[geocentrism] Global Warming is a Myth, is False, is Incorrect and is a Lie
- From: bernie brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:37:36 -0800 (PST)
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
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.
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Global Warming is a Myth, is False, is Incorrect and is a Lie
