Via Daily Caller:
. . . On Capitol Hill, this is called a clean energy standard or CES (read: windmill mandate). The latest proponent of this Plan B is our old friend, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, with the Senate actually pondering a CES push before summer, this comes just in time.
That is, it comes just in time for those of us arguing for more individual liberty, less state control over our lives and the economy. Short of Al Gore making a movie about green jobs that, too, got all of its money claims tossed by the UK’s high court as unsupportable, a helpful assist from the IPCC is all a skeptic could hope for.
The IPCC is often touted as 2,500 of the world’s leading climate scientists (whose “chief scientist” is in fact a railway engineer, and whose ranks include anthropology T/As, transport policy teachers and instructors in group-huggy things like “the human dimension of climate change”). It was in defense of the IPCC’s “smoking gun” from its 2001 Third Assessment Report, the thoroughly debunked “Hockey Stick,” that scientists affiliated with the IPCC enterprise engaged in all of their perversion of science and transparency laws later exposed by an apparent whistleblower in ClimateGate.
In short, they’re the best friend anyone opposing this cat-skinning ruse could ask for. But it gets better.
Today the IPCC released a “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.” Actually, it only released its summary because, as is always the case with these IPCC products, the “Summary for Policymakers” is produced before the actual work it purportedly summarizes. Here’s our answer, now let’s set about propping it up!
Right up front are the paper’s four “coordinating lead authors.” Representative of the world of global warming schemes, these include two Germans, an African, and a Cuban, as no economic plan is complete without an expert from Cuba.
First among them, however, just happens to be IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. You may remember him for his recent gem — also from last November, come to think of it — of admitting that “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. . .” I couldn’t have said it better myself (though I have tried).