Global Warming Is a Myth

A quote from Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, in the Czech daily Hospodářské Noviny, 8 February 2007 (translation Lubos Motl)

Global warming is a 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.

[...] Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. [...] 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. [...] 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.

[...] 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. [...] [W]e 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.

German auto emissions

In case anyone is still interested, there was a weird article today in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/automobiles/08green.html?_r=1&oref=login

Titled "In Europe, Germany May Have to Take the Wheel in Going Green," and written by Mark Landler, the article at one point states about carbon dioxide emissions:

"German auto executives concede that they will have to do more, especially since passenger car emissions account for 12 percent of Europe's total emissions, and are rising rather than falling, unlike overall gases here."

How did this journalist come to the conclusion that green gas emissions were falling in Europe? Or does he mean just in Germany? Even then, he is wrong. CO2 emissions dropped in the early 1990s when the former East German industrial base collapsed, but they have been rising ever since as the German economy has been recovering. What gives? Why are American journalists always so eager to distort reality in order to praise the Europeans and fault the Americans?

Global warming for the masses

"If the public acted in its own best interest, there would not be individuals nor political representatives."

 

Is the above quote from the credo of the EU?

 

Global warming is just as real as the "New Ice Age" which was being spun during the 1970's. 

 

Maybe it isn't quite that new - let's ask someone who knew, maybe Lief Erickson, the son of the Viking explorer, Eric the Red.  He was born in Iceland and grew up in Greenland. 

 

Global warming, in it's present grand vision aspect, is a concept that is being heavily pushed by George Soros and his bevy of NGO's and hangers on, including Al Gore.  His old partner, the fellow radical leftist, Maurice Strong is busy in China.  It seems that Maurice is said to be buying up a lot of the exemption credits available to resell to companies that are not compliant with new pollution rules and who will need them to remain in business.  It seems, too, that Soros, Strong and their Chinese hosts are busy with Chrysler to introduce a series of "commie bugs"( see:  http://myflandersfields.blogspot.com/2007/01/commie-bug.html), which are "tiny poor man's" vehicles, which they intend to flood onto the market (see:  http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover122906.htm

 

For some information on Soros and his "character", review some of the links made available here:  http://myflandersfields.blogspot.com/2007/02/phoenix-group-and-soros-reference-file.html

 

This is not to say that no attention needs to be paid to the enviornment and man's contribution to bad effects.  The attention must be based on reason and reality, not on promoted campaigns designed to enrich certain proponents and impose their world views on a population which would otherwise reject them.  There is no reason to beleive in or to participate in a campaign such as is being conducted which promotes global warming as an agenda.  Enviornmental considerations should take place separate from the socialist religion.  

 

 

@Longun

Longun: "Global warming, second hand smoke and gun control are all fairy tales..."

 

Certainly the inevitability of global warming due to human activity is held to be sancrosanct and cannot be debated either in the popular or academic discourse, when there is considerable evidence that there are natural warming and cooling cycles beyond human control or influence. This does not change the fact that governments around the world need to reduce all forms of pollution and protect their environments. The oceans and rainforests are of prime concern: the former are filled with heavy metals and toxic chemicals which organisms throughout the food chain ingest, and their fish and kelp stocks are at dangerously low levels; the latter are being cleared away to provide wood and paper products and to provide land suitable for ranching.

 

However, second hand smoke is carcinogenic, and non-smokers should not have to breathe it in. Secondly, private firearm ownership directly correlates with increased rates of murder.

 

Longun: "The goal of these activities is to get the public to act in it's own worst interest by submitting frank lies as truth."

 

If the public acted in its own best interest, there would not be individuals nor political representatives.

popular myths

Global warming, second hand smoke and gun control are all fairy tales designed to make people dependant on government by removing their rights.  You may not agree with a particular activity but these myths are all based on junk science.   Junk scientists who would otherwise starve and politicians who other wise would have no importance champion these myths.

The goal of these activities is to get the public to act in it's own worst interest by submitting frank lies as truth.

Global warming=green, green as in money

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974  
However widely the weather varies from  place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend  shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. 

Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. The Ice Age ended about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago when the glaciers covering much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia began to retreat to approximately their current positions. By 7,000 years ago and lasting for about four millenniums, the earth was more clement than today, perhaps by 4deg. Fahrenheit, about the average of the various predictions for global warming from a doubling of CO2. Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common.
From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This prosperous period collapsed at the end of the thirteenth century with the advent of the "Mini Ice Age".

If Europe heats up by 1C it would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide makes plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests.

A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity.

When the global warmers tell us the stakes are high, they are quite right. Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world.

 

Not Surprised....

Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world.

REPLY: Your tax dollars at work ladies and gents.....What a colossal waste!.....Thank you Ozone Al!......

Oh, by the way, it's still snowing here in Pittsburgh!.....;-D......

(I am more inclined to believe that the next Ice Age is coming as predicted 30 years ago!).....

Also....

...here in Pittsburgh, PA USA, right now, the snow is falling, and piling up, and it's NOT stopping....Don't start me on Global Warming!!!!......(and don't feed me that crap about extreme weather/weather patterns and GW either) ...I am NOT buying it!...... 

Vizi privati e pubbliche virtu

Gore, a politician, is a hypocrite. Ho-hum, so what else is new? As far as I'm concerned, they're all the same. However, by dredging up Gore, red-herring expert Flanders in his typical fashion evades the point I made: we don't trust politicians on matters where they lack expertise. When we're ill, we go to the doc, not to the plumber. When we're concerned about avalanche danger, we go geophysicists and the ski patrol, not to the local theologian. When it comes to climate change ... need I go further?

And in the case of less-than-savoury Klaus (for whom Flanders implies he would vote, if he only could), I think that his track record puts him right up there with Gore in the credibility league.

By the way, Flanders, Klaus is the not the "former President of the Czech Republic" (as you state in your blog) - he is unfortunately the President serving currently; he is however its ex-PM. Get your details right. Then, some one might even begin to believe you.

Bring it on

I for one am looking forward to reading Klaus's chapter on climate change.  It is a total delight (and surprise) to see a European politician pick a fight with the environmentalist bullies.  This comes at a time when mainstream journalists are asserting that climate-change skeptics are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.  Of course, in Europe one can be prosecuted for Holocaust denial.  I shudder to think what the environmentalists have up their sleeves for scientists who express doubts about global warming.

The holocaust and global warming.....

The difference is that the Holocaust actually existed...Global warming does not....That does NOT warrant laws for deniers, which only supresses free speech....I shudder to think what would happen too if laws were forced on us for denying this stupid myth.....

Character and Motivation

I think you would prefer space for Nobel Prize luminaries like Al Gore, wouldn't you, Dogdoodoo?  Here is a preview just for you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

A small excerpt, "if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed." and:

 

"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.)

 

Maybe you prefer stories of his maintaining his properties in pristine conditions.  You might prefer that, but you won't see it.  According to this report,

 

 http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg44582.html

 

He maintained a toxic waste dump which flowed into a nearby river and maintained his rental property so that the tenant had to live in squalor.

 

You seem to have the correct Klaus in mind, but your mind seems very prejudiced.  As for his alliance with communists for support in his countries elections, I have seen many communist party individuals who are less radical and leftist than many of the members of other parties, particulary in the EU.  I think he is just too conservative (and truthful) for you.

I call bullsh*t

What is interesting is often not what is being said, but the things that nobody attempts to say.

You can see a graph of earth temperature over the last several BILLION years here:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

I've been listening to this global warming stuff for 15 years or more (with some of that time spent in grad school for astronomy, FWIW), and I never heard any climatologist claim that his/her model fit any truly large span of time (say 100 million years, which is still not much geologically).

Anyone's model can fit the last fifteen minutes. In 1987, all the computer models (of stars) said that a blue supergiant star could not go supernova. Then one such star did: SN1987A. Presto, bingo, all the scientists went to their models and adjusted them accordingly.

Computer models of very complex events always contain simplifying assumptions, just so you can get a solution. And the models are worth precisely nothing until they have been fitted to a wide range of data (in this case, a wide range of dates and conditions).

Attempting to explain the last 100 years, while ignoring the last 100 million, is like trying to predict next year's stock market based on the last tenth of a second.

It just does not pass the smell test.

I know that some scientists DO believe this. But science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth. The "scientific consensus" has been wrong on many subjects and has remained wrong for decades--whole careers. Science works--it most definitely does--but the time scale at which it operates is longer than most people realize.

In cauda venenum

Ad hominem argument, hey? I'd be very happy to see you refute any of the statements I made about Mr Klaus. Other than that, I think most of us in the real world would consider it foolish to disregard the character and motivation of anyone making controversial statements, particularly when those statements lie outside the areas of an individual's given field of expertise (which in Mr Klaus's case, seems to be the cultivation of crooked cronies). And doubly so when that individual is a pol.

Ad hominem

Yours is an ad hominem rant. I have never trusted the assured results of modern science ever since i was taught in school that there were no oil bearing strata around the British Isles. Is there global warming? It feels like it but history shows climate is cyclical. I am more bothered by green taxes than by global warming. The idea that travellers will be detered because Brown makes air travel more expensive is merely laugable. Green taxes are just anothe excuse for governments to rob the people.

http://www.christiansquoting.org.uk
10201 quotes 654 topics 2452 authors indexed 903 links
http://www.ipc-ealing.co.uk/ Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
-------------------------------------------------

Honest politicians

Vaclav Klaus - saaay, wasn't he the guy forced to resign the premiership of the Czech Republic because of corruption scandals? Or maybe he's the party hack who won his latest position by pandering to communist voters? He certainly couldn't be the jerk whose economic policies US Presidential Medal of Freedom holder Václav Havel described as gangster capitalism? Could he?

Anyway, I'm glad you're giving space to luminaries like Mr. Klaus, instead of those stupid, idiotic climate scientists. I, mean, after all, we all believe politicians when it comes to science and everything else, right? It's good to see a blog that exposes the stupidity of the vast majority of scientists on the greenhouse gas issue. What do those dodos know, anyhow? Just because they wrote the book! Give me a politician to trust every time!