Stop being so easily mislead!
Given that the speech can be found by anyone (well, anyone not in your cult, being that your cult forbids looking at non-cult sources), what do you hope to accomplish with your deception here?
Here's the original paragraph from the speech, in German:
«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ
---
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.
Here's a correct translation:
---
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.
---
Mr. Edenhofer never said we need to redistribute wealth by climate politics. He said the current world climate policy redistributes wealth, from the poor to the CO2-emitting countries. That's a completely different statement, so anyone making the former statement was pushing a falsehood.
You peddled a falsehood. That's not debatable. The only question now is why. Was is due to ignorance, or was it deliberate?
If you did it accidentally, you'll admit it, apologize for your action, and then renounce those who foisted the lie on you.
If it was deliberate, you'll scream hatred at me now for daring to expose the lie, and then you'll run back to those who lied to you.
Once more, this illustrates how anything that any denier says should initially be assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise, since history indicates that most often the case.
