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...
Al Bore insanity ping!
Thank you Sir! Diogenes may now put his lantern down. He has found an honest man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROTF!
RKBA VRWC thrives!!
I refuse to let these eco-fascists define terms or the rules of the game.
I pound them across the head with their lying global warming claims when they try to use the phrase climate change. These Marxists insisted that global warming was destroying the planet, so I always rip their nonsense from the global warming perspective and use cold weather incidents and statistics as proof they're lying.
BTTT, ROFL, and Hurray.
Vaclav Klaus for President
mass hysteria!
Dìkuji President Klaus!
Finally a man not afraid to call the kettle black.
(and thanks for posting the photo reminding us of the effects of climate warming---LOL)
We can add the Czech Republic to nations we can escape to if the worst happens here and we get a Democrap in the WH.
AWLLLLLLLLL RIGHT!!!
About time somebody with some commonsense and common decency just pounded that peckerhead right into the dirt, right along with his two-bit propaganda flick!!!
cc Arnold Schwartzenegger!!!
this is awesome!!
I like him too. He is a threat to the greens - a politician with a science background that can see right through and articulately denounce their "metaphysiology".
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.•
I LIKE this guy!
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Woo! Hoo! Finally, a politician who knows how to handle the media!
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.•
Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
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.
The only previous instance where I have regretted the Constitutional prohibition against foreign-born individuals serving as President was with Margaret Thatcher. I think I have found one more. I would LOVE to see this guy take on our drive-by media and any of the current pathetic crop of Presidential pretenders.
I finally get it. The man is the center of his own universe. Of course he's convinced it's getting warmer. The more weight he packs on the more he sweats. If he went on a diet, he would swear there was global cooling. (And possible global hungering)
Perhaps, perhaps not. They're just hedging their bets.
Whatever, it's a dead-cinch certainty that giving power to global warming advocates WILL lead to global socialist tyranny.
I grabbed a copy of that one when I saw it in Pookie's Toons this morning. It precisely and succinctly summed up my feelings on the matter.
Al, your a bit low on the Gravitas-Scale
Hey, I'm back if only for a moment. Golly life is busy...
At any rate, here are some interesting references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
*See extended comment below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate
(Ice that burns -- lots of it!)
http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm
Interesting theory, though I haven't seen it elsewhere. Curious that it's postulated on what seems to be a "greenie" site, but the author basically seems to be saying humans have little effect on climate compared to natural cycles. (Gee, who could have guessed?)
*Now, one of the most interesting items in that first Wikipedia article is the statement that "other scientists see glaciation as the norm for the Earth and the Medieval Warm Period (as well as the Holocene interglacial period) as the anomalies requiring explanation (Fagan)."
So, let's see here, since we want everything to be 'normal', of course, we should try to drive the planet back to glaciation, right? I believe there are some people in New York State who right now think we've done it!
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.