Monday, February 12, 2007

Al Gore Not a Sane Man says Czech Prez

The President of the Czech Republic has said that Al Gore is not a sane person for proclaiming global warming is a manmade phenomanon. All the hype surrounding the issue is meant as a provocation.


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]

Source:
DrudgeReport


The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

11 comments:

mudkitty said...

So all of a sudden, this guy, who's name you didn't even know last week, is on your radar screen.

Yeah, right. This guy is an expert.

Indigo Red said...

To whom do you refer - Al Gore or Vaclav Klaus?

Demostrate I did not know either or both man's names last week. My god you such an arrogant fool.

You have yet to demonstrate mastery of any subject, issue, person, philosophy, grammer, or spelling. Now you presume to tell me I did not know the names and positions of either Al Gore or Vaclav Klaus.

mudkitty said...

Klaus...silly. I doubt you ever heard of his name before this. That's just my opinion. Anyway, he's a fool if he thinks he knows more about the science of global warming than Gore. That's for sure.

Indigo Red said...

Al Gore? The inventor of the Internet and model for "Love Story"?

Good lord! How stupid is that?

Mike's America said...

I'll take Klaus's view over Bore Gore anyday.

I was at a book signing for Al Bore's "Earth in the Balance" what a clown.

And it wouldn't surprise me that a nitwit like kitty litter would kiss Al's ass.

Birds of a feather they are... Cuckoos!

Mike H. said...

mudkitty, there is a climatologist in Canada by the name of Ball who is interested in historical climatology. His take on this is that this current cycle is the most current cycle out of a never ending line of natural cycles. This climatologist has a PhD in his field. The meteorologist who works for the weather channel and said that any meteorologist who denies global warming should be rejected from the AMS is not a member and is in direct opposition, scientifically, to the majority of its members.

NASA has ascertained that Mars is loosing its ice caps (both the CO2 and water caps) and the gas giants are radiating more heat than they were three years ago. I don't think that mankind is responsible for that is he? I haven't heard about Venus but the temp is in the 800-900 °F range so maybe a couple of degree difference wouldn't be noticable.

Indigo Red said...

Thanks, Mike H. The evidence of the Planets and Stars is far more persuasive than the pseudoevidence of the stars of Hollywood.

It's very unfortunate that the actual facts are heard by very vocal people who truly believe al-Gore is a meteorlogical scientist, Internet inventor, God, true president, and good public speaker. They forget that he is also the killer of his sister, but that's in the past.

The current global barbeque crowd has significantly been totally unable to explain the Little Ice Age and the warm period that allowed farming settlement of Greenland. Truths are inconvenient.

Mike's America said...

Hearing scheduled for Wednesday in Congress on global warming was canceled because it's too cold and snowy.

Indigo Red said...

Sheesh! If this massive man made plantary heating continues, we'll be completely covered in snow and ice.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Another useful piece, regarding the slander of the AEI and politicization of global warming.

Indigo Red said...

Thank you for that, Wordsmith. It's an interesting article.

I was struck by these two related points:

"...the 2001 report stated: "The accuracy of these [temperature] estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing." The IPCC identified 12 key factors for climate modeling, and said that the level of scientific understanding was "very low" for 7 of the 12.

"...there appear to be some significant retreats from the 2001 IPCC report. The IPCC has actually lowered its estimate of the magnitude of human influence on warming..."

That scientific understanding is very low for 7 of 12 key factors of climate change and that the degree to which human affairs have adversly affeted the process is more than just somewhat significant.

This is a huge admission and has been ignorred by the Gore climate loons and the fawning media, it would appear, quite deliberately. After all, there is no money and fame for advocating "Global Just Right Climate."