The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, spoke yesterday at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting here in Tokyo.
He is a well known global warming skeptic and author of a ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’. In the book’s introduction, the President explains,
“The book aspires to be nothing more than lay knowledge of the natural sciences. Yet I do not see this as a handicap. The problem of global warming is much more about the social sciences than about natural ones, more about economics than climatology, more about a human being and his or her freedom than about an increase in the global mean temperatures by tenths of degrees Fahrenheit.”
The book is easy reading and discusses not just global warming but environmentalism in a 21st century context. I now have a signed copy.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
He’s rightly saying that we’re a bunch of galahs if we allow this to become our number one problem.
““The book aspires to be nothing more than lay knowledge of the natural sciences. Yet I do not see this as a handicap. The problem of global warming is much more about the social sciences than about natural ones, more about economics than climatology, more about a human being and his or her freedom than about an increase in the global mean temperatures by tenths of degrees Fahrenheit.””
He has summed up his problem in one paragraph. He understands nothing about the problem, so it can’t be a problem. Rudd has taken a much more practical approach, and deffered to the experts.
“The problem of global warming is much more about the social sciences than about natural ones, more about economics than climatology, more about a human being and his or her freedom than about an increase in the global mean temperatures by tenths of degrees Fahrenheit.”
With starting assumptions like these, who needs an argument?!? 😉
Beat me to it SJT.
SJT
You have, yet again, misunderstood plain English – the book was purposively written in lay language so that the laity could understand it.
There is no point you reading because you cannot even get the introduction right, so the rest will be, more or less, incomprehensible to you.
SJT and FDB….. Surely Mr Klaus can write a book about the social and economic aspects of Climate catastrophism?
He also has some insight into Communism and the rampant bureaucracy of that failed political doctrine. If he sees some parallels with this and AGW, I’d be interested in reading his views on them.
I really don’t understand why the skeptics don’t ever hold these clowns private parts to the fire.
Anyone who legitimately claims they are concerned with AGW doesn’t have a right to speak about mitigation or abatement unless they are 100% in favor of nuclear energy. Nice fury little socialist countries like France and Sweden derive most of their energy from nuclear reactors yet we have leftist snake oilers denying the science. These clowns have the hide to call others denialists. Fme, where is the world going to when this is going on.
Here:
SJT do you support or deny the science of nuclear power as a relatively safe source of energy production. How about that other clown, the Hives Hamilton aficionado answering the question? That’s you Ender, you magnificent moron.
These twerps are interested in legitimate mitigation with an abundant source of cheap energy. These idiots are only interested in economic declinism. They are economic declinists.
And you certainly don’t need a tax to produce mitigation. The US was well on its way to deriving around 80% of it’s energy source from nuclear power until the dark, hard left environmental movement stopped nuclear energy in it’s tracks and no other reactors were ever built in the US thereby preventing mitigation through a legitimate economic process that was wealth enhancing (as the decision was the result of economic reasoning).
These clowns now have the temerity to speak about mitigation. Wonders never cease.
Correction
These twerps aren’t interested in legitimate mitigation with an abundant source of cheap energy.
“SJT and FDB….. Surely Mr Klaus can write a book about the social and economic aspects of Climate catastrophism?”
He is working on the following assumption.
“more about a human being and his or her freedom than about an increase in the global mean temperatures by tenths of degrees Fahrenheit.”
You can’t argue the consequences till you have demonstrated the assumption is correct. The book then becomes a waste of time.
According to the temp gauge his assumption is correct, you pathetic goose, otherwise it is up to you to tell us why it’s wrong.
SJT
So we wait for you to show that the assumption of AGW is correct, otherwise you and the AGW become a waste of time.
He’s busy at the other blog reading about absolutely massive extinctions, Louis. These are extinctions so massive that the universe may not even survive.
AGW may not just make every single biological cell extinct on earth. According to SJT and his professor of Absolute Massive Extinctions (and Climate Change), it could also mean the end of the universe as we know it.
According to SJT, Ender and Brook AGW has caused the universes temp to rise by .8 degrees over the past 100 making every single star and planet endangered.
I’m scared.
Why is Birdy using a sock puppet? Try a different accent mate. Might be more convincing.
Lukey:
You’re obsessed with Bird/Ra. Give it up as it will send you to the AGW asylum. Oops you’re already there.
You’re also worried about our warmer air spilling over into space and causing the universe’s temp to rise there too, right?
Oh that is where they are – at the new Laugh-In site. Good on them.
SJT…. I have never found reading to be a waste of time…. It has always led me to a conclusion, positive or negative.
You may want to brush up on your comprehension skills if you find yourself bereft of insight. 🙂
However considering that the last ten years have shown no warming, as per the AGW model, despite a 4%+ rise in Anthropogenic CO2.
Also considering that the accepted state of climate Theory is that change is Natural.
Considering that the onus is on those who pose alternative Climate Hypothesises, to prove Causation rather than just a vague Correlation.
It is quite understandable that Mr Klaus would view the current overblown state of affairs that now exists with AGW and it’s Proponents, with suspicion.
…. After all he has seen rabid Socialists in action before. Czechs suffered quite brutally at the hands of the Soviets.
Lukey, Brook, Ender and SJT wailing on a weekend away counting all the totally massive extinctions.
This has to be the funniest vid on the net.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&eurl=http://www.lindasog.com/archives/2008/09/todays_unintentional_comedy_go.html
J. Hansford, you’re giving the critters far too much respect. You need to treat SJT et al with all the disrespect they deserves.
Ra…. No my friend… You must always keep in mind of how you look from a distance, or to somebody who has just walked in to the room. 😉
LoL’ed at the vid’ Ra… Not sure if I’m watching theatrics or unreason? 🙂
I have a copy of the book, and am very impressed with it’s contents. I just wish I could do something more to expose the great fraud as he has done.
Funny vid isn’t it. Hard to believe there are people actually like that. That’s why a great deal (though not all) of environmentalism is basically religious.
I’m wondering why “david” hasn’t parroted “peer review” here? It wouldn’t be slightly political would it? I wonder if Al Gore was ever peer reviewed?
“I’m wondering why “david” hasn’t parroted “peer review” here? It wouldn’t be slightly political would it? I wonder if Al Gore was ever peer reviewed?”
He wasn’t, of course, just produced a documentary.