He wasn't going to allow the witness to filibuster. How many times you need me to say it? Who cares what you think about what he did. Why is it you think only your view is the most important? Are you going to change what he did? no. And yet you're in here arguing that to which you have no argument. He said it out loud he wasn't going to allow the individual to filibuster. His words.
What is lacking is ANY evidence that Buttigieg was going to do that. What would you have him do? Refuse to answer?
Cried it all out, my sweet little pout-stalker bottom? Good. After all of that weeping and deflecting, you _still_ faked the Ottmar quote. That's not debatable. You're a fraud. Since you seem to live for humilation, I'll happily humiliate you again.
«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ
NZZ am Sonntag: Herr Edenhofer, beim Klimaschutz fordern alle eine Reduzierung von Emissionen. Sie sprechen jetzt von «gefährlicher Emissionsreduzierung». Was ist das?Ottmar Edenhofer: Bisher ging Wirtschaftswachstum immer Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum der Treibhausgasemissionen. Ein Prozent...www.nzz.ch
A good translation:
---
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at 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 under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.
De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi-expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
---
Compare that to Frank's fake translation, which is just wrong.
---
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
---
Mr. Edenhofer was clearly describing the _current_ economic situation, where poor nations subsidize rich nations by allowing them to pollute the world's atmosphere. Some denier liar twisted the words about and pretended that Mr. Edenhofer was calling for global monetary wealth distribution.
Frank, being long in the service of the Lord of Lies, clings to the fraudulent translation, and hatesmeforever for highlighting his fraud.
Several posters have shown that your translation is faulty and taken completely out of context. You would be the one lying.We rate Mamooth lie as 4 Goebbels
I had to edit down my sig line at the request of one of the mauds
"But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics" -- Interview
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
Once again Mamooth does a Goebbels and accuse the other side of that which he is guilty
Go ask any TexanThat's nice but climate sensitivity is a joke.
I am a Texan. Most don't understand the earth's paleoclimate history or what drove it. I do.
You have certainly never demonstrated any such thing.
Sure I have. It's in all those graphics you call spam.
Okay, what's our current catalyst for global warming?
I would really like to see Ding's answer to this question. I have made similar inquiries of him in other threads.
I call them spam because you have posted the same images over and over and over and over again with the same little quips of text over and over and over and over again.
Where is the explanation of the significance of these paleoclimate observations to the current warming trend?
You can’t point to a catalyst on the issue that you’re so sure of?
Natural climate variation due to the unique landmass configuration which has thermally isolated both poles from warmer marine currents with each pole being at different threshold temperatures for extensive continental glaciation. The present temperature is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods which had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.
It's empirical climate data which does not support your beliefs which is why you fear it. It's insane to call empirical climate data spam.
Natural climate variation. The compelling evidence is that the present temperature of the planet is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more CO2 than previous interglacial periods. How do you explain that?
