UN Climate Summit no longer about science!

[skookerasbil]

This is a complete joke. For the upcoming global climate summit, look at these frauds are pulling..........

The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.

As usual......ensures that none of the real climate scientists show up!! The whole shit is rigged......only members of the religion contend this is legit!!!


Meanwhile, yet another study completed indicating no global warming for 19 years >>>


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years


nO wArMiNg

 

[skookerasbil]

You know.....you really have to have serious issues to think even for a second that the UN Climate summit isn't anything except a play for global wealth redistribution. That is all its about......that is all it has ever been about.

 

[skookerasbil]

Seems the members of the religion passed on this thread.......always pass on the ones that make the religion look.......lol.......like a religion!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.​

"According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

This pretty much sums up what its all about... Wealth Redistribution and populace control.. The goals have not changed from the Cancun gathering... same shit different day!

Source​

 

[Crick]

So are you suggesting that Edenhoffer found that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th centure is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" BECAUSE he wants to redistribute the world's wealth? It certainly seems that you are.

Now, could you explain HOW he could accomplish this feat? He was most certainly not the SOLE author of AR4 and only the co-chair of WGIII on AR3. You'll need to explain how he got a falsehood past several hundred (actually, more like thousands) other scientists and government experts. Explain how he falsified the reams and reams of peer-reviewed studies, published in dozens of journals, completely outside the IPCC or its purview, that the IPCC uses in the compositions of its reports.

Ottmar Edenhofer is not a climate scientist. He's an economist. Have you ever heard the phrase "When all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like nails"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So are you suggesting that Edenhoffer found that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th centure is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" BECAUSE he wants to redistribute the world's wealth? It certainly seems that you are.

Now, could you explain HOW he could accomplish this feat? He was most certainly not the SOLE author of AR4 and only the co-chair of WGIII on AR3. You'll need to explain how he got a falsehood past several hundred (actually, more like thousands) other scientists and government experts. Explain how he falsified the reams and reams of peer-reviewed studies, published in dozens of journals, completely outside the IPCC or its purview, that the IPCC uses in the compositions of its reports.

Ottmar Edenhofer is not a climate scientist. He's an economist. Have you ever heard the phrase "When all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like nails"?

Ottmar's own admission is paramount, that the whole scheme is about wealth confiscation and redistribution by using a lie called Global Warming to gain control over fossil fuel use. My 7th grader was able to discern that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.​

"According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

This pretty much sums up what its all about... Wealth Redistribution and populace control.. The goals have not changed from the Cancun gathering... same shit different day!

Source​

I gotta tell you something funny. I only came to this thread because I saw your screen name, and wondered what a BillyBob would be doing in the environment section. I realized immediately that I was stereotyping and felt bad about that.

And sure enough, here you are using The Blaze as your source for environmental issues. LOL! Isn't that funny?

 

[Carla_Danger]

So are you suggesting that Edenhoffer found that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th centure is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" BECAUSE he wants to redistribute the world's wealth? It certainly seems that you are.

Now, could you explain HOW he could accomplish this feat? He was most certainly not the SOLE author of AR4 and only the co-chair of WGIII on AR3. You'll need to explain how he got a falsehood past several hundred (actually, more like thousands) other scientists and government experts. Explain how he falsified the reams and reams of peer-reviewed studies, published in dozens of journals, completely outside the IPCC or its purview, that the IPCC uses in the compositions of its reports.

Ottmar Edenhofer is not a climate scientist. He's an economist. Have you ever heard the phrase "When all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like nails"?

I'm surprised they aren't going to their car mechanic for surgical procedures. Maybe I should open a weekend clinic. LOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.​

"According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

This pretty much sums up what its all about... Wealth Redistribution and populace control.. The goals have not changed from the Cancun gathering... same shit different day!

Source​

I gotta tell you something funny. I only came to this thread because I saw your screen name, and wondered what a BillyBob would be doing in the environment section. I realized immediately that I was stereotyping and felt bad about that.

And sure enough, here you are using The Blaze as your source for environmental issues. LOL! Isn't that funny?

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody who thinks that in 2014 the UN is legit has a plate in their head OR is a complete phoney. Its one or the other.

 

[Crick]

When did they abrogate the charter?

 

[Crick]

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Did they happen to report how Edenhofer was able to subvert a process involving thousands of reviewing scientists, to falsify thousands of peer reviewed studies and fatally compromise the integrity of officials from 114 nations?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Did they happen to report how Edenhofer was able to subvert a process involving thousands of reviewing scientists, to falsify thousands of peer reviewed studies and fatally compromise the integrity of officials from 114 nations?

You mean the process where the politicians of the group rewrite the policy no matter what the facts are?

 

[Carla_Danger]

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.​

"According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

This pretty much sums up what its all about... Wealth Redistribution and populace control.. The goals have not changed from the Cancun gathering... same shit different day!

Source​

I gotta tell you something funny. I only came to this thread because I saw your screen name, and wondered what a BillyBob would be doing in the environment section. I realized immediately that I was stereotyping and felt bad about that.

And sure enough, here you are using The Blaze as your source for environmental issues. LOL! Isn't that funny?

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Alarmists and low information voters...

I see you have your catchy catch phrases and buzz words down pat. You've got everything but actual information from reputable scientists.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

So are you suggesting that Edenhoffer found that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th centure is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" BECAUSE he wants to redistribute the world's wealth? It certainly seems that you are.

Now, could you explain HOW he could accomplish this feat? He was most certainly not the SOLE author of AR4 and only the co-chair of WGIII on AR3. You'll need to explain how he got a falsehood past several hundred (actually, more like thousands) other scientists and government experts. Explain how he falsified the reams and reams of peer-reviewed studies, published in dozens of journals, completely outside the IPCC or its purview, that the IPCC uses in the compositions of its reports.

Ottmar Edenhofer is not a climate scientist. He's an economist. Have you ever heard the phrase "When all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like nails"?

You are truly Naive if you believe the IPCC process at the UN was EVER ascientific effort. The science section was a rented afterthought of every report. Policy makers had overwhelming representation on the press releases and the BULK of the product. Economists, political scientists and social justice hacks had equal contributions to the reports. The technical section was just something they bought to give validity to the recommendations and whining. The technical section HAD to meet their their political aspirations and goals. Quite corrupt and nefarious way to FORCE a scientific outcome...

 

[Billy_Bob]

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.​

"According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”

This pretty much sums up what its all about... Wealth Redistribution and populace control.. The goals have not changed from the Cancun gathering... same shit different day!

Source​

I gotta tell you something funny. I only came to this thread because I saw your screen name, and wondered what a BillyBob would be doing in the environment section. I realized immediately that I was stereotyping and felt bad about that.

And sure enough, here you are using The Blaze as your source for environmental issues. LOL! Isn't that funny?

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Alarmists and low information voters...

I see you have your catchy catch phrases and buzz words down pat. You've got everything but actual information from reputable scientists.


.

To funny; Thanks for proving me right.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Did they happen to report how Edenhofer was able to subvert a process involving thousands of reviewing scientists, to falsify thousands of peer reviewed studies and fatally compromise the integrity of officials from 114 nations?

You mean the process where the politicians of the group rewrite the policy no matter what the facts are?

High Five me Bro !!!!

 

[Crick]

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Did they happen to report how Edenhofer was able to subvert a process involving thousands of reviewing scientists, to falsify thousands of peer reviewed studies and fatally compromise the integrity of officials from 114 nations?

You mean the process where the politicians of the group rewrite the policy no matter what the facts are?

The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.

And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well if you were smart enough to find out the blaze did infact report on it, then you would find also that its source was a German news paper who did the interview (NZZ). Funny how you really do stereo type things instead of looking at the relevant facts. I find this common with Alarmists and low information voters. Had you done any research you would have also noted that The NY times, Forbes, Washington Post, among many others reported on this as well.

Did they happen to report how Edenhofer was able to subvert a process involving thousands of reviewing scientists, to falsify thousands of peer reviewed studies and fatally compromise the integrity of officials from 114 nations?

You mean the process where the politicians of the group rewrite the policy no matter what the facts are?

The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.

And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.

Missed the point as usual s0n.......

THE story is about how every climate summit invites ONLY climate ringers. If you are a scientists and not part of the "official" religion, you cant get an invite. In other words......its rigged science. Anybody who draws a different conclusion is either 1) a mental case ( thinking its legitimate ) OR 2) A phoney fraud. ( knows its rigged but acts like its not ).



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor2.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Dominating