President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's
Feb 12th 2007 | 5:09 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's
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]
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]
Feb 12th 2007 | 5:27 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Go
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Wow. If the President of the Czech Replubic says global warming is a myth, then
it must be! All bow down.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
>
> 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.
>
Wow. If the President of the Czech Replubic says global warming is a myth, then
it must be! All bow down.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Feb 12th 2007 | 5:49 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Go
Global warning: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...
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]
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...
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]
Feb 12th 2007 | 2:59 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Go
On Feb 12, 12:27 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Wow. If the President of the Czech Replubic says global warming is a myth, then
> it must be! All bow down.
>
> --
> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Gee, Repubs & Democrats really are one in that same!!
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Wow. If the President of the Czech Replubic says global warming is a myth, then
> it must be! All bow down.
>
> --
> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Gee, Repubs & Democrats really are one in that same!!
