Common Sense .vs left-wing religion - Global Warming

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.

Mitch_A wrote:

> Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming,

Hey, dumbass. WTF does your froth have to do with sim racing?

Please, STFU!!!

In article >, t
says...

>
> Hey, dumbass. WTF does your froth have to do with sim racing?
>
> Please, STFU!!!
>
>

I killfiled the dumbass.

It is all you dumbasses that keep reponding to him. Why can't you all
just keep your fingers in your pants and off your keyboards?

Seriously, trolls are annoying but pretty easy to spot and ignore. I
don't so much hate the trolls as the people that just cannot not respond
to them.

Show some restraint.


MRSisson (Pressing 'i' yet again to 'ignore' a thread)
--
LOAD "GPL",8

SEARCHING FOR GPL
LOADING
READY.
RUN