HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 23, 2007 The article was entitled: “President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity”, Mon Feb 12 2007, posted on the Drudge website, which began: “Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.” That made Mr. Klaus my hero for the day for an interview cited in the article. The article read: “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?” From Mr. Klaus’ first answer I was encouraged that not every world political leader has succumbed to environmentalist propaganda and eco-terrorist tactics. Mr. Klaus answered: “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.” This answer is not edited in any way. Mr. Klaus is exactly right and incredibly forthright in his personal opinions, assumptions and observations. Right away he identifies the source of the latest scare report of environmentalists as a scientifically unrelated body-politick with a global warming agenda that doesn’t jive with creditable scientific studies. He knows the current global warming presentations add to a “myth” he doesn’t personally plan to ascribe to. He sees the argument accurately as “one sided”. He also sees others equal to his own political status as cowards. The interview is quoted: “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...” To which Mr Klaus answered: “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.” Being another straightforward answer that pulled no punch; Mr. Klaus is right on the reason his voice seems to be the lonely one. It isn’t that other leaders don’t know or see the scientific truths that debunk the warming “myth”; it is fear of leftist politicians and environmental radicals; fear of not joining the “consensus” that keeps other voices quiet. Then the questioner attempted a different approach. When you cannot get someone to admit they might be wrong you begin to question the authority and the credentials behind their position. The question with comment: “• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?” To which Mr. Klaus did not flinch or hesitate to answer… “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.” So as an individual, concerned that men are being overcome by a mythical idealism, Mr. Klaus is taking an active interest to the point of writing a book that will qualify his “opinions”. He is not claiming any great knowledge and he is not suggesting he knows more than any legitimate climatologist. He is saying that he knows how to read and therefore understand the real science. He can therefore readily identify the falsehoods contained in the current publicized reports. Quoting the next group of questions and answers verbatim: “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.” This is why Mr. Klaus is my hero. He doesn’t allow himself to be bullied into political correct-speak. He knows he is right and that environmentalism is largely a political; not a scientific avenue of debate. He accurately defines “environmentalism” as a “new incarnation of modern leftism” and there isn’t much more to add to that description other than what Mr. Klaus did add as he mentioned the possibility of insanity in Al Gore’s family tree. Here is the final quoted question with Mr. Klaus’ answer. “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.” These are things modern conservatism faces. We are ready to let the science speak, but the pseudo science that supports global warming theory to the point that many nations are economically pressed to give money to political organizations does nothing to further science, only campaign coffers. Mr. Klaus has struck a chord, identifying the insanity of Al Gore’s traveling global warming road show. Mr. Klaus’ book will no doubt add to the debate, but surely not to the extent that he will be invited to Ophra Winfrey’s program or be asked to go on a multi-million dollar propaganda tour on behalf of conservative environmental climatology. Leftist environmentalism actually believes what it says. As politically correct speech it is probably exact. As the truth of factual science much of it fails to impress the much calmer segment of the scientific community. Mr. Klaus is a welcome voice against the inanity of Al Gore’s environmental rhetoric. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 700 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
