Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/12/2007 View Sun 02/11/2007 View Sat 02/10/2007 View Fri 02/09/2007 View Thu 02/08/2007 View Wed 02/07/2007 View Tue 02/06/2007
1
2007-02-12 Science & Technology
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by anonymous5089 2007-02-12 12:14|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 And of course, today on Drudge, an interview with Czech President Vaclav Klaus who thinks "global warming" is dubious...

"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."

He he he ... I like this guy...

Here in SoCal, we had a big freeze that screwed up the Tangering Crop, and I love Tangerines, but not at $2/pound...

Whole article from Drudge below!



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...


Posted by BigEd 2007-02-12 13:08||   2007-02-12 13:08|| Front Page Top

#2 A small correction :)
An experiment that hints we they are wrong on climate change

Posted by SwissTex 2007-02-12 13:27||   2007-02-12 13:27|| Front Page Top

#3 

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.


Ooooh! the left jab connects!

Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't.


The right connects!

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?


And the Left again!

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.


The reporter runs off, screaming "MOOOOMIIIIEEEEEEE!"
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2007-02-12 14:11|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2007-02-12 14:11|| Front Page Top

#4 a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Old boy is a pretty good word smith still.
Posted by Shipman 2007-02-12 14:40||   2007-02-12 14:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Are you possibly thinking of Vaclav Havel, the playwright and first president of Czechoslovakia, Shipman? The one who used to walk from his apartment building to his office everyday? I think Vaclav Klaus was an economist.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-12 14:51||   2007-02-12 14:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Steve Milloy at junkscience.com nicely encapsulates the issue.

... because it's (environmentalism) strictly an artificial construct, one that is purely emotional and devoid of actual value. "Feel good" decisions do absolutely nothing for the world, they only line the pockets of scammers exploiting the gullible and the misinformed. If you really care about nature and the planet then you should concentrate on generating wealth because wealthy societies can afford to worry about aesthetics, the cosmetic puffery of "environmentalism," while the impoverished must devote all effort to food and shelter, viewing their environ through the necessary lens of immediate exploitation as food, fuel or shelter. Only when a society has met the needs of all its citizens and generated the necessary surplus can it make rational decisions along the lines of "that's a mine, that's a timber resource, that's to be leveled for housing and that patch is a set-aside ornament for wildlife/nature/park/recreation/looking at/just having because it sounds cool/[fill in any warm and fuzzy non-reason you like]...". Otherwise it's simply misanthropic bunny-hugging and there has to be something really wrong with those who value bugs or any critters above people.
Posted by phil_b 2007-02-12 18:08||   2007-02-12 18:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Klaus is an economist and a sharp cookie.
Posted by Classical_Liberal 2007-02-12 18:09||   2007-02-12 18:09|| Front Page Top

#8 Private Ownership > NOT a "FREER SOCIETY". There you have it - PC and RINO-ism/CINO-ism all in one. The only thing freer thst Private Ownership is WALKING AROUND TOWN NAKED EVERY DAY-NIGHT IN ONE'S BIRTHDAY SUIT. PUBLIC/GOVT > universal budget write-offs, is what killed the Caspian and Ural Seas in the USSR, Chinese children playing in rivers or streams filled wid huge trash/waste heaps taller than their houses, and massive uncontroled AIDS and other disease epidemics in Africa, etc.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-02-12 20:40||   2007-02-12 20:40|| Front Page Top

09:36 Aris Katsaris
23:59 gromgoru
23:57 whatadeal
23:40 ex-lib
23:35 smn
23:33 ex-lib
23:27 ex-lib
23:23 ex-lib
23:22 Eric Jablow
23:19 Eric Jablow
23:17 Thereth Slump3787
23:11 Anonymoose
23:11 Eric Jablow
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:12 Alaska Paul
22:08 Frank G
22:05 Phineter Thraviger
21:59 Frank G
21:56 Broadhead6
21:53 Omolurt Elmeaper6990
21:51 Swamp Blondie
21:45 Alaska Paul
21:43 gromgoru
21:32 RD









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com