Posted on 02/12/2007 6:09:00 AM PST by pissant
Edited on 02/12/2007 1:34:05 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
Developing...
Czech president Vaclav Klaus is a breath of fresh air! God bless him!! We need a few more like him.
"Czech president Vaclav Klaus is a breath of fresh air! God bless him!! We need a few more like him."
That's a Czech, mate!
Almost all the 12 year olds in Seattle are idiots that think you and I are ruining the planet....its what they are taught!!
I have thought a lot about the Global Warmer movement from a historical perspective.
When man feels threatened by nature in ways that leaves him disempowered, he often makes a sacrifice to placate the forces of nature. This is a common theme in historical anthropology. For example, polynesians might sacrifice virgins to a volcano to keep it from erupting. Global warmers wish to sacrifice our industrial progress and our economy using a tyranny which is unacceptable to the free world, justifying it by "survival" of the human race. Man has been bad ( evil) by disregarding his environment for the sake of ease, wealth,, and material well being. Now man has sinned , polluting the garden of eden , and now our environmental priests say that man must pay by retreating from his evil materialism and environmental pollution.This sacrifice is fairly well defined.
Global Warmers and the ancient polynesians have a lot in common.
The most recent moralistic movement to influence US politics was the prohibitionist movement, when a similar religious fervor sought to deny free men and women access to alcoholic beverages. All commercial sale of alcohol was banned. Millions of gallons of drink were dumped, but the sinners went underground, spawning an organized crime syndicate and smugglers ( of home Joseph Kennedy was one), many of whom became millionaires. The country woke up and free men and women exercised their vote to end prohibition.
The Global warmers are also very similar to prohibitionists. Politicians are making the mistake of singing their song so as to curry their block vote. Its an exercise in illogic, as the sun warms not only the earth, but all of the planets in our solar system. Politicians who seek the support of these illogical folk are carpetbaggers, seeking any means they can to gain power, many have little to offer. such as Al Gore , who is a dismal failure as a politician, so now he is getting righteous, so as to carpetbag those who have the fear of chicken little.
Logical free men and women understand global warming, and the de minimus role that man has to play in it. They prepare to adapt to the 4 to 5 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature that the world may have. But it depends little on man's activity, but rather depends on the suns activity.
A proper sacrifice to the sun might be to load up all the carpetbagging politicians we have, Al Gore foremost, on a NASA rocket, and plunge it into the sun as a sacrifice, so that the sun will not increase it's disruptive activity. Who knows, it was said to work for the polynesians!
Environmentalism a Religion? Almost. When you see the televised prayer meetings invoked to gain devine intervention in the environment, we will have arrived.
Thats not far away. A local physician here in Vermont. left his medical practise for the purpose of become a zealot in the field of environmental evangelism. There is a movement now afoot, so it IS almost a religion, and one which does not bode much good for America as a Republic, much the same as Prohibition.
Religion and Politics too often make poor bed partners, and even as a Republican who loves Christianity, I must say so for the sake of preventing a tragedy of vast proportions if the Environmental religion sweeps our nation in its Star Chamber like mentality of the Inquisition.
The Czechs have seen political correctness become a religion, prior to the end of the communist era. They want no part of Gore's world.
Between this headline, and what PM Howard said about Obama...I'm lovin' it!
I say we start "The Countries of Liberty!"
From the interview:
"Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science."
That really, really boils this whole thing down to its essence.
Click the link.
"Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
it's easy to explain.
The environmentalist wackos, aka the Greens, are leftists.
They don't call the Green Parties the watermelon parties for nothing: green on the outside red at the core.
"Czechs made good tanks, even better firearms.
They make even better women. :)
Wow. I'll need more time to check this stuff out.
Be careful; or the UN will be after you, too!
Good. I have plenty of ammo.
Pass them around, especially the second one -- it's the real reason for climate fluctuation.
Will do. I'll book mark em
How do we know what to believe about global warming?
Well, the New York Times says we should believe them
and the stories they run. Therefore, I wasted an
entire weekend compiling stories about climate change
in the New York Times between 1920 and 1980. This
proves that scientists, journalists, and politicians
should never be doubted .... or it doesn't prove
that....or something. Anyways, here is list of
headlines:
1924
May 19
Hunt Lost Arctic Current -- Coast Guard Fear Mild
Winter In North Means Climate Change Here
1924
Sept. 28
MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age -- Explorer
Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers
-- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical
1933
Mar. 27
America In Longest Warm Spell Since 1776: Temperature
Line Records A 25-Year Rise
1947
May 30
Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster,
Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says
1958
Dec. 7
Frozen Key To Our Climate -- The world's ice masses
may be ushering in a fifth ice age.
1959
Feb. 15
Warmer Earth Evident at Poles -- Arctic Findings in
Particular Support Theory of Rising Global
Temperatures
1960
Aug 4
Ice In Antarctic Reported On Rise -- Sheet Growing at
Rate of 293 Cubic Miles Yearly, Soviet Expert Says --
I.G.Y. Data Disclosed -- Hoarfrost is Said to Fall the
Year Around in Heart of Polar Continent
1961
Jan. 25
Winters Since '40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather
Bureau -- Data Indicate a Reversal of a Warming Trend
That Began in 1881
1961
Jan. 30
Scientists Agree World is Colder -- But Climate
Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for
Change
1966
Oct. 20
Galloping Glaciers in Northwest Puzzle Science
1967
June 9
Temperature Dip Tied to Particles -- 2 Scientists
Suggest Link -- Urge Closer Monitoring (Summary:
Pollution in air offsets greenhouse effect caused by
C02 thus causing global cooling)
1968
Jan 14
Some Can Recall Colder Winters --- Long Island Sound
Was a Mass of Ice in 1917 (Quote "Some New Yorkers
cannot remember a colder winter than this one.)
1969
Feb 23
Worrying About A New Ice Age
1970
July 18
U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic
1974
Aug. 8
Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output (Money
Quote: "Many weather scientists expect greater
variability in the earth's weather and, consequently,
greater risk of local disasters in places where
conditions of recent years have become accepted as the
norm.")
1975
May 21
World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely
Considered to Be Inevitable
1976
2 Climate Experts Decry Predictions of Disaster
(Money Quote: "Both men noted that, while there was
global cooling in the early 1970's, there was evidence
that this had stopped and might have reversed
itself.")
1977
Jul. 14
1977, a Year of Weather Extremes, Causing Concern
Among Experts (Money Quote: "Most of them
[meteorologists and climatologists] now agree that,
after several decades of unusually stable and gentle
weather, during which modern agriculture developed and
population grew rapidly, the planet has entered a
period of weather extremes.")
1979
Feb. 14
Climatologists Are Warned North Pole Might Melt
1979
Feb. 16
Scientists at World Parley Doubt Climate Variations
Are Ominous
So, when you hear people saying they are sure the
earth is warming AND they know what is causing it, be
very skeptical. The only thing you can be sure about,
is that they are full of B.S.
And one for those who think "scientific consensus"
means much, here is one more headline (for real):
PARIS, April 28, 1912
Waste Of Time To Bathe? -- Scientists Declare
Bacterial Growth Is Increased By Washing.
Correction: everything is now Bush's fault....
I don't think he is the first to question Gore's sanity.
I have for years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.