Text 27146, 112 rader
Skriven 2007-02-12 20:39:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Gore
============
This is funny.....

===============================

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

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]


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)