I agree with catweazle666. Here is the actual UN Press Release about the above statement:
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

We’re just glad you’re back; and evidently feeling refreshed.
G

“So GW is a conspiracy led by mad scientists to take control of the world.”
No, a conspiracy led by far more powerful organs than the scientific profession, mad or otherwise.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“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.”

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

Richard I agree. I hate when comments I reply to are filled with people who ‘agree’ to my position but devolve to insulting without substance.

Dred,
Here are the problems I had with your initial post.
“The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.”
Curiosity is not listed anywhere as a human “emotion”, nor did you offer evidence to support the claim that “all science is motivated” by the exact same thing.
“Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.”
Corrected I might agree with you:
Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that our CONCLUSIONS, derived from our observations, are FACTS/CORRECT.
“Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.”
Never suggested otherwise. But we CAN examine our premises and conclusions (And those of others) and determine whether those premises and conclusions are logical or not. We can identify the human biases and ( if we want our conclusions to be as rational, logical, and as correct as they possibly can be) reject them
“And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time.”
Evidence to support this conclusion please.
“Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.”
You provided no premises, or evidence, to support any of the conclusive statements you made. So logically, I can only assign them the value of being your opinion at this point.
“Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game.”
I never said it did.
As far as your other response, objective truths or FACTS exist whether we can perceive, sense, induce or deduce them. That’s why they are OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE. It is not human knowledge or discovery or understanding that makes them REAL. They exist outside of our imperfect senses.

I was corrected:
Matter of fact 2+2=5 ! You just have to choose a high enough value for “Two” 😉

There is a good proof of 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Good because the logical fallacy is difficult to spot despite being a simple argument.
(Spoiler alert) The fault is that the square can be a negative number, not just the positive. Can you imagine a debate where such an objection is howled down as denierism? Its such a beautiful proof that I sincerely think that 97% of climate scientists couldn’t spot it even if their career didn’t hinge on the scam continuing.

… his last name is not Mann.

I thought he was Irish: O’Dearyme

Syllogism A–
Premise 1:
Nothing unreal exists.
Premise 2:
Objective truth exists.
Conclusion:
Objective truth is real.
Syllogism B–
Premise 1:
Only what we can sense and perceive, and induce or deduce from the same, is real.
(So we reject for argument’s sake the possibility of “revealed truth”, a domain of religion.)
Premise 2:
Our senses, perceptions, inductions, and deductions are fallible.
Conclusion:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.
Syllogism C–
Premise 1:
Objective truth is real.
Premise 2:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.
Conclusion:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is objectively true.
🙂

Nick,
I’ll let Lubos respond to you on that one.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2017/03/selection-of-climate-model-survivors.html?m=1
Even Dilbert sees right through the “models”.

“If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition “truth is subjective” is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition “truth is objective” can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition “truth is objective” can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition “truth is objective”, which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn’t necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn’t necessarily true.” Andrew Messing, Harvard University

Dred-
And that is your opinion.
🙂

The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.
Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.
Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.
And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time. Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.
Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game. Even Plato recognized thesis, antithesis, and *synthesis*.

The “FeedBack” link is Inoperative – I do not wonder why.

reallyskeptical October 4, 2017 at 5:20 pm
Well, I say something to my wife and she looks at me and usually says, “Really?”
So it must be true.

😎
(I won’t ask what it is you said.8-)