The 500-strong contingent of skeptics currently in New York for The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change were up early for a second day. Breakfast was again at 7am and the first speaker was given a standing ovation – a man who had travelled all the way from Prague, the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus.
Vaclav Klaus is a well know global warming skeptic and was re-elected President just two weeks ago.
In his speech President Klaus talked about the “robust relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth” and went on to suggest there are three types of countries in Europe based on their emissions profile and level of economic growth. He described the less developed countries of the European Union (EU), including Greece, has trying to “catch-up” since the signing of Kyoto and in the process increasing their level of carbon emissions by 53 percent. The post communist countries were described as seeing their heavy industry disappear and experiencing a decline in GDP and a drop in emissions of 33 percent Then there are countries like France and Germany which have seen their emissions increase on average by 4 percent.
The President said that “the dream” to reduce emissions in the EU by 70 percent in the next 30 years could only be achieved if there was a dramatic de-industrialization of Europe (likely associated with a dramatic drop in GDP), a dramatic drop in population or a technological revolution.
President Klaus outlined previous attempts in Europe, for example the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, to impose radical economic change and the “innocence of climate alarmists” to currently mastermind society including their belief in their own omnipotence.
The President concluded with comment that “uncompromising lessons about the collapse of communism” need to be re-learnt:
“We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole of mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussions about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lessons from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message from our conference.”
Standing ovation, including from London-based Kendra Okonski and former advisor to Russian President Putin Andrei Illarionov . New York based Statistician William M Briggs is the tall guy in the background to the immediate left of Dr Illarionov.
Thanks again to conference sponsor’s The Heartland Institute .
More on day 3 soon.
—————-
You can read a perspective on day 3 of the conference from William M Briggs here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/03/04/heartland-conference-day-3-and-wrap-up/.
You can read my perspective on day 1 of the conference here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html and day 2 here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002813.html .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thank you Jennifer, for providing this personal view, including the photos of this extremely important Conference. I hope there will be more like it, to counteract the pseudo-science, lies and fear-mongering of the AGW/AGCC Evil Empire.
Where are the men(gender neutral use of the term) of integrity and discernment like Vaclav in my country?
“He joked that certain people “want to stop economic growth [in Europe]; though, not their own,” particularly in developing countries. Klaus was most authoritative by reminding us of living under communist rule which featured “central planning of all kinds of human activity.” Communists, and the socialists like them, “believe in their ability to assemble all relevant data” and to give instructions to millions of people. He talked of how some enlightened folks want a return to this type of control because, of course, they are experts and know what’s best for everybody. Sound like academia to anybody else?”
That’s all good and dandy, but it doesn’t actually address the problem of global warming. To turn your back on science because it doesn’t agree with your political philosophy is a stance right out Joe Stalin’s way of thinking. He didn’t like evolution, therefore Lysenko must be right.
A President with a Phd in economics: The Czech Federation is fortunate. With the courage to stand against world wide global warming hysteria, the Czech people elect him for a second term. Now that’s leadership vindicated.
So what is his solution to global warming? Do nothing except continue to stand against hyped hysteria.
Btw I am also enjoying Ainsley Kellow’s book. Especially his definitions and examples of virtual science.
So reformed commies lecturing us about liberty eh? hmmmmm
“A President with a Phd in economics: The Czech Federation is fortunate. With the courage to stand against world wide global warming hysteria, the Czech people elect him for a second term. Now that’s leadership vindicated.”
That’s fine, if he is correct on the science. Nothing has indicated to me he has any understanding of the issue. Once again, he is making science fit his political view, just as Stalin did.
Maybe someone will take Klaus to the High Court and point out numerous ‘scientific errors.’
What in the denialist position? All 50 of them.
Maybe Klaus can explain all the scandals around his government and interesting deals given we’re all now on the “Liberty Express”. Czechs lecturing us on democracy and market freedoms! ROTFL
So the end justifies the means does it, Luke? President Klaus is not forcing you not to change your behavior – if you want to drive a prius and build a low emmission house, and eat low food miles food, how is he stopping you from doing so? In the end, what you seem to be supporting will be the largest expansion of government power since the great depression/new deal era. Personally, I think the environmental outcomes from relatively free societies have been at least a good, if not better, than those in socialist countries, and far better than those in authoritarian countries.
catowa – how do you think ‘the free world’ have dealt with environmental issues in the past? I’ll give you a clue. Starts with Regul, finshes with ation.
Since when did regulation mean socialist/pinkie/commie/purging/etc etc?
Regulation is entirely consistent with a free, democrat, liberal society (not the kind of ‘free’ society where I am free to be obnoxious and spill my garbage into the street kind of ‘free’).
Who is getting off on the red devil fear mongering associated with reducing emissions??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
“……not the kind of ‘free’ society where I am free to be obnoxious and spill my garbage into the street kind of ‘free’……
CO2 doesn’t attract vermin or cause human disease, it actually assists plants to grow faster and more luxuriantly (it’s pumped into greenhouses to assist crop growth).
“CO2 doesn’t attract vermin or cause human disease, it actually assists plants to grow faster and more luxuriantly (it’s pumped into greenhouses to assist crop growth).”
According to one of your heroes, Pat Michaels, it is a greenhouse gas and it does contribute to global warming. The only debate, as I have said from the start, is how much warming.
Indeed – how much or how little warming, all things being equal, which they are not.
According to Patrick Michaels, CO2 causes a very minor amount of warming, not nearly enough to cause a catastrophe. So what’s your point?
“Nothing has indicated to me he has any understanding of the issue.”
How would you know if he has any understanding SJT, since you have none.
His fundamental claim. ““We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole of mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussions about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lessons from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message from our conference.”
He starts from the premise that politics trumps science. He also maintains that the only way to control CO2 production is with communism, when the IPCC went out of it’s way to ensure that a market based solution was presented. He also directly links economic growth to CO2 production. In other words, science must be made to fit his world political view. Science is, as much as possible, about objective facts, it has nothing to do with politics. The last person to make such a stupid mistake was Stalin with Lysenko, and look where that ended up.
“According to Patrick Michaels, CO2 causes a very minor amount of warming, not nearly enough to cause a catastrophe. So what’s your point?”
Many contributors here deny any warming, or if there is any warming, any human contribution. Michaels at least has moved the debate on to where it should have been all along, the magnitude of the warming. Could there perhaps be some consensus among the deniers? It gets tiresome reading inane waffle like people like Archibald, or the “Falsification of the Greenhouse effect”. We should be able to consing such irrelevancies to the dustbin, forever.