Czech President Vaclav Klaus may be the only world leader with a PHD in economics. That fact may give him special insight into the climate change debate and how the imposition of draconian “solutions” to warming will alter western societies forever.
Klaus spoke on Monday night at the 7th annual International Climate Change Conference being sponsored by the Heartland Institute in Chicago this week.
Klaus is an impressive man with an impressive resume. He has served in a variety of elected and appointed posts in his country, including finance minister, prime minister, and chairman of the Chamber of Deputies. In 2003, he was elected president. Re-elected in 2008, Klaus has been a lonely voice for reason in the climate debates in Europe. This has given him a unique perspective on what climate realists are up against.
Klaus believes that global warming has “ceased to be fashionable” and that it has disappeared from the headlines. He sees this as a mixed blessing:
The undeniable fact is that almost from one day to the next the global warming debate ceased to be fashionable. It disappeared from the headlines. It may weaken the position of the global warming fundamentalists but it makes it more difficult for us, the “deniers” or “skeptics”, as they call us, to motivate people to think about this issue and to openly and politically express their views about the irrational, human freedom curtailing, human prosperity undermining measures and policies introduced by the political establishments in most of the countries of the world in the last two decades, not to speak about the measures prepared for the future. We have to keep repeating that our planet is determined not only by anthropogenic influences but dominantly by long term exogenous and endogenous natural processes and that most of them are beyond any human control.
The alarmism has subsided, they want to make it “low profile”. Declarations such as the one in Dr. Pachauri´s manifesto from 1989 that “global warming is the greatest crisis ever faced collectively by humankind” are no longer popular. The former radical alarmists, even the scientists connected with the IPCC, changed their tactic. More and more often we hear carefully worded statements that “some environmentalists, supported by the media, exaggerated the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by scientists”. We know that they were not “carefully formulated”. These “conclusions” were very easy to reformulate.
Another problem for climate realists is that children have already been indoctrinated:
We have to accept that they have succeeded in establishing the religion of environmentalism as the official religion of Western society, as the religion which asks for a radical transformation of the whole Western civilization. We – at least some of us – have to play with them in the arena chosen by them.
There are probably more and more people around us now who do not buy the alarmism of the GWD but we have to accept that they are not sufficiently motivated to do anything against it. And they don’t know how. Politicians and political activists, bureaucrats in the national and international organizations, and representatives of the subsidized businesses are organized and due to it are able to push this doctrine further ahead because to do so is in their narrowly defined interests. Ordinary people are not organized and do not have politically formulated interests. They are also not helped by the existing political parties because these parties are not raising this issue either. They are already – almost all of them – more or less captured by the Greens.
His summation was an eloquent call for action:
To sum up today’s simple message: empirical data are important; scientific discoveries are important; the disclosure of malpractices in the IPCC and other “bastions” of the GWD are important; but we have to take part in the undergoing ideological battle. The subtitle of my five-year-old book was “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” There is no doubt that it is all about freedom. We should keep that in mind.
The entire text of President Klaus’ address follows on the next page.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Many thanks for the invitation and for giving me the opportunity to address this distinguished audience. I am not for the first time in Chicago. It is also not for the first time that I am attending a conference organized by the Heartland Institute. But it is for the first time I am with Heartland here in Chicago.
Some of you know that I came to Chicago for the NATO summit. Yesterday and today I was supposed to speak about what to do in Afghanistan, how to keep NATO going in an era of overall indebtedness and budgetary cuts, and about NATO-Russia relations. I am glad to tell you that we did not discuss the global warming. It seems that NATO does not consider global warming to be a security threat. But my main preoccupation in the last days was NATO and I am afraid I am not sufficiently prepared to make a serious contribution to your conference. Let me make at least a few remarks I consider relevant now.
The word “now” is important. On Friday evening I attended a music festival in Prague and during the break I mentioned to a group of people that I go to Chicago, among other things to speak at this conference. Their reaction was: “Global warming? Isn’t it already over? Does anybody care about it?”. That is how they see it. Maybe, it is a European perspective.
Let me, therefore, start by thanking you for keeping the global warming issue alive. This is an important achievement in a moment when it has already become half-forgotten. It has not happened accidently, it was and is planned. It is a part of a carefully prepared tactic of global warming alarmists how to – once and for all – win their case. In the past two decades, they tried to do the opposite. They wanted to be as loud as possible to arouse our fears, now – when the whole issue becomes more and more suspicious – it is in their interest to stop any public discussion. This is the reason why they try to pretend that “the science is settled”, that the debate is over. We should not let them do it.
Some of you may have a different experience. You may feel to be permanently under a very aggressive attack, but we have to admit that something has changed. Last time I was asked to speak about global warming was in July 2011 in Australia. Of course, one possible explanation is that the audiences are no longer interested in my views on this topic (which is something I am ready to accept); the other explanation is that this experience of mine is not unique. The topics have undoubtedly changed. I am more often asked to speak about the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis than our global warming. It may also be the symptom of the victory of global warming fundamentalists who try to make the global warming debate forgotten. That gives this conference a special importance.
The undeniable fact is that almost from one day to the next the global warming debate ceased to be fashionable. It disappeared from the headlines. It may weaken the position of the global warming fundamentalists but it makes it more difficult for us, the “deniers” or “skeptics”, as they call us, to motivate people to think about this issue and to openly and politically express their views about the irrational, human freedom curtailing, human prosperity undermining measures and policies introduced by the political establishments in most of the countries of the world in the last two decades, not to speak about the measures prepared for the future. We have to keep repeating that our planet is determined not only by anthropogenic influences but dominantly by long term exogenous and endogenous natural processes and that most of them are beyond any human control.
The alarmism has subsided, they want to make it “low profile”. Declarations such as the one in Dr. Pachauri´s manifesto from 1989 that “global warming is the greatest crisis ever faced collectively by humankind” are no longer popular. The former radical alarmists, even the scientists connected with the IPCC, changed their tactic. More and more often we hear carefully worded statements that “some environmentalists, supported by the media, exaggerated the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by scientists”. We know that they were not “carefully formulated”. These “conclusions” were very easy to reformulate.
Again, I see this development as a mixed blessing. The earlier apocalyptic warnings succeeded in creating the overall belief in the undeniable existence of a dangerous, man-made global warming. This belief has become deeply rooted in the heads (and hearts) of people all over the world. I agree with Professor Plimer when he sees the main danger in the fact that the children have already been indoctrinated. For that reason we have to keep the global warming debate alive.
How to make a change? I dare say that science per se will not make it regardless of its achievements. Serious scientific research continues bringing new and new pieces of knowledge almost on a daily basis but it has not brought and will not bring any decisive breakthrough in a public debate on this topic in any direction. That is not the role of science or of one scientific discipline. Climate is a complex system which means that – in spite of the dreams of believers in general systems theory – any scientific discovery concerning this topic will always be only a partial one. The course of the world-wide global warming debate more or less confirms this elementary methodological argument.
Can a decisive change come as a result of new empirical data? I doubt it as well. It is evident that the current temperature data confirm neither the GWD alarmist and apocalyptic views, nor their quasi-scientific hypotheses about the exclusivity of relationship between CO2 and temperature. The world has not warmed up very much since the end of the last century but a period of twelve years is too short to shatter the whole carefully built edifice of the GWD. We shouldn´t forget that we have been arguing in the past that a century in climatology is too short to prove the global warming as a long term trend. That is why, to my great regret, we have to – symmetrically – accept that a decade is not sufficient to do the opposite.
There is no doubt that most of the true-believers in the GWD remain undisturbed in their views. Some individuals leave the bandwagon (the most recent well-known case is James Lovelock) but those people who have vested interests (and there are many of them now) together with the men and women who innocently and naively sympathize with any idea which is against freedom, capitalism and markets are still “marching on.”
Discussing technicalities is not sufficient, because the supporters of the GWD are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science and in incremental changes in temperature and their causes. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and sophisticated theories will never change their views.
We have to accept that they have succeeded in establishing the religion of environmentalism as the official religion of Western society, as the religion which asks for a radical transformation of the whole Western civilization. We – at least some of us – have to play with them in the arena chosen by them.
There are probably more and more people around us now who do not buy the alarmism of the GWD but we have to accept that they are not sufficiently motivated to do anything against it. And they don’t know how. Politicians and political activists, bureaucrats in the national and international organizations, and representatives of the subsidized businesses are organized and due to it are able to push this doctrine further ahead because to do so is in their narrowly defined interests. Ordinary people are not organized and do not have politically formulated interests. They are also not helped by the existing political parties because these parties are not raising this issue either. They are already – almost all of them – more or less captured by the Greens.
To sum up today’s simple message: empirical data are important; scientific discoveries are important; the disclosure of malpractices in the IPCC and other “bastions” of the GWD are important; but we have to take part in the undergoing ideological battle. The subtitle of my five-year-old book was “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” There is no doubt that it is all about freedom. We should keep that in mind.
Excellent. Thank you for posting this. It isn’t about science, it is about politics, therefore argue the politics… those advocating AGW don’t care about science and cannot be convinced by science…
President Klaus nails it: “… we have to take part in the undergoing ideological battle … There is no doubt that it is all about freedom. We should keep that in mind.”
Touche, Dr. Klaus.
When AGW proponents demean, insult and attempt to personally destroy those who disagree with their hypothesis – instead of presenting scientific facts and arguments to buttress their case – one MUST believe that the AGW hypothesis is fraudulent.
Real scientists use facts and data to refute or support (as the case may be) their hypotheses, as well as WELCOME scientific argument to help solidify their theses. AGW “scientists” do none of this.
Check out Richard Feynmann’s (Nobel Prize, physics) description of the scientific method and compare it with the behavior of the AGW “scientists.”
One can only conclude that the AGW crowd adheres faithfully to the Lysenkian dogma.
When one side attempts to shut off any debate, you know for sure that the “fix is in.”
What scientific evidence–if it could be found–would convince someone like yourself that AGW is a real phenomenon?
Scientists no longer need to rely only on computer models. The opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping is unprecedented in the history of Western civilization. The North Polar ice cap has clearly shrunk enough for it to be possible to traverse the Northwest Passage in summer without icebreakers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Scientists have supplied evidence like that–but evidently it’s not enough to convince the skeptics among the public.
Just what will it take to convince the public? Must Miami Beach be submerged permanently for folks to be convinced?
The world’s climate has changed many times over its history. What is in dispute is the AGW portion of AGW climate change. And what is in further dispute is the proposed solution, which would economically put the world’s economy back to a subsistence level of existence
Correct. What is it you want us to be convinced of?
1. That the climate is changing?
2. That the climate is getting warmer?
3. That the change is not part of a natural process?
4. That the change is partly anthropogenic?
5. That the change is entirely anthropogenic?
6. That the change will have negative consequences?
7. That the change will lead to the annihilation of the Earth’s entire ecosystem, including the human race?
8. That we must radically change our way of life in order to prevent #7?
Fact: the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, which will lead to the opening of the Northwest Passage – something that hasn’t occurred in history.
Fact: The Thames River Frost Fair was held from 1677 to 1814. People could walk, run, skate, and play games on the frozen river. That was during the Little Ice Age. If you believe Wikipedia, it was caused by one or more of the following:
1. Orbital Cycles
2. Solar Activity
3. Volcanic Activity
4. Ocean Conveyor Slowdown
5. Decreased Human Populations
6. Inherent Variability of Climate
There is no agreement as to which of these factors “caused” the Little Ice Age. A 1500-year temperature cycle is mentioned but nobody’s sure if it exists.
So if nobody can agree about the Little Ice Age, why should I believe what they say about Global Climate Change?
How about if I just believe Global Climate Change is a never-ending process attributable to at least six different factors and that we can’t really predict how the climate will change or whether the consequences will be good or bad? How about if I decide to wait and see what happens instead of panicking and stampeding off a cliff along with the rest of the true believers?
It does seem quite coincidental that 16 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred during the last 2 decades. Since 1940, the sun has been producing less heat. During the last 150+ years the carbon content of the atmosphere has increased from less than 300 ppm to more than 400 ppm. This cannot be attributed to any natural cause except man. Anyone who argues that this steep rise in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a “natural” variation is unfamiliar with data obtained from more than 650,000 years of ice cores.
Glaciers are retreating at phenomenal rates around the world from the Himalayas to the Alps to the Rockies and Indies. Permafrost is melting in the arctic. This is quite alarming because permafrost locks in trillions of tons of methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
The Antarctic is thawing faster than anyone expected. In Feb – Mar 2002 the Larsen ice shelf (3000 sq km and 220 m thick) broke up. The Larsen B ice shelf previously had existed for more than 3 million years through interglacial warming periods and even the warmest periods of the last 10000 years.
Anti-evolution and anti-climate change both exist as anti-science demagoguery. More than 98% of the *world’s* scientists who actually deal directly with climatology agree that it is occurring. For an explanation of the 2% who don’t, look to the source of their funding — you will find that they are almost exclusively working for oil companies and so-called conservative thinktanks. We have direct satellite data now confirming the prediction made by computer models that as the troposphere heats the stratosphere will cool.
Measurements of carbonic acid in the ocean have shown continual increases. We are already starting to see die offs of coral reefs. Crustaceans have a harder time building their exoskeletons in the presence of too much acid in the ocean. Smaller crustaceans are at the bottom of the food chain in the ocean and a collapse in their populations will doom predators higher on the food chain.
One commenter above made the observation that this is about economics and that the answers proposed to deal with AGW are draconian. That may be so, but failure to address the problem will result in catastrophic effects on the world’s economy within a century or two. We will all be dead by then but our descendants will curse us for not taking this threat seriously.
Read this and then see what you think:
http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks/Oshkosh2010.EngrCritique.AGW.pdf
Might look long, but anyone can get through it in 20 mins. It’s a lot of graphs and absolutely destroys the AGW argument. (and shows how they misinterpreted, and flat-out lied too) Enjoy!
AGW alarmists predicted that the arctic would be free of ice in 2012 and yet here we are with an average ice pack in 2012. None of the predictions from the AGW alarmist community have been true. All of the computer models have been wrong.
The AGW alarmists have been shown to consistently manipulate and destroy data and blackball authors who present contradicting evidence from peer reviewed journals in an effort to portray consensus. Science is not consensus.
Well, for starters how about:
1. An explanation as to what caused the ice ages?
2. An explanation as to what caused the ice ages to end?
3. An explanation as to how previous warm periods ALL ended in ice ages?
4. How can CO2 cause AGW if this gas constitutes LESS THAN 4 PARTS IN 10,000 of the atmosphere, whilst water vapor (another green house gas) constitutes well over 90% of all green house gases?
Also, your “arguments” are not convincing because everything you cite has happened before; well before the industrial revolution. And, there has not been any net warming in the last 10 to 15 years despite (so they say) and increase of CO2 levels. This FACT directly contradicts the AGW thesis.
Further, when REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS dispute the AGW thesis, why is it that they are subject to personal attacks and attempts to destroy and intimidate them? Why is this done? You did not provide an answer to this question.
Lastly, the computer models cannot even “predict” the historical climate over the last 500 years, even though the “answer” is known, more or less. If a model cannot replicate the known climatic history, how can anyone presume these same models can predict the climate 50 or 100 years hence?
The AGW thesis and its proponents are driven by money, the lust for power and control, or for many it is simply a pseudo-religion.
There are many well regarded scientists who dispute the AGW thesis. Real scientists would welcome this critique. The AGW ‘scientists” do not. Why? Because the AGW ‘scientists” know that their whole thesis is bogus, a fraud, a fake, merely a ploy to line their pockets with money and have their ego’s massaged thru the numerous interviews granted by a left wing propagandist media.
Frankly, when all of this is all sorted out, and the fraud is exposed for what it is – a fraud – a few dozen “scientists” and their political hack supporters (Al Fatso Gore, etc) should be indicted and hopefully incarcerated.
You make some very good points about climate and science, JA. I’m definately in the “skeptic” category — and believe the ideological aspects of the AGW movement are revolting … BUT …
Of course, there are elements on both sides (many more on their side) of this that are not “in it” for the truth — couldn’t care less about what’s true — but rather only care for their own and often personal “special” interests — those who’ve set themselves up to make fortunes from AGW, or to gain political power.
Of course, scientists can be corrupted — driven by financial or other gains …
But not ALL the AGW scientists are corrupt. I don’t believe that it’s (corruption) true about most scientists, no matter what side of this issue they’re on.
It’s true, there are those “gray” areas … where their University (the Gov’t) praises and rewards them for coming up with the “right” answers. It influences … but isn’t necessarily conscious deception.
Some AGW climate scientists have gone way overboard in attempts to prevail — and that is completely wrong and unethical — but not all of them have done this.
AGW scientists, for the most part … although, of course, they have a vested interest in being right — not necessarily financial reasons or even ideological reasons … but just because they want to be … have a passion to be … right … (scientists are very competitive and naturally so) … and totally and sincerely believe they are right.
While it’s totally necessary to fight with all might against the destructive and freedom crushing ideological and societal consequences of the “solutions” proposed by politicians and bureaucrats — and the Left — and to expose and denounce unethical behavior on the part of some scientists — it just isn’t realistic to believe that ALL scientists who have theories they believe prove AGW are totally corrupt.
Saying the “science is settled” and the “debate is closed” is nasty. But most are doing this in the belief that all or most of those who disagree are motivated and supported by corrupt forces, just as we often see all of them in the same corrupt light — because some have proven to be.
All this hatred and snark and demonization … on both sides regarding the scientists … it’s so … bad and wrong.
I understand that you are trying to present a reasonable view point on all this but frankly, the scientific method IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Science is not about believing or wanting or feeling or consensus; it is about facts as borne out by controlled experiments and observations, the ability to replicate experiments and observations, and the oft times very direct (brutal?)give and take betwixt scientists on different sides in a SCIENTIFIC debate.
Yes, there is uncertainty in understanding climate and its short term cousin, the weather. And someday in the future science will have a much better understanding about the mechanisms that control climate. EVERYBODY agrees that present day understanding is incomplete. And if EVERYBODY agrees with this – and they should – then no scientist can claim that “the science is settled.”
Even Einstein’s relativity theory (dark matter, anyone?) is still being questioned !!Yet no one is suggesting that those who question Einstein’s theories are “deniers” or are “criminal.”
The fact is the AGW movement has been hijacked by radical left wing pseudo-religious wackos; and the MAJORITY of scientists has ALLOWED THIS TO OCCUR. This latter point is most distressing ,for by their silence they implicitly allow and encourage the radical zealots to continue their threats and campaigns of personal destruction. If the scientific community had spoken out, then long ago the radical AGW zealots would have been ostracized – as they should have been.
History has demonstrated repeatedly that a very small, very radical and DANGEROUS minority that is very, very persistent and organized can ultimately prevail over the majority. And history has shown that the outcomes are always disasterous.
No slack whatsoever should be given to the AGW purveyors when it is firmly established that their campaign was dishonest and a fraud and frankly, had absolutely ZERO to do with the climate or the environment. They should be treated the way the Nazis were treated post WWII, but this time if we are all lucky, we can dispense with the charade of a trial.
Let’s be very clear; the leaders of the AGW crowd intend to impose their left wing, totalitarian (i.e, enslaving) world view on the citizenry. They will not be nice to anyone that opposes them. Do not think for a minute that the gulags of the former USSR (20 to 30 million exterminated !) are not possible here in the USA (recall the 1960s meeting of radical leftist students – mostly Ivy League students who claimed that if need be, they ONLY had to exterminate about 10 to 20 million American citizens to coerce everyone else to follow their agenda once in power). The AGW zealots mean business; they are not kidding around, they are DEADLY serious.
Let’s not kid ourselves as to who these people are and what they have in store for all of us.
History does repeat; repeatedly.
It does seem quite coincidental that 16 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred during the last 2 decades. Since 1940, the sun has been producing less heat. During the last 150+ years the carbon content of the atmosphere has increased from less than 300 ppm to more than 400 ppm. This cannot be attributed to any natural cause except man. Anyone who argues that this steep rise in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a “natural” variation is unfamiliar with data obtained from more than 650,000 years of ice cores.
Glaciers are retreating at phenomenal rates around the world from the Himalayas to the Alps to the Rockies and Indies. Permafrost is melting in the arctic. This is quite alarming because permafrost locks in trillions of tons of methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
The Antarctic is thawing faster than anyone expected. In Feb – Mar 2002 the Larsen ice shelf (3000 sq km and 220 m thick) broke up. The Larsen B ice shelf previously had existed for more than 3 million years through interglacial warming periods and even the warmest periods of the last 10000 years.
Anti-evolution and anti-climate change both exist as anti-science demagoguery. More than 98% of the *world’s* scientists who actually deal directly with climatology agree that it is occurring. For an explanation of the 2% who don’t, look to the source of their funding — you will find that they are almost exclusively working for oil companies and so-called conservative thinktanks. We have direct satellite data now confirming the prediction made by computer models that as the troposphere heats the stratosphere will cool.
Measurements of carbonic acid in the ocean have shown continual increases. We are already starting to see die offs of coral reefs. Crustaceans have a harder time building their exoskeletons in the presence of too much acid in the ocean. Smaller crustaceans are at the bottom of the food chain in the ocean and a collapse in their populations will doom predators higher on the food chain.
One commenter above made the observation that this is about economics and that the answers proposed to deal with AGW are draconian. That may be so, but failure to address the problem will result in catastrophic effects on the world’s economy within a century or two. We will all be dead by then but our descendants will curse us for not taking this threat seriously.
Do you believe that if the entire world were to de-industrialize and stop producing Fossil Fuel CO2, that the Climate wouldn’t change?
If your answer is that it would change “less” — do you know how much less?
There are those who believe 350 is the limit to CO2 that would save the world from Climate Change. Interesting — the claim that all the world’s history of Climate Change was completely — or mostly — a function of CO2. Has that been proven? I don’t think so. It’s a guess — an odd one at that.
You didn’t read the article, did you?
Klaus says, it isn’t about the climate, it’s about freedom. Specifically, the main problem isn’t about whether the climate is changing (it always is) or whether humans caused it (at best, their input is profoundly small); it’s about the batshit insane solutions being offered, which all boil down to the Left’s usual if-all-you-have-is-a-hammer “solution”, which is: more government power.
You see, while there is room for debate about whether a warmer planet might be catastrophic or not, there is absolutely no room for debate on the catastrophic results of that “solution”. On that point, the political science is indeed settled.
No, the this is not the first time the Northwest Passage has cleared up, as Classically Liberal reported some time back:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/search?q=northwest+passage
What do you mean “The opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping is unprecedented in the history of Western civilization.” The British Naval Vessel “Investigator” was found at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea on the other side of the Northwest Passage just a couple of years ago. It sank in the 1850′s while looking for the Franklin Expedition. Henry Larson of the RCMP did the passage with the St. Roche in the 1950′s. It is only unprecedented for anyone born after about 1970.
The Northwest Passage is no more “open” than it ever was. Now, as in centuries past, if you attempt to navigate the Passage at 15 knots without the benefit of GPS, radio, and satellites providing real-time updates on ice conditions, you will die. Care to try it?
This is as alarming as the “ozone hole” that suddenly appeared over Antarctica after we launched the first satellite able to detect ozone holes.
Klaus has an important point – that while the noise may subside for now, the seeds have been planted in the elementary schools. Don’t think this is over. This was just act 1. This is religion. This is jihad for the warmitarians. This won’t be over until the Malthusian cult is over. We’ll all be long gone before that will happen, if ever.
Another law of nature will save us: kids rebel. Climate is one boring, unrewarding, unconvincing religion, sure to lose indoctrinees as they hit the age of 14.
Not always and the “teacher’s pet” kids will still be foot soldiers (i.e. cannon fodder) for Progressive causes. They are told they are “rebels” even though the simply parrot whatever authority tells them.
I’m amazed at the number of college kids who think of themselves as revolutionaries even though politicians and professors are telling them what to rebel against.
What gets me is they are told they are rebelling against the “man,” even thought the “man” has been liberals for decades now – on every level.
I think there should be a way to “unindoctrinated” most teenagers. I know that I have mine thinking twice about environmentalism by demanding regularly that they take out the recycling.
“We have to accept that they have succeeded in establishing the religion of environmentalism as the official religion of Western society, as the religion which asks for a radical transformation of the whole Western civilization.”
Well of course it does. And who do the far left and the socialists say will run this new “religion?” Why the government, of course. If the far left and the socialists can’t get rid of real churches and real religions, thereby being unable to eliminate ideas that may not be compatible with the state, then create a whole new religion based on environmentalism. Who knew that instead of eliminating and destroying churches, all Stalin had to do was hold up a “save the polar bears” sign, wear tie-dyed t-shirts and sandals, and warn against “global warming” in all his speeches? This is just another way for the government to control your life, especially if those “carbon taxes” are ever put into place. I’m glad people have more important things to worry about today, like finding a job and living their lives.
What is so “fashionable” about the life and death struggle between man and Earth? Is it a fad to think that mankind is destroying Mother Earth? Is that the sick, twisted logic you people employ? Compare the Global Pollution Crisis to Prada or to Gucci? Is that your new meal ticket? Vaclav Klaus (and his crazy predecessor Vaclav Havel) know jack about nothing. What can those men really bring to the debate? What history did either of them experience that would give either any insight into mankind and his evils? What is it about those men that allows conservative to say: “listen to these guys, they know what they’re talking about”? It’s like you neocons just randomly selected two Czechs to be your spokes people. They’re not even French! Crappola, you just should have selected that tramp Molly Ringwald!
“What history did either of them experience that would give either any insight into mankind and his evils?”
The ignorance and arrogance demonstrated by this question underscores the content of Pres.Klaus’ speech.
Anonymous? Nope. I’ll stand tall and accept responsibility for this.
LovelyEarth is a (often funny) parody.
Point taken – need to hang out here more. Tough to tell the players without a program.
Wow! Poor Molly is taking a big hit today!
LE – I’ve missed you!
to Lovely Earth: you apparently know neither Vaclav Havel nor Vaclav Klaus. Havel was a great playwright who sent to jail fighting for freedom against Communism. Klaus is a brilliant, sometimes abrasive economist who has succeeded in politics, mostly by being right. neither one sat around in ignorance insulting those far braver and smarter than they are.
Whatever, the fact that they’re related stinks of a conspiracy. And what would either of those guys know of communism? I would think that one really has to live in a communist society in order to really understand it. La bonne reponse, mon ami?
Not me this time – learned my lesson @10:39 above.
And did you ever smell the cities they lived in? They reeked of diesel fuel, when there was any fuel at all. All they thought about was being free, and did not even realize what oddly styled clothes they were wearing. They were like Solzhnitzen; they just did not understand western culture with all its grand excesses, embraced by both left and right. No one here wanted to wear clothing that looked like it was worn by Czechs. Really!
……“What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” There is no doubt that it is all about freedom. We should keep that in mind.”
Why isn’t this guy running for the U.S. Presidency? (OK – I know – He was born in Kenya.) Talk about getting to the heart of the matter with one elegant stroke!!! This has ALWAYS been the issue in the enviromental debate. It has also been the issue our “Green” academics, politicians and media are most anxious (actually franttic) to obfuscate.
If we accept the premise that the environment is “everything” and composed of delicate interlocking systems that mankind (boooo!!) is irresponsibly tampering with then it inevitably follows that “everything” must be controlled. These “controls” will be imposed by a bureaucratic technocracy that MUST extend into every aspect of human behavior. In such a system, since th existence of the planet is ont he line, not unregulated freedoms can be allowed.
I always ask the question – “Can the environmental agenda exist side-by-side with tradiational Western concepts of liberty and personal freedom?” I have never gotten a straight answer to this from any “green.” I further argue tht this is the real attraction of the environmental movement. The people who flock to the green standard are not so mucyh interested in “saving the planet” as they are in establishing a regime that micro-manages everything. Thanks President Claus for bringing this out.
“Thanks President Claus for bringing this out.”
I think you’re confusing Czech president Vaclav Klaus with Santa Claus….
Thanks – I stand corrected. As a reward I am including here P.J. O’Rourke’s wonderful little essay, “On God and Santa Claus.”
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
On a left-wing blog, the punch line would be that the difference between Santa Claus and God is that there is no God
Don’t forget that in the end-time days, things are going to get very hot. God will use man’s own warming to fry him. Petro fuels are of the world, not of the Lord, and they promote a worldly lifestyle, which will soon be a deathstyle. It’s in the Bible; check it out.
The other day, a devout young woman came to my door with a petition for me to sign seeking a city-wide recycling of organic wastes (vegetable food scraps, cooking grease, and yard waste). I did not sign, much to her astonishment.
I already have two compost bins in my back yard, each 3′ x 3′ x 3′. I compost vegetable scraps and yard waste not because of alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fears. I simply like having the resultant soil amendment to my garden. But, it is my choice, not a government mandate.
I have a modest sized city lot. I have an electric lawnmower. I used to have an electric lawnmower with a very long extension cord. To accommodate its use, I had an electrician install exterior electric outlets on each of the four corners of my home. What a pain this lawnmower, with its extension cord, was to use. I switched to an electric lawnmower run by two golf cart batteries. This really has worked well. I chose an electric lawnmower because it works, or it doesn’t work. I do not need to go through the annual routine of tuning it up. But, I do this as a choice. I don’t feel the need to compel others to follow my lead.
In either case, I do not fell particularly righteous or somehow among the elect or chosen people.
The annoying thing about the AGW folks is that they are so much like the Hari Krishna beggars of the college campuses and the airport lobbies of years past. Or, they are like the religious zealots who come to my door with religious pamphlets for my edification. All of them are well meaning, many are deluded, but they are zealots, nonetheless.
AGW folks just don’t see the religious aspect of their beliefs even when you point them out. A religion is a particular system of faith and worship; a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Their world revolves around their god—environmentalism and Gaia. Environmentalists organize their lives around their belief system. They, like the petitioner at my door, proselytize. They have rituals which they practice before religious shrines—sorting paper, plastic, metal, and glass before different colored bins. Their communion is not marked by wine and wafer, but by organically grown and “all natural” foods. Instead of priests and nuns they have public school teachers, dim-witted actors, politicians, and an increasing number of bureaucrats spreading their doctrinal decrees which we must follow or suffer the penalty. Instead of salvation or damnation determined at some point in the after-life, we have salvation or damnation, fire and brimstone, or the Deluge of Noah’s Ark fame within the ever receding not too distant future. And finally, for our sins of living within a gloriously rich petroleum based society, we have people such as Al Gore selling us indulgences in the form of carbon offsets.
Instead of listening to the false prophet, Al Gore, we should thank God for carbon based fuels and by-products. We should also thank Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, scores of inventors employed by industrial corporations such as Dupont, Dow Chemical, and Standard Oil, as well as Thomas Watson of IBM, Mssrs. Hewlett and Packard, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and so many unnamed foot-soldiers for enabling us to use these fuels and by-products. Everything we use and enjoy in our industrial society depends upon carbon based fuels and ingredients. Without these and the technologies to utilize them, we would have to revert to the lives of grinding poverty that existed before the industrial revolution. Heck. We would all have to turn into hunter-gatherers of an even earlier age.
The sooner we all realize environmentalism is more religion than science, and the sooner we insist on separating this religion from our federal, state, and local governments endeavors, the more prosperous, bountiful, and fulfilling lives we will all then lead.
Very well said. I have spoken similar words to those within the AGW/Democrat religion, only to watch blank stares appear or smirks that give away their utter lack of critical thinking ability. There is an article on PJ right now, clearly outlining the problem we have. Anyone under the age of 50 can barely think for themselves anymore, let alone learn anything new. We are sending our son to a private school this fall, not because he can’t learn math in the public schools (we will make sure that happens either way), but because we don’t want to constantly de-program this type of religion from him. IF we are ever able to turn it around, it will have to be through leaders groomed outside the public school system. Seems daunting, but keep in mind one of the fastest growing private businesses in the country are private schools.
Yes they are, but then they don’t have their own lawns, mowers, compost piles, and gardens yet, so I’ll give them a pass.
You may be a right wing loon as Billy O would say, but if you have a compost pile and a garden, I’ll give you a pass, too. Eggplant (12) and peppers (12) went in an hour or two ago, and now for the tomatoes (another 30+). Lots of other stuff alrady in. My own compost has held out so far and may barely make it to the end of the tomatoes. After that, the bagged stuff.
You control your kids’ education. I’ve told my kids flatly, that if their teachers try telling them that humans are destroying the planet, then their teachers are DEAD WRONG. I’ve let them know that they don’t have to believe everything their teachers tell them. They can respectfully disagree.
Stand up and take charge folks. Don’t be afraid.
Right on, Mark!! My son attends a public school, and we have many talks about the PC bull he encounters everyday ( he is a rising 8th grader). He has a group of friends who have similar non-PC views, and is not afraid to get into arguments ( albeit respectfully) with the teachers who spout the “America is bad, everyone else is good” crap that passes for education nowadays. Whenever possible, he wears his MW3 shirt as a snark against the anti-military attitude promoted by some of the teachers, and sadly enough, the principal.
The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in density and temperature. They are non-linear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that NO SET OF FINITE MEASUREMENTS OF PAST STATES CAN PREDICT DISTANT FUTURE STATES. To the extent that global warming requires predicting bad future states from a finite array of past states, global warming is false, a hoax, a con game.
This has been known since the work of Edward Lorenz in 1963, when he published “Deterministic Aperiodic Flow”.
Hydrocarbon fuels improved the environment. Consider what any city would smell like if we used horse drawn wagons.
Global warming is a hoax. Environmental alarmism is a load of road apples.
There’s no need to undo the AGW brainwash. The Crusade Against Carbon will collapse when it exhausts all the resources that fools have invested in it, leaving them less capital to waste on other bad ideas.
“Great is Bankruptcy: the great bottomless gulf into which all Falsehoods, public and private, do sink, disappearing; whither, from the first origin of them, they were all doomed. For Nature is true and not a lie. No lie you can speak or act but it will come, after longer or shorter circulation, like a Bill drawn on Nature’s Reality, and be presented there for payment,- -with the answer, No effects. Pity only that it often had so long a circulation: that the original forger were so seldom he who bore the final smart of it! Lies, and the burden of evil they bring, are passed on; shifted from back to back, and from rank to rank; and so land ultimately on the dumb lowest rank, who with spade and mattock, with sore heart and empty wallet, daily come in contact with reality, and can pass the cheat no further.”
Not a student of cults, are you?
What about cults? Sooner or later, they drink their Kool-Aid, and the world goes on without them.
“Honour to Bankruptcy; ever righteous on the great scale, though in detail it is so cruel! Under all Falsehoods it works, unweariedly mining. No Falsehood, did it rise heaven-high and cover the world, but Bankruptcy, one day, will sweep it down, and make us free of it.”
The reason the debate is gone is that AGW is now common knowledge. “Everybody knows” human pollution is causing the climate to heat up. It’s in our text books. It’s the assumption behind every news report of every climate or weather event. It’s embedded in the culture now. The only way for it will disappear is if – as Carlyle states – time shows it to be bankrupt. This is how global cooling, the population explosion and other “certain disasters” end up forgotten.
We should learn the inference: Talking up the dream of a big and powerful government would sooner of later invoke a government powerful enough to change the thermostat of the planet. In response to what? In response to a alarmed citizenry? Alarmed by whom? We should love our children, and give them as many fairy tales as they need while it is still appropriate for their early mental development, so they will in fact grow up and recognize fiction for what it is when they see it, and won’t allow their newfangled elector’s strings to be pulled by a manipulative intelligentsia.
Bad education is how democracies fail. Teaching doom to the children is criminal. If science was taught well enough, they would learn the skepticism it comes from as well.
“Teaching doom to the children is criminal.”
Teaching doom to children is horribly manipulative. But it happens frequently. I remember all the predictions of nuclear holocausts during the Cold War which always had an undertone of “this is how we will end up if push comes to shove. Is it really worth dying to stop the communists from having X or Y, especially when it is in a far away country that most of us will never see?”. In short, I think they were trying to push us in the direction of appeasement: just give the communists what they want and they’ll leave us alone.
Now they’re pointing the finger directly at us: “stop using petroleum-based energy or you will be responsible for the collapse of the global environment”. Of course, they’ve also demonized a very reasonable alternative, nuclear energy, so it is not an option either. They won’t be happy until we’re living in caves and wearing bearskins and even then some of them will feel guilty that there are any humans left alive at all.
What would be the effect of this Global Warming fraud and coercion, if successful? To make part of the world fools and part hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Al Gore and the Global Warming fraudsters and fanatics have converted simple changes in the weather into an engine with which to try to enslave mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Scientists.
The Church of Global Warming says the earth is dangerously heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their bitter cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming, and it’s High Priests.
Global warming is regarded by the sheeple as true, by those who can think for themselves as false and by the power mad and money grubbers as … … useful.
Someone left the asylum door open again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwbYhgziIj8&feature=player_embedded
I wish these AGW alarmists would just stick with the religion they born into. I think they feel joy everytime they hear or read some news story about some pending disaster, and when good news comes, they are disapointed. They are like the relgious fanatics who take joy when an earthquakes or a hurricane destroys cities and lives, becuase its sign they are getting what they deserved for being “sinful”