us you're a lying piece of shit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you'd only accepted that when it first came out. This long attempt at deflection has made you look as unprincipled as unprincipled could be.

crick, so you highligte that Edenhofer stated that "global warming will be stopped by the policies of the government of the world" And Frank posted what the man stated here:

""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" - Ottmar Edenhofer"

So please explain how he, Frank, is wrong?

Crick blocks out those pesky facts... because they show him a disingenuous fool and his cult beliefs exposed!

 

[jc456]

I'm the one with the fucking quote marks asshole. The quotes show quite clearly that Edenhofer DID NOT say what Frank has now twice said he did. Unless Frank (or his buddy, Billy Boy) has another quote to show us, FRANK NEEDS TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM.

I stand by my claim that you have changed your story on Edenhofers quote.

But apparently do NOT stand behind the claim to which all my comments have been addressed for the last five or six exchanges:

One of the lead authors of IPCC 4 told us flat out the the AGWCult has nothing in common with science but is a ruse to redistribute wealth.

This statement has been demonstrated a falsehood, Frank. Withdraw it.

First you tell us he's a nobody expressing his personal opinion

Show us a quote of me saying such a thing Frank. And he was expressing his personal opinion. The IPCC has a written charter Frank. No where in their controlling documentation is there ANYTHING supporting your ridiculous charges. Edenhofer was expressing his opinion as an economist on how global warming will be stopped by the policies of the governments of the world. Get a goddamned education, Frank. Isn't English your native language? I have to tell you, your frequent failures to understand it make the answer to that question dubious.

and now you tell us in an interview in his capacity as lead author of IPCC 4 he was not describing the IPCC.

In the statement I quoted, he was not describing the IPCC and you're an idiot to think he was.

They must pay you handsomely to change your stories and damage your already diminished credibility

Pack it up your ass and jump, Frank. The quote tells us you're a lying piece of shit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you'd only accepted that when it first came out. This long attempt at deflection has made you look as unprincipled as unprincipled could be.

crick, so you highligte that Edenhofer stated that "global warming will be stopped by the policies of the government of the world" And Frank posted what the man stated here:

""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" - Ottmar Edenhofer"

So please explain how he, Frank, is wrong?

Crick blocks out those pesky facts... because they show him a disingenuous fool and his cult beliefs exposed!

Thanks, I know.

 

[Crick]

""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"

Crick blocks out those pesky facts... because they show him a disingenuous fool and his cult beliefs exposed!

First: Even in this expanded quote, Edenhofer does not mention the IPCC and does not mention climate science. Thus on that point alone, Frank's interpretation is still FALSE.
Second: The IPCC has no authority to set anyone's policy, concerning transfers of wealth or on any other matter. They can't even set their own; they work under the auspices of the WMO and the UNEP who created them and wrote and maintain their charter.
Third: The UN itself does not have the power to redistribute one penny of anyone's wealth.
Fourth: The term "international climate policy" refers to the climate policies of the world's nations, not the policies of the IPCC

Edenhofer is addressing the fact that a great deal of the world's wealth is tied up or associated with fossil fuels and fossil fuel produced energy. Moving away from that situation will have an effect on the generation and ownership of that wealth. People whose wealth is based on the consumption of fossil fuels will find their assets affected.

And you accuse US of scare mongering.

You people are tiresome.

 

[Dot Com]

""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"

Crick blocks out those pesky facts... because they show him a disingenuous fool and his cult beliefs exposed!

First: Even in this expanded quote, Edenhofer does not mention the IPCC and does not mention climate science. Thus on that point alone, Frank's interpretation is still FALSE.
Second: The IPCC has no authority to set anyone's policy, concerning transfers of wealth or on any other matter. They can't even set their own; they work under the auspices of the WMO and the UNEP who created them and wrote and maintain their charter.
Third: The UN itself does not have the power to redistribute one penny of anyone's wealth.
Fourth: The term "international climate policy" refers to the climate policies of the world's nations, not the policies of the IPCC

Edenhofer is addressing the fact that a great deal of the world's wealth is tied up or associated with fossil fuels and fossil fuel produced energy. Moving away from that situation will have an effect on the generation and ownership of that wealth. People whose wealth is based on the consumption of fossil fuels will find their assets affected.

And you accuse US of scare mongering.

You people are tiresome.

^ that

 

[skookerasbil]

IPCC Expert admits UN goal is Wealth Redistribution Archive - CleanMPG Forums

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/duh.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/duh.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html'][/URL]




God the people on this forum as so profoundly naïve.


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee[/URL][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/mustang-burnout-o.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang Crick......you might be the smartest guy on this forum, but my God, what is up with the insistence on keeping your head in the sand?

To think that these organizations excel in some sort of altruism...........that they are motivated by a real care for the environment.........c'mon s0n....special interests are at the root of ALL of this!!! On all sides, people are getting their wallets padded HUGE!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Green Illusions The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism Our Sustainable Future Ozzie Zehner 9780803237759 Amazon.com Books

 

[skookerasbil]

The big money of environmentalism - CSMonitor.com

 

[skookerasbil]

Is Big Business Buying Out the Environmental Movement Alternet

 

[skookerasbil]

Crick.........the big banks own everybody. They set the market prices. Their goal is to fleece everybody. Me, you, Old Rocks, JC Billy...........this isn't a conservative v liberal thing. That's what both sides think. That's the ruse. Renewables are going to grow but fossil fuels aren't going anywhere for a long, long time no matter what the science says.

21 trillion >> Big Banks Manipulated 21 Trillion Dollar Market for Credit Default Swaps and Every Other Market Washington s Blog

Crick....why do you think that nothing makes sense anymore in the stock market.......in the PM' market? In the energy markets? In the real estate markets?


All this shit is rigged.........most notably energy.

The media meanwhile will keep us all just a bit happy from time to time so we think we are winning.



My only role in this forum is keeping people in Realville on this stuff........which is why I am the most hated forum member. Most people in the world despise confronting real. On a daily basis, Im coming THIS close to putting Mamooth into a psych ward because my posts force her to deal with reality.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here ya go Crick...............outside the rigged media crap = FOX, CNN, MSNBC, networks et. al.

Must bookmarks for those ok with knowing what is really going on. Crick man....we've had the technology for decades now to go far beyond solar and wind. But too many people making big bucks to introduce something innovative. Its called the hard truth!! Banks love their profit margins..........they don't give a shit about the planet................trust me!!


Our energy policy in this country is not going to change anytime soon. 0% chance.

Washington s Blog - Business Investing Economy Politics World News Energy Environment Science Technology Washington s Blog

Zero Hedge On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

Probably waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much real for most. What can I say......I like my feet firmly planted on the ground every single day. Call me a party pooper!!