Vaclav Klaus is a vocal critic of the notion that any global warming is man-made (anthropogenic). "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so." He has also criticized the IPCC climate panel as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming because "a whip of political correctness strangles their voices."
In addition he says "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. President Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, in an answer to the questions of the U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.
In an article for Financial Times, Klaus called ambitious environmentalism "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity", hinted that parts of the present political and scientific debate on the environment are suppressing freedom and democracy, and asked for readers opposing the term "scientific consensus", saying that "it is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority". He had a online Q&A session following the article. He wrote that "Environmentalism, not preservation of nature (and of environment), is a leftist ideology.... Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life in communism makes me oversensitive in this respect." He reiterated these statements at a showing of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle organised by his think tank CEP in June 2007, becoming the first head of state to endorse the film. In an interview with BBC World he called the interviewer "absolutely arrogant" for claiming that a scientific consensus embracing the bulk of the world had been reached on climate change and said that he was "absolutely certain" that people would look back in 30 years and thank him.
At a high-level event on climate change at the United Nations Klaus spoke of his disbelief in global warming, calling for a second IPCC to be set up to produce competing reports, and for countries to be left alone to set their priorities and prepare their own plans for the problem.
-Czech president derogates UN global-warming panel, m&c News, 2007-02-09.
LINK 1
-Freedom, not climate, is at risk by Vaclav Klaus, 2007-06-13
LINK 2
-Global warming: truth or propaganda?
LINK 3
-Václav Klaus (24 September 2007). Notes for the speech of the President of the Czech Republic at the UN Climate Change Conference. United Nations.
LINK 4
Just another perspective ...
I heard him on the radio today. He said he has met Al Gore many times and wanted to speak publicly with him about this issue in a debate. He said Al would not agree to any such discourse.
A dispute of global warming from eastern Europe
-
Pakawala
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: August 3, 2006, 9:29 pm
- Location: A golf course when not at home.
"He wrote, "...is a leftist ideology.... Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level."
This is precisely my opinion of the Kyoto Project... Global Socialism.
Excellent article, thanks Rico.
P.S. It will be interesting to read anzyron's comments... if any.
This is precisely my opinion of the Kyoto Project... Global Socialism.
Excellent article, thanks Rico.
P.S. It will be interesting to read anzyron's comments... if any.
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16156
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
I guess an economist (Klaus) is as entitled as anyone else to have an opinion on global warming. No doubt he also has opinions on the price of oil, the Czech Football League, and the amount of pornography on the internet.
Are his opinions worth anything - depends on what you want to believe, and what credibility you want to give him.
I prefer to listen to the opinions and reports of the scientific community in relation to global warming.
Are his opinions worth anything - depends on what you want to believe, and what credibility you want to give him.
I prefer to listen to the opinions and reports of the scientific community in relation to global warming.
Klaus position that I believe is spot on:
Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:
• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority
Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:
• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority
jackspratt wrote:I guess an economist (Klaus) is as entitled as anyone else to have an opinion on global warming. No doubt he also has opinions on the price of oil, the Czech Football League, and the amount of pornography on the internet.
Are his opinions worth anything - depends on what you want to believe, and what credibility you want to give him.
I prefer to listen to the opinions and reports of the scientific community in relation to global warming.
Jackspratt wrote:
"I prefer to listen to the opinions and reports of the scientific community in relation to global warming."
well Jack, your wishes came true....
Here you have it:
"THE OFFICIAL CLIMATE REPORT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE"
Just rolled from the printing machines today
and as Jack demanded: "Science-based"
"I prefer to listen to the opinions and reports of the scientific community in relation to global warming."
well Jack, your wishes came true....
Here you have it:
"THE OFFICIAL CLIMATE REPORT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE"
Just rolled from the printing machines today
and as Jack demanded: "Science-based"
White House issues climate report 4 years late
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Thu May 29, 3:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based "one-stop shop" of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.
ADVERTISEMENT
While the report has no new science in it, it pulls together different U.S. studies and localizes international reports into one comprehensive document required by law. The 271-page report is notable because it is something the Bush administration has fought in the past.
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort, called it "a litany of bad news in store for the U.S."
And biologist Thomas Lovejoy, one of the scientists who reviewed the report for the federal government, said: "It basically says the America we've known we can no longer count on. It's a pretty dramatic picture of all kinds of change rippling through natural systems across the country. And all of that has implications for people."
White House associate science director Sharon Hays, in a teleconference with reporters, declined to characterize the findings as bad, but said it is an issue the administration takes seriously. She said the report was comprehensive and "communicates what the scientists are telling us."
That includes:
• Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most vulnerable to increased heat deaths.
• Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users. From California to New York, lack of water will be an issue.
• A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle's energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century.
• More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.
• Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases. Insect and pathogen outbreaks to the forests are causing $1.5 billion in annual losses.
"Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system," the report said. "Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured."
The report was required by a 1990 law which says that every four years the government must produce a comprehensive science assessment of global warming. It had not been done since 2000.
Environmental groups got a court order last summer to force the Bush administration to produce the document by the end of this month. Hays said the White House has preferred issuing studies on individual global warming issues, such as an agricultural effects report that was released on Tuesday.
"It's totally begrudging," said Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, a whistleblowers' organization. "It's important the government go on record honestly acknowledging this stuff."
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16156
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
There it is Stancookie wrote:White House issues climate report 4 years late
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Thu May 29, 3:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based "one-stop shop" of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.
If you google using "no global warming" there is plenty of information about global warming. Such as:
Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.
A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html
Sun to Blame for Global Warming ...there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5 degree F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2 degrees F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.
A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html
Sun to Blame for Global Warming ...there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5 degree F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2 degrees F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
NO ICE at the North Pole, perhaps this year already !!!!!!
probably again some bla bla bla from the communists or the liberals....
but please,
do not be alarmed by this report, this is just another scare tactic and will be proved false with some undeniable facts and proves....
probably again some bla bla bla from the communists or the liberals....
but please,
do not be alarmed by this report, this is just another scare tactic and will be proved false with some undeniable facts and proves....
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55406.htmlExclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 27 June 2008
* Peter Wadhams: Every time I visit the Arctic, the ice gets thinner
* Scientists warn Arctic sea ice is melting at its fastest rate since records began
Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.
Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.
The diminishing polar ice
Courtesy of NOAA / NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research
This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice – and perhaps all of it – will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.
"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season started with even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.
Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends on what happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt away at the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.
The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.
"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.
There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showing signs of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' – an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice – that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is much larger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.
Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting that the sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.