Real Agenda Behind "Climate Change" Admitted To By UN Official

[Veritas]

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Many of us already knew this but now it's out there for all to see.

 

[LoAmmi]

What do you think the economic development model is? That is what she is discussing changing, so I'm curious what people think that is.

 

[Goonie]

To quote Christiana Figueres from the article

"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.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "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."

Wrong way round. What she is actually saying is that because of climate change the economic model must change.

[Staff edit]

 

[LoAmmi]

Real agenda behind climate change denial:

Big Oil.

 

[JGG]

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Many of us already knew this but now it's out there for all to see.

This fake news is delicious.

Pro-Tip: Read the quote, not the partisan commentary on the quote.

 

[dzheremi]

What's next -- the 'real agenda' of gravity, or the conservation of motion, or something else that nobody with a minimum display of scientific literacy questions on political grounds?

This kind of nonsense is poisoning society and making people stupider. If there's any kind of agenda at play here, it's that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

To quote Christiana Figueres from the article

"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.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "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."

Wrong way round. What she is actually saying is that because of climate change the economic model must change.

[Staff edit]

By reading only the quotes I am led to conclude that the goal is to change the economic model. The state of the climate was not even mentioned in the quotes. As I see it, forcibly mandating the destruction of an economic model from one that has evolved over centuries in order to replace it with an artificially arrived at substitute that suits a small cadre of statists is the only goal and any excuse, no matter how unrelated the economic model is to the problem used as an excuse to change it, will be used to accomplish the goal. When solutions to climate change actually address things that affect the climate rather than miraculously line up perfectly with the political agenda of a few committed statists, I will take those solutions seriously.

 

[expos4ever]

I am glad that others have spared me the effort of having to refute the patently absurd claim in the OP.

 

[expos4ever]

Real agenda behind climate change denial:

Big Oil.

That may be part of it, but I believe there is another dynamic at play, at least in the US. The first voice to raise the alarm was Al Gore. Al Gore is perceived as a "leftie". Many on the right uncritically oppose any cause advanced by the left.

Therefore, many on the right deny climate change even though they know almost nothing, if not exactly nothing, about the relevant science.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I hate the fact that we've politicized scientific findings.

Honestly, that must infuriate scientists to see that their discovery and hard work gets almost immediately misused and exploited for political reasons.

Democrats immediately use the information to:
- exploit it to engage in cronyism with their friends in the "green" industry.
- use their position on it to pander to the young "eco-warrior" types.

Republicans immediately refute the information to:
- exploit it to engage in cronyism with their friends in the coal and energy industry
- use their position on it to pander to certain religious types because the theory of mankind destroying the earth via climate destruction doesn't line up with the biblical account of what's going to happen.

...and as much as it pains me to do so, I'll have to agree with the democrats on that one...I'd rather be with someone who's right for the wrong reasons than someone who's just plain wrong.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Real agenda behind climate change denial:

Big Oil.

Exactly. We see this in Trump and his supporters attempting to hastily push through DAPL and KXL, the advising to privatize oil rich Indian reservations, and the attempt to open up federal land and national parks to drilling and mining.

 

[Goonie]

I hate the fact that we've politicized scientific findings.

Honestly, that must infuriate scientists to see that their discovery and hard work gets almost immediately misused and exploited for political reasons.

Democrats immediately use the information to:
- exploit it to engage in cronyism with their friends in the "green" industry.
- use their position on it to pander to the young "eco-warrior" types.

Republicans immediately refute the information to:
- exploit it to engage in cronyism with their friends in the coal and energy industry
- use their position on it to pander to certain religious types because the theory of mankind destroying the earth via climate destruction doesn't line up with the biblical account of what's going to happen.

...and as much as it pains me to do so, I'll have to agree with the democrats on that one...I'd rather be with someone who's right for the wrong reasons than someone who's just plain wrong.

Indeed. I can imagine that climate change and dealing with its consequences poses a problem for libertarianism.

 

[evoeth]

By reading only the quotes I am led to conclude that the goal is to change the economic model. The state of the climate was not even mentioned in the quotes. As I see it, forcibly mandating the destruction of an economic model from one that has evolved over centuries in order to replace it with an artificially arrived at substitute that suits a small cadre of statists is the only goal and any excuse, no matter how unrelated the economic model is to the problem used as an excuse to change it, will be used to accomplish the goal. When solutions to climate change actually address things that affect the climate rather than miraculously line up perfectly with the political agenda of a few committed statists, I will take those solutions seriously.

As someone who has personally worked on updating economic models that incorporate climate change: environmental damage to the economy *is real* and that is what the UN is referring to incorporating in their standard economic models.

For many decades environmental economists have been tallying up the damages of various forms of pollution and making the case that development models need to incorporate them. This is no conspiracy, it's about accounting for the actual damages we impart *on ourselves* via pollution.

 

[evoeth]

Crop yields fall precipitously as temperatures rise, this is data for US crop yields over the last century. Interpretation: for every day spent over 30 deg C (86 deg F) crop yields for the season fall by more than a percent.

As the planet warms just 1-2 deg, corn and soy yields fall off a cliff, since the bulk of days (see the distributions below) move across the 30 deg C threshold. And it is very non-linear. I think for this paper a 2 deg C rise corresponds to greater than 50% crop losses.

That means major dislocations in agriculture. Agriculture in the US will have to shift much further north, incurring major relocation costs. In other areas of the world where countries are not as large, it means that entire countries will lose their agricultural capacity.

These damages should be incorporated into our planning models for global development. They aren't right now.

This is real data:

 

[grasping the after wind]

As someone who has personally worked on updating economic models that incorporate climate change: environmental damage to the economy *is real* and that is what the UN is referring to incorporating in their standard economic models.

For many decades environmental economists have been tallying up the damages of various forms of pollution and making the case that development models need to incorporate them. This is no conspiracy, it's about accounting for the actual damages we impart *on ourselves* via pollution.

I believe the only one positing a conspiracy mentioned Big Oil. The quotes mentioned are not about incorporating climate change into economic theory but about purposely changing the current economic model to suit an international consensus so what you have posted is, though interesting in a discussion of the general topic of climate change and economic theory actually tangential to the subject of the OP which is under discussion. the subject i.e. political economic agendas, is not about science or even about economic theory but about supra governmental attempts to change the way the economy is structured using climate change as an excuse to accomplish something that no reasonable person would otherwise agree to. Politicians know that by simply using the words climate change they can get a certain percentage of people to back them doing just about anything they want. That is called not "letting a good crisis go to waste.". Totally revamping the economic system in a way that did not collapse the economy totally as well will do nothing to retard the advance of climate change. If the theory of climate change caused by human activity resulting in CO2 is correct even a total economic collapse would not lead to any real reduction in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It might slow the build up of atmospheric CO2 but is unlikely to be reducing the output of CO2 to levels that would do anything at all to stop climate change. Further, as the climate has been changing for millennia upon millennia it is uncertain what simply removing the amount of CO2 from human activity would cause to happen. Removing any one factor and expecting things to turn out in a specific way seems to be extreme wishful thinking.

 

[evoeth]

The quotes mentioned are not about incorporating climate change into economic theory but about purposely changing the current economic model to suit an international consensus so what you have posted is, though interesting in a discussion of the general topic of climate change and economic theory actually tangential to the subject of the OP which is under discussion.

[Staff edit]

The quotes in the 'article' lack any context except the hyper-partisan nonsense the writer tries to impart. The article frames the left as trying to destroy capitalism and the quotes DO NOT SUPPORT THAT. But nice reading comprehension there!

Those of us who've actually been engaging in this process on a technical level know the what the debate about "the economic development model," means a lot more than some hack writer for a partisan site.

 

[super animator]

Indeed. I can imagine that climate change and dealing with its consequences poses a problem for libertarianism.

It appears that the politicizing of this issue isn't a problem for you.

 

[evoeth]

It appears that the politicizing of this issue isn't a problem for you.

Gosh, it's almost as if reality has consequences for political beliefs.

 

[Gadarene]

I hate the fact that we've politicized scientific findings.

Honestly, that must infuriate scientists to see that their discovery and hard work gets almost immediately misused and exploited for political reasons.

I've got a big stack of books on the Manhattan project I can recommend you.

Sadly not a new thing as I'm sure you know.

...and as much as it pains me to do so, I'll have to agree with the democrats on that one...I'd rather be with someone who's right for the wrong reasons than someone who's just plain wrong.

yuuuuuup

 

[evoeth]

I've got a big stack of books on the Manhattan project I can recommend you.

God I love reading and watching Office of Civil Defense material. Then I play Fallout 3 and 4 for hours. Pure bliss.