Here you have an IPCC leader saying in his own words, in the Swiss NZZ interview:
Q: Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
A: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
Q: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
A: 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.
Q: 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.
A: 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....
The man is Ottmar Edenhofer, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change in Potsdam, cochair of the IPCC group on mitigation.
An unassumingly looking accountant like bureaucrat, the man is a conspiracy theory all by himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite.
Here you have an IPCC leader saying in his own words, in the Swiss NZZ interview:
Q: Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
A: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
Q: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
A: 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.
Q: 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.
A: 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. ...
The man is Ottmar Edenhofer, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change in Potsdam, cochair of the IPCC group on mitigation.
An unassumingly looking accountant like bureaucrat, the man is a conspiracy theory all by himself.
http://www.pressestelle.tu-berlin.de/typo3temp/pics/5/575bbec734.jpg
Climate has a well documented 60 year periodicity, on top of the about 1C/century natural warming of the last two centuries.
about 30 years up 0.8C like 1910-1940
then 30 years down 0.2C like 1940-1970
then 30 years up 0.8C like 1970-1998
then a bit down like the last decade
The graph of satellite measured temperatures is here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/normalise/mean:12
and shows global cooling for 12 years now. The downward trend is like to continue, according to the natural periodicity, for another 20 years or so.
If you are not yet convinced check here
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2010.html
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2010.html
how top government representatives, Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and Robert Rubin, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, attended last June a leadership conference with global cooling on the agenda after which any mention of global warming was removed
http://www.climateweeknyc2010.org/
from the NYC climate conference last August.
The main fact about the far-north is that temperatures are not measured there. Not by satellites, not by regular stations.
The warming there is simply made up: "estimated" in the words of Jim Hansen.
See the point 1) in
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
With such "estimates" Hansen makes every year as warm as he wants.
Satellites show clearly cooling for more than 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979
The NASA-GISS data is made up by "estimating" heating at the completely unmeasured Arctic, as its director, James Hansen, declares openly. Satellites - the best data we have - show cooling for more than 12 years now. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979 You can see here by how much NASA-GISS fakes the data (in red) compared to satellites (in green) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/normalise/mean:12 The AGW is completely contradicted by all measurements.