The True Believer

I just ran across some remarks made a few years ago by globalist uplifter Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of the U.N.’s IPCC Working Group III. This is hardly current, but it’s instructive enough that I thought I’d post it anyway:

So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

Right. Access to cheap, reliable, abundant, portable energy is essential for everything we have come to think of as modern life: clean water, transportation, effective medical care, economic security, productive agriculture, heating and air-conditioning, mitigation of natural disasters, and much more. It is impossible for emerging nations to lift themselves out of poverty without it.

There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions.

In other words: Here is something that appears to have been true, without exception, always and everywhere. Any sane person would take that as a very big hint. Not these blokes, though.

…[O]ne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… 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…

Right, then. Thought so. Thank you.



  1. Whitewall says

    Kinsley gaffe?

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink
  2. antiquarian says

    Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog has a really solid series of posts setting forth the state of what is controversial and what is not about climate science.

    In particular, he points out a major facet of the situation that no one talks about: the difference between the basic C02 greenhouse effect, which is rather small and slow, but the truth of which is not seriously opposed, and the scientifically very controversial and evidentiarily weak arguments of the Alarmists that knock-on effects will all go in one direction and create much greater, much faster warming. The media almost never mention this.

    It’s a series that is well worth reading, if for no other reason than because it offers solid arguments for cocktail parties.

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
  3. Back in the day, a cocktail party was where you stood around sipping a dry Martini while you sized up the talent in the room. But I haven’t heard about such parties in decades. Do they actually argue about “climate science” these days?

    Is nothing sacred anymore?

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
  4. BTW, for those who argue “climatology” at a cocktail party, a dry Martini is a Martini without the Rossi (shaken, not stirred).

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
  5. JK says

    & from awhile back

    Look for WikiLeaks to make the evening news in a city near you.

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
  6. JK,

    I read (OK, OK, I skimmed) the links you posted. They recount her campaign’s numerous underhanded and slimy tactics. But what I don’t get is how this constitutes news. Don’t we already know the extent of her sliminess?

    And, as one of these articles pointed out, the Demonrats don’t (pardon my French) give a flying f*ck about it. They keep on voting for her, through thick and thin slime.

    Posted June 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
  7. antiquarian says

    Okay, okay. It offers solid arguments for backyard barbecues. Those still happen, don’t they?

    Posted June 20, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
  8. Well, ant, on weekends I do smell burgers grilling on the barbie in my neighborhood (as I take my constitutional in the afternoon). I haven’t been invited to partake, so I can’t be sure.

    Not being invited could be for various reasons around here. Many of my neighbors are your typical libruls, so they aren’t very friendly toward sane people.

    Posted June 20, 2016 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
  9. Whitewall says

    Henry, I’ll bet you intimidate them? They end up very small.

    Posted June 20, 2016 at 7:49 pm | Permalink
  10. Robert,

    Intimidation is not my forte; never has been, neither. Besides, I’m just a 6-ft 158-lbs of skin and bones senior.

    I guess the only thing that might intimidate any librul I encounter is my facial expression, which probably conveys my thought about him or her — ‘You’re such an idiot’.

    Posted June 20, 2016 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
  11. Whitewall says

    Well Henry, I had you pegged at about 6ft 4in and 250lbs.

    Posted June 21, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink
  12. Robert,

    You would have been right on the money about 50 years ago. This is what I looked like in college:

    Posted June 21, 2016 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *