essaysfromtheedge

Taking On The Global Warming Fascists

You've gotta love Vaclav Klaus, President of Czech Republic. In a testy interview on Mon Feb 12 2007 with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus takes on a rather rabid pro-global warming acolyte (formerly called a "member of the media", but of late the distinction has been hard to discern).

See, the Czech president has openly criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. Now, one would think the old adage would apply: "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck." The duck in this case is the fanatic propagation of pro-manmade-global-warming fascism, a strictly political entity with very little claims to real science.

But, calling the duck a duck is verboten - unless you have the truth on your side, like Klaus.

Here's the interview:

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]

Here are a few salient points you should take away with you. The very first question is designed to be antagonistic: "IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?"

"...false myth..."? "...this idea..."?

Clearly the questioner considers the case closed, and any questioning of the notion that 1. there IS global warming, and 2. it is caused by man, can ONLY be ideas without backing.

Klaus takes this head-on: "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."

There are a number of recent stories that lend credence to the clear fact that global warming is NOT a crisis - it may, in fact NOT be happening. And even if it were, the factors of its cause do not rest in the demesne of mankind, but rather in the cosmos - factors which have played the causative role in ALL climate change throughout the history of the planet.

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet

Experts question theory on global warming

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? - Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

I could go on, linking to many other science sites and scientists' work which deals squarely with the gaping holes in the global warming orthodoxy. This will not sway true believers, however, and many in the global warming camp have begun resorting to fascist tactics like censorship, and stripping "unbelievers" of their credentials.

“The Weather Channel” Mess

The person who interviewed Vaclav Klaus brought these guns to bear with this question: "But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?"

Popgun tactics, but the tactics of the global warming fascists nonetheless. Amusing, in and of itself, since the most public spokesman of worldwide global warming catastrophe himself is NOT a climate scientist, and not does he have sufficient knowledge and enough information"!

I'm speaking, of course, of Al Gore.

However, we don't need to point out the obvious logical flaw in the question's premise. All we need to do is memorize President Klaus' answer:

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.

This is such an incredible Grand-Slam-Dunk Homerun Winner that the interviewer never recovers.

This must be the rallying cry against the forces of fascism that threaten to undermine the very foundation of open scientific discourse. We must not allow the global warming cult to prevail, for in their desperation to promote a weak ideology, they will resort to the tactics of all fascists before them:

Don't engage the opposition: silence them.



-

posted by Tomás @ 2/12/2007 09:38:00 PM