[Rhodes22-list] Political maybe, Truth more likely.. new communism explained ...

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Don't forget about the  1.2 billion people in China, B as in Billion,
roughly 1 billion after the middle class,  and. B as in Billion, in India.
As Slim suggested, that is no excuse to harm the environment without shame,
but we are a small part part of the problem.  There are billions of people
on the earth who can't wait to get their hand on hydrocarbons.  A lot of
people who have their hands on hydrocarbons would like to take us back to
the 7th century.  At the present rate we'll be wearing rags on our heads and
praying East before the ice cap melts.

Brad


On 3/21/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic gave the following
> interview:
>
> President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' -
> Questions Gore's Sanity
> Is "Global Warming" real science or a political agenda? I agree with the
> Csech President:
>
> 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. Well, it makes a lot of sense, Prof
> Klaus. Other parts of the interview were dedicated to the Organization of
> European States (and Jo Leinen), the Czech civil cold war that has already
> ended, the radar for the U.S. missile defense, and his relations with the
> current Czech government. Show postings on this blog that contain the word
> Klaus.
>
> [English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
>
> From:  http://interdictor.livejournal.com/117295.html
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Political-maybe%2C-Truth-more-likely..-new-communism-explained-...-tf3442788.html#a9600150
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list