Found the link here:
http://iceagenow.info/redistributing-worlds-wealth-climate-policy/
to this article:
that puts several “insider” quotes all in one place as various of the Global Warming Pushers admit it is really all just about the money and advancing a global socialist welfare agenda…
Hit the like to read the original, it “flows” very nicely. I’ve butchered it a bit here to avoid a 100% quote, as much as I’d like to…
[…]
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”
“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”
In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”
[…]
Musings from the Chiefio 
Just lousy economics to go with the complete misunderstanding of climate dynamics…..and all in the name of ‘sustainability’. Wacko’s. Bred up as advisers to politicians who fed them the funds to peddle their story.
Barack Obama’s loony “War on Coal” is doing real harm to the people of Kentucky and West Virginia. I know this because I am helping to re-train people who have lost their jobs in coal mines.
Obama’s cowardly and futile war against US citizens would have failed if the GOP elite had opposed his policies. However that would have required supporting Ted Cruz who they despise even more than Hilliary Clinton.
Ted Cruz explains the fallacies of “Climate Science” even better than Richard Lindzen did when he addressed the UK parliament. Enjoy his exchange with Katie Couric:
That stereotypical snake oil barker that used to show up in films years ago – – – in the coming years that plot line will be played by a starry eyed environmental zealot or climate “scientist” who like the used car salesman stereotype is cooking the numbers to make the sale.
Same creature, just a more modern incarnation of the huckster personality. People don’t like to admit they got sold a bottle of snake oil so like Katy Couric, they will willingly fail to hear the facts, and be willfully blind to the reality, that the climate models have no more validity than the charts or “facts” you see on TV commercials for wonder drugs that will help you lose weight or get your hair back or make you suddenly irresistible to the opposite sex and a rock star in the bedroom.
Pingback: Admission that the Global Warming Scam is all about the money. | Climate Collections
Thank you for this post. Please communicate the need to end the climate debate peacefully, without retaliation, by admitting that:
FEARof nuclear annihilation described in the second sentence of the last paragraph of Aston’s 1922 Nobel Prize Lecture was the reason nations and national Academies of Sciences were united into an Orwellian Ministry of Scientific (UN)Truths on 24 OCT 1945 that
DEPRIVED HUMANITY of the PROMISE of “POWERS BEYOND THE DREAMS OF SCIENTIFIC FICTION” in the first sentence of the last paragraph of Aston’s 1922 Nobel Prize.
See the first comments in yesterday’s blog by Professor Judith Curry:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/02/week-in-review-55/
If Nature provides a fair review and publishes “Solar energy” [Nature’s tracking number NCLIM16030433],
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
Three brief videos will explain it to the public
1. “Scientific Genesis”
2. “The Origin of the Solar System”
3. “Strange Xenon Story of 1972-1998”
Pingback: Admission that the Global Warming Scam is all about the money. | The GOLDEN RULE
The National Academy of Sciences essentially hold humanity and their elected leaders captive by using control of budget review of research agencies (NASA, DOE, NSF, NASA, EPA, etc.) to control government policies with “consensus science,” held together with research funds from these government research agencies.
NAS established the American Geophysical Union (AGU) to guide geo-engineering of planet Earth along the lines of UN’s Agenda 21, destroying the integrity of nuclear and solar physics at the end of WWII with false “STANDARD CLIMATE, COSMOLOGY, NUCLEAR & SOLAR MODELS.”
The validity of these charges will be obvious if Nature provides a fair review and publishes “Solar energy” [Nature’s tracking number NCLIM16030433],
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
Excellent blog thank you. As I’ve started downloading and evaluating Canadian climate data and have just recently come to understand “world climate data” has been manipulated, I’m wondering if anyone knows if current available Canada climate data (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html) is in “original” or “manipulated” form. Obviously, if I’m going to glean anything useful from the data, knowing this is imperative. Thanks.
All climate data is manipulated to some degree. The closer to the original collection point and time the better. The various national offices collect the daily raw data, then do different levels of “quality control” on it. Some good, some less good. That is your best shot at decent data. From that point, monthly averages are made. An average of temperatures is no longer a temperature, it is a statistic about temperatures. These get a variety of adjustments done on their way to the GHCN global historic record, including things like TOBS that is applied ham handedly across the data. This GHCN “data” (really homogenized adjusted statistics about data…) get fed into complex processes like GIStemp (see tab above for a couple of years of my life exploring it…) that turn it into complete trash.
Hope that helps.
Starting from nominally raw daily data from a national BOM is about as good as is available. If you can find very old versions too, the comparison can illuminate stability…
On the issue of modeling this is an interesting look at the dominance of modeling in climate science.
http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-modeling-dominates-climate-science
Thank you E.M.Smith and Larry Ledwick for your insight. The graphing provided by Steven Goddard (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/) and others (eg presentations I seen by Tim Ball) are what really concern me (among much else of course). If I could replicate these sorts of varied “interpretations” of the climate data based on daily data in a Canadian context, that would help me understand to a degree what data processing/manipulation methods the climate scientists have used to come to their conclusions. Part of the problem may be finding older versions of the data, and if the climate scientists do have the old data on hand, I suspect it would be next to imposssible to acquire a copy from them.
On a related note, up in Alberta, a University of Lethbridge professor of Hydrology and GIS, Dr. Stefan W. Kienzle, has compiled a website showing climate trends between 1950 and 2010
(http://www.albertaclimaterecords.com/#). According to Kienzle(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-warmer-temperature-climate-change-kienzle-1.3390640), the number of heat waves in Alberta has doubled since 1950 and that,
“The trends we have detected will clearly continue into the future and potentially even accelerate further.”
Hmmm…clearly continue into the future…wish I had his ability to predict the future…I could retire today!
There is a lack of transparency in how he’s developed the model and so its impossible to replicate. As you say, having original raw daily data is key to being able to verify or refute the conclusions of others. I’ll see where I can get with this. Best.
Remember too that the PDO runs about 60 year cycles, so you need a 120 year period to show a trend without end point cherry picking dominating too much. By starting in 1950, he leaves out the 1930 to 40 peak, then ending now includes the 60 year later 1990 to 2000 peak. The top has now begun the roll down and lke 1970 was cold, 2030 will be cold. Making a linear projection, as he did, in a cyclical system is either astounding stupidity or crass lying with statistics. Your choice…
Lazy or stupid, lying requires intelligence or contempt of the listener…pg
I found the 1950s start date that he used very suspect. My great grandparents were “Dirty Thirties” Dust Bowl farmers on the prairies of eastern Alberta near the Saskatchewan border and had to move NW to a moister climate near Edmonton in 1937 after many years of struggle (having to dismantle their homestead and fencing, and load it all along with horses and equipment into box cars to start a new farm in a more hospitable place). It saddens me that few people nowadays have an understanding of our recent climate history. Farmers perhaps have among the best grasp on climate than anyone. Thanks again for your insight – very helpful and nice to know there are other sceptics out there.
Candoo says:
22 May 2016 at 5:55 am
“I’m wondering if anyone knows if current available Canada climate data (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html) is in “original” or “manipulated” form.”
Some years ago I decided to examine “Global Warming” at high latitudes with the idea that it would improve the “Signal to Noise Ratio”. My focus was on Arctic Canada, Russia and Greenland. The Canadians were going through some kind of funding hiatus at the time so I made zero progress. No better with the Russians.
In sharp contrast I got terrific cooperation from Tom Peterson (GHCN), Albert Klein Tank (KNMI) and several scientists at the DMI. Consequently I focused my efforts on Greenland:
I suspect that the data for the Canadian stations above 60N should be worth analysing if you can get it. As I recall there are less than 12 stations so the data should be manageable.
Five years ago I was looking for a correlation between [CO2] and temperature. Today I know that temperature drives CO2:
So what about the “Climate Sensitivity” debate? Since 1850 global temperature has risen by 0.8 K but the rise correlates poorly with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 concentration started to rise rapidly around 1945 at which time global temperatures were falling. My conclusion is that the effect of [CO2] on global temperature is so small that it is overwhelmed by other processes which we don’t yet understand.
omanuel, 3 April 2016 at 12:49 pm
Thank you for those excellent videos. You say that the major planets modulate our sun’s core. While I am somewhat sceptical about this idea, I have great respect for my ex-colleague Nicola Scaffetta at the Duke University Free Electron Laser Laboratory.
Nicola has shown that global temperature correlates with major planet orbits. What he lacks is a physical mechanism to explain this strange situation. You may have supplied that.
Nicola is a real scientist who will speak the truth, no matter what it costs him.
Candoo,
For what it is worth many years ago Kirk MacGregor of Toronto Canada was the weather historian for Canada.
This should be him as I doubt there are two caving mad by that name in Toronto. Be aware he was a dyed in the wool enviornmetalist when I knew him many years ago.
Toronto Caving Group Contacts
Kirk MacGregor, President 647-892-5240
Mailing Address:
Toronto Caving Group
c/o Kirk MacGregor
1116 Wilson Avenue, P.O. Box 66129
Toronto, Ontario M3M 1G7
From
http://www.trigger.net/~tcg/tcgcont.htm
Thank you so much! I’ve come to the right place for intelligent discussion. Regards.
@Candoo:
You’re welcome! Just glad we could help and met your expectations!