Liberal President of Czechoslovakia, current rotating president of the European Union Vaclav Klaus openly attacked Al Gore’s climate change cmpaign and took aim at the “science” of global warming.
The 67 year old said, “I don’t think that there is any global warming,” adding “I don’t see the statistical data for that.” He continued, “Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement.” “I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world.”
Article here
Klaus has offered to debate Gore, but Gore has never accepted the challenge.
In 2007, he made a speech on how the alarmism of the global warming crowd is being used to promote a return to Communism.
Pssst, Hey Lew! You might want to get some new encyclopedias. There is no Czechoslovakia. And there hasn’t been for some time. Since July 1992. In the year 2009 most of the literate world now call it the “Czech Republic”.
Slovakia is it’s own country and has it’s own President.
Both countries belong to a body called the European Union.
Not sure if it really matters what the Czech President says. The vast majority of people (scientists and laypeople) believe global warming is human caused. There will continue to be a push towards moderating use of fossil fuels.
Al Gore is somewhat of a secondary player in the movement at this point. Most would hardly take such a debate seriously anyways which is probably why Gore will just ignore it. Plainly, it isn’t worth Gore’s time.
Abel –
“Pew Research
January 22, 2009
Economy, Jobs Trump All Other Policy Priorities In 2009
Environment, Immigration, Health Care Slip Down the List”
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Global Warming is at the bottom of the list with only 31% thinking its a top priority, down 26.7% from 2 yrs earlier. But Abel, I am sure Miles O’Brien of CNN would be proud of your distortion!
And if Gore is a secondary player in the movement, why are all those Democratic Senators interested in soliciting his testimony? Are the Democrats “secondary” kindred spirits, as well?
And if the movement isn’t worth his time why did he show up to pose for the camera?
I do agree with your statement, “Most would hardly take such a debate seriously anyways…”. Especially those experiencing colder than usual temperatures and higher snowfall this year!
Uh, ‘dis’abled, you better get some new sources as well. Credible scientists are abandoning the hoax of man-made global warming all over the place.
When studied objectively, that means without a preconceived outcome, most find that it is a natural phenomena that we have no control over. We can best learn to adapt to live with it, as did our ancestors.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
What I find most laughable is that youngins’ have been screeching “speak truth to power” and “question authority” for some time, yet fall for any socialist hoax that comes along.
Must be that public edumacation, huh?
You may be correct, Lew. But to live with “it” might mean having to getting people out of their cars onto public trasportation and the use of less fossil fuels. I am all for it.
Sorry, ‘dis’abled, but you have yet to show that they have any real influence on it. It appears that the climate will continually change regardless of what liberties neo-coms strip from us.
If it is just that you are prejudiced against cars and fuel, no biggie. Don’t use them. You offend no one.
But, when you use junk science to mandate how I will live my life, that does concern me and causes me much stress. It even encourages me to fight back.
I understand your position, Lew, but you need to understand around the U.S. can trim the use of fossil fuels. People in other metropolitan areas like NYC get around just fine with mass transit and other forms of green transportation. It actually cuts down on consumption of oil we get from countries hostil to the United States. Why wouldn’t you be for that?
Besides, the polution that comes from cars is noxious. It affects me and my family which is why I would like to see other alternatives.
If you drive around in a vehicle throwing exhaust in the air you are exposing me, my family and others to Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles including PM-10,Benzene, Formaldehyde, Polycyclic hydrocarbons, among other things. That causes me concern and stress and makes me fight back by lobbying my Representatives both in state and federally. Knowing you still need more education on the matter, I will continue my efforts here and elsewhere. Maybe David Apell will do the same.
I am just glad I live in a state where they are doing something about the air we breath. You should be, too. The quality of life for everyone will be much better.
What the state is doing will have no effect on air quality. However, it will drastically reduce or eliminate jobs altogether. The state actions will also drastically limit citizens freedom of movement.
Bottom line that is the intended purpose of the state’s efforts. Those who like you have a hiddeen agenda of population reduction. Global warming is just another oppertunity to pass laws that will make living here undesirable and encourage others to leave and go elsewhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kodiak,
That of course is your opinion and you are entitled to it. BUT, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. The fact is automobile exhaust from oil combustion produces Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles including PM-10,Benzene, Formaldehyde, Polycyclic hydrocarbons, among other things. Any reduction in the use of oil consuming automobiles on the road reduces the amount of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide, Suspended particles including PM-10,Benzene, Formaldehyde, Polycyclic hydrocarbons, among other things in the air.
I would be happy to entertain any alternatives. I for one ride my bike everywhere I go. I suppliment my longer trips with bus and rail. I have family all over the state and the west coast and use the transportation (AMTRAK, Greyhound, MAX, Trimet etc) according to where I need to go. It works great. And I save a ton of money.
I am using far less fossil fuels than if I drove an SUV. I am cutting down on green house emissions in the atmosphere and helping to preserve the environment for future generations.
Speaking of “Freedom”, what about the freedom to breath clean air?
Are we going to take our scientific advice from tired old politicians barely clinging to power or the bright young people who spend 15 hours a day pouring thorough the newest data and writing papers about the best ideas in their scientific realm.
Would you believe what Klaus has to say about the Higgs boson? About the efficacy of the latest SSRI’s? About parsing the human genome?
Of course not. Klaus is a scientific ignoramous, weighted down by decades of mucking through his region’s backwards politics.
Solving the global warming crisis hardly means reverting to socialism or communism. In fact, for those with the foresight and gumption — and isn’t that what capitalism is supposed to be all about — it represents the most lucrative economic opportunities in, perhaps, the history of civilization.
Victoria and Klaus can choose to advocate for the century-old industries that are polluting our skies. Smart and forward-looking people know there is a much better, cleaner future out there — and one which does not threaten the planet’s very existence via climate change.
abel,
I am not inventing facts. In case you have not been paying attention to David it is CO2 that needs reduction. All of the other items have been reduced through emission controls mandated on vehicles. Maybe you need to get off your bike and look at a SUV. Take one down to DEQ and have it tested.
If you are expecting a gold medal for your use of public transportation then you’ll have a long wait. Before you boast of the public transportation system here go and look at Toronto Canada’s public transportation system.
Lastly I stand by what I said.
David,
The global warming scientists and you have failed to make the case for man-made global warming.
Klaus is an example of that failure otherwise he would be an advocate for doing something about it.
Why don’t you put down the science journals for a moment and explain how cap and trade along with carbon taxes represent the most lucrative economic opportunities in, perhaps, the history of civilization.
Energy rationing of some sort is the only thing I see as being discussed down in Salem. The bozo Governor wants his legacy to be ‘green’ despite the high unemployment and recession here in Oregon.
Kodiak wrote:
> The global warming scientists and
> you have failed to make the case for
> man-made global warming.
Kodiak, climate scientists have laid out their case for anthropogenic global warming in exhaustive detail in four IPCC reports, the latest being the IPCC 4AR (early 2008).
I’m curious: have you read any of them? Have you even read the Summary for Policymakers for even one of them?
Have you read the latest papers in GRL, J Climate, Climate Change?
If so, can you tell me where exactly you disagree with their results? Do your calculations give different numbers for radiative forcings? For global warming potentials? For the influence of ocean cycles.
Please be specific, as I’m sure you’re prepared to be (based on your criticism).
I assume you have thoroughly studied the latest paleoclimate data. So what do your calculations give for climate sensitivity? And what is your margin of error?
This would be place to present these contrary results — or even better, you can send them to Science or Nature magazine, where world experts will pour over every detail and give your intelligent reasoning the scrutiny all real scientific work gets.
Until then, perhaps it’s best you remain anonymous, cowardly deriding the work of smart, educated, hard-working people without putting any of your own skin in the game.
Kodiak wrote:
> Why don’t you put down the science
> journals for a moment and explain how > cap and trade along with carbon taxes > represent the most lucrative economic > opportunities in, perhaps, the history > of civilization.
Kodiak, if you do not already see how transferring our civilization to a green economy is an entrepreneur’s dream, then you clearly do not have the foresight, wisedom, or fortitude to make a go of the future. You can remain stuck in the 20th century, if you want, where technologies emit smoke and pollution and CO2 and all kinds of harm. You are already as good as dead. Men better than yourself are already establishing the wind, solar, wave, and fuel cell industries, and they will make a lot of money off of it. Naysayers like you will go grumpily to your retirement, complaining all the way that your primitive investments in coal and oil soured and did not pay off.
Open your eyes. Men of vision have always done this, today, and a hundred years ago. Do you think Henry Ford made it rich trying to build a better buggy whip?
david,
I am not against moving on to other energy sources as they become cost competative. Currently alternative energy sources are heavily subsitized and otherwise not competative yet. Sometime in the future they probably will be.
I am against using the concept of ‘man-made’ global warming as a vehicle to control people and ration energy as being proposed in Salem. (ie cap and trade and/or carbon tax.)
As I have previously stated that the case for man-made global warming has not been made. Everybody is not going to read the studies much less model the climate in order to understand man-made global warming. This where you come in as a writer on science topics you can act as the bridge that can using everyday language explain how man-made global warming works. I believe your first assignment should be the Czech President.
I find it mildly amuzing that whenever you are questioned on this topic you trot out the studies and challenge the questioner to whip out their calculator and do battle. You are an advocate for doing something about Global warming and the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. Like it or not it is your case to make or not.
‘ds’abled, you said, “It actually cuts down on consumption of oil we get from countries hostil to the United States. Why wouldn’t you be for that?“
Did it ever occur to you that we could drill our own?
Did you also forget that I have 42 years in the automotive mechanics trade? As well as being a Washington State Certified Emmissions Specialist?
I say that due to your comment about the “noxious fumes.” You might have a hard time understanding this, but cars today run cleaner than they ever have.
If you want “noxious,” get behind some of those public transportation buses.
I’m all for viable alternative fuels, but they haven’t been perfected yet. I lean towards Hydrogen myself. In the meantime, we have energy needs and petroleum remains the most economical for the amount of energy produced.
As for the global warming hoax, inspite of what the neo-coms cry, the science is far from settled, as many scientists continue to distance themselves from the hoax as they actually study more.
In the end, it is being used to strip liberties away from us by the socialist elites and many have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.
Lew, Surely you know that libs, such as Dis-Abeled, MiniMe, Iago, etc., never let facts get in the way of their rhetoric. People like these guys always have the most opinions and the fewest facts. They are the authorities on just about anything and everything and experts on absolutely nothing.