Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

Czech President Calls Man-Made Global Warming a Myth, Questions Al Gore�s Sanity
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 12, 2007 - 11:30.

As the media, the left, and the United Nations become more and more strident about a supposed scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic global warming, more and more dissenters speak out against the junk science involved in this mythology.

The most recent was Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.

In an interview with "Hospod�řsk� noviny," a Czech economics daily, Klaus made the following observations (emphasis mine throughout):

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.

I couldn�t agree more. Klaus marvelously continued:

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.

The interviewer asked: �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...�

Klaus answered: �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.�

Another interesting question: "Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?"

Klaus�s marvelous answer:

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.

Fascinating. Let�s hope more political leaders around the world free themselves from the current bounds of political correctness and join the groundswell that recognize this junk science for what it is.

[ddeubel]

Klaus is a buffoon. Especially regarding this issue. I spent a good part of my life in the Czech Republic and Klaus only knows one line -- the free enterprise is the road to all goodness and heaven line......

[khyber]

my favourite bit was how he really he COMPLETELY dislodged decades of scientific research with point after salient, academically supported, scientifically sound point!

Undoubtedly, the most brutal takedown of Al Gore came when Klaus lobbed this bomb:

[Pligganease]

[thepeel]

It is possible to care about our planet and still think that the global warming industry is dead wrong.

To read up on some of the opposition to this theory, take a look at this ten-part series.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

There is quite a bit of evidence that suggests that climate change (calling it global warming is just a small example of how loony this can get) is part of a natural cycle (medieval warming period, for example) or natural but not cyclical or man made but not a very big deal or a function of solar energy or a function of increased volcanic activity under the oceans or man made and a huge problem or not happening at all. Among others!

I spent a very large amount of time reading up on this after the UN report. I was slightly unconvinced then but am totally convinced that this is a shake-down now. There is never this much agreement about anything. This is, to use market terms, a run.

Just to rehash my credentials. I consider myself an environmentalist of sorts. I am mindful of my impact on earth and jump through all the necessary hoops to minimize my impact on this planet. As of late, I've even pondered going without meat, and have already seriously limited my meat consumption for health and environmental reasons. Despite this, I am 100% convinced that we have another Y2k/population bomb/end times run here.

The global warming debate is starting to get very religious in tone. Much like the socialist debate 70 years back. And those who made the arguments for socialism are now the same people pushing for greenism.

[Nowhere Man]

[EFLtrainer]

Sundubuman, why do you think the earth needs protecting?



Go tell it to Tuvalu.

[ddeubel]

[thepeel]

An attack at me, and that is all you got. Eh? And no, "global warming" isn't the only problem (and it isn't a problem). There are many environmental problems, and pumping CO2 into the air isn't a good thing to do and we ought to find cleaner technologies. But "global warming" is a hack-job. A religious belief. All this talk about melting ice caps (I bet you haven't read,,,nah, I KNOW you haven't read the UN report. It suggests that Gore's notion of rapidly melting arctic ice isn't going to happen) is nonsense.

There earth has cycles of warming and cooling. The best evidence that I have seen is that we are in a warming cycle.

That is why this is religious in nature. Cyclical arguments and ad homonyms.

[Pligganease]

[W.T.Carl]

When the Shire of England is a wine producing region and Greenland is open for livestock (as it was 1000 years ago), then I'll believe in global warming.

[gang ah jee]

[khyber]

The cyclical argument also follows (If I recall correctly) global levels of CO2.
Man is making MORE CO2 than during the medieval period and our current climate change is happenning at a pace that has not been seen in geological history. YES, there have been cycles (100,1000, 100,000, etc... year cycles) but the data has suggested that it has cycled this fast.

While I don't necessarily agree with the "polar ice caps will be gone in 50 years" or "sea levels will rise 7ft in the next 100 years" (those are, after all TREMENDOUS claims that require a lot of presumptions), it seems obvious to me that weather patterns around the world have changed a lot in the last 10 years. And I simply do not think that, with the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere, there is/can be NO visible affect.

A call:
1) Present unspoiled data that indicates that global climate change is a MYTH.
2) Present unassailible proof that the "cycle" we are currently in shares commonalities with other cycles from the past.
3) Present unbiased data that show there is no link between CO2 and entrapment of heat in the atmosphere

[thepeel]

[gang ah jee]