Czech President ready to debate Gore on climate change

Jay

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,278
Location
Aurora, IL
A really good read, spoken from a man who lived under the iron fist of the USSR.

Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.

Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Gore's effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvienent Truth.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.

"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.
Click to expand...

From an interview from Fox news, to supplement:
The green movement is trying to dictate, control, regulate, mastermind our lives. This is what we see every day. They want to discuss how many children we can have because the man is a creature which damages the atmosphere because of breathing. They are dictating us what kind of cars we can use, how big the refrigerators we can have. I speak as someone who lived in a communist era and who knows what it means to eliminate freedom, as someone who knows what it means to eliminate the market economy, someone who knows what it means to regulate, to command, to mastermind the economy from above.
Click to expand...

Dwell on the part I highlighted. I find the irony funny, yet not so. :| Something else to ponder: have you noticed the rise of environmentalism is coincidental to the fall of communism? I myself think that people who were considered themselves communist found another cause to champion, since the two ideologies have quite a few parallels.

Source.
 
Last edited:
jayhawk said:
Dwell on the part I highlighted. I find the irony funny, yet not so. :| Something else to ponder: have you noticed the rise of environmentalism is coincidental to the fall of communism? I myself think that people who were considered themselves communist found another cause to champion, since the two ideologies have quite a few parallels.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've noted too, and as you've written about in the past, both movements have similar ties: anti-capitalism, abolishing the wealthy way of life, and mass acceptance of an impending fear that's both vague and undefined, but ultimately terrifying. In Communism it was the fear of Capitalists, threatening their way of life, and in environmentalism it's the fear of climate change, threatening, literally, their lives. Watermelons, eh? (My WRT 255 class didn't get that, but the instructor was a geezerly ditz anyway and most of the kids were assclowns.)
 
He does have a good point, as a Geography student I'd say that global warming is real and that it is being accelerated by man, however the plain lies that these people come out with is disgraceful!

Just one example, the melting ice caps, coming out and saying when the ice caps melt the sea levels will flood major cities is, well, a complete lie, studies show that the ice caps melting will actually decrease sea levels due to ice being more dense than water! What causes the sea levels to rise (1 meter every hundred years btw, not 20 meters over night) is the water expanding as it warms.

It does seem that the global warming movement is currently targeting the rich (they drive gas guzzlers and are killing the planet etc) and the corperations but its just not that simple. What is generally being done (setting lower emission standards for industries) is the right way to go about things, not going after those who have made a lifestyle choice and forcing them to live the way you want.

I believe the current attitude of environmental activists is shown very well in the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about environmental hysteria.
 
Stopping global warming and improving the economy aren't mutually exclusive -- far from it. It just requires an investment and/or shift in jobs, etc.

Mass production and widespread usage of things like solar cells = lower costs = more jobs = better environment = win for all.
 
I view it slightly differently, since Communism has fallen there is nothing to fear, so lets pick on something. 1. Global Warming, 2. Saddam Hussein & his WMD. Well we now know that 2 was bollocks. ...
 
Last edited:
Heh, so his opinions did actually make him famous enough to be cited by the US media? I don't know, his opinions are often just over the top and ridiculous, but he pisses off the environmentalists and that's always a good thing. Lots of the proposals the environmentalists manage to push through are clearly aimed primarily at making other people's lifes more miserable, not to protect the environment.
On the other hand, whether global warming exists or not, there is nothing bad about using the resources economically and oil in partucular. I mean, if you look around, pretty much everything has crude oil in it (mostly used to make the plastics) and if we now burn it all in our cars (or most of it, making the rest of it unbearably expensive), the future generations will be really rather f....d up.
 
As I was saying before, I think conserving resources isn't a bad thing in itself, especially when you consider the hip-pocket rewards this reaps.
 
I think we should work on making things as efficient as possible however there is simply so much total bullshit out there that it's taking away from people making valid discoveries etc.
 
Walsh_e said:
He does have a good point, as a Geography student I'd say that global warming is real and that it is being accelerated by man, however the plain lies that these people come out with is disgraceful!

Just one example, the melting ice caps, coming out and saying when the ice caps melt the sea levels will flood major cities is, well, a complete lie, studies show that the ice caps melting will actually decrease sea levels due to ice being more dense than water! What causes the sea levels to rise (1 meter every hundred years btw, not 20 meters over night) is the water expanding as it warms.
Click to expand...

Since when did being a geography student have anything to do with global warming/climate change? Maybe I'm not up to speed with geography curriculum...

And, I hate to burst your bubble but ice is less dense than water. That is why ice floats on top of water. You could make the case that melting ice wouldn't raise the sea levels since it will actually contract as it melts. But, any ice above sea level will in fact add to the total volume of the earth's oceans because its volume has not been accounted for by displacement. Just take piece of ice and put it in a glass of water, the water line will raise because your adding more volume to it, but that only applies to what is actually under the surface. If you push the cube down until it is totally submerged that water will raise again and the displaced volume will be equal to the volum of the cube.
 
Viper007Bond said:
Stopping global warming and improving the economy aren't mutually exclusive -- far from it. It just requires an investment and/or shift in jobs, etc.

Mass production and widespread usage of things like solar cells = lower costs = more jobs = better environment = win for all.
Click to expand...

Not only that, when corporations and their advertising pimps jump on the issue we will gladly be paying more for the "environmentally friendly" products. We already do. It can actually help drive the economy.

I'm hoping the shift that comes is a genuine, widespread, world-changing one and not just a cynical marketing exercise. But maybe I'm hoping for too much.
 
airmenair said:
And, I hate to burst your bubble but ice is less dense than water. That is why ice floats on top of water. You could make the case that melting ice wouldn't raise the sea levels since it will actually contract as it melts. But, any ice above sea level will in fact add to the total volume of the earth's oceans because its volume has not been accounted for by displacement. Just take piece of ice and put it in a glass of water, the water line will raise because your adding more volume to it, but that only applies to what is actually under the surface. If you push the cube down until it is totally submerged that water will raise again and the displaced volume will be equal to the volum of the cube.
Click to expand...

Hold up...things float because the amount of water displaced by a floating object (the amount of the object at or below the water line) is equal to the mass of the object (the entire object, whether above or below the waterline). So when an iceberg melts, the water level shouldn't change at all, because the volume of water that would've been displaced by the iceberg is now just the iceberg from the water.

HOWEVER, the problem with this assumption is that the seas, unlike icebergs, are salty and denser than the fresh water locked in ice; if icebergs were salty, they wouldn't freeze. So less-dense fresh water flooding into denser seawater in large amounts should, in theory, increase sea levels, but not by much, I'm assuming.

Furthermore, this only applies to the northern ice cap, which is all floating on the sea. The southern ice cap is on top of land, namely Antarctica, and it's that bit melting that would add to sea levels, not just barely tweak it.

...I think I just took three paragraphs to agree with you, armenair. Oh well.

hansvonaxion said:
I'm hoping the shift that comes is a genuine, widespread, world-changing one and not just a cynical marketing exercise. But maybe I'm hoping for too much.
Click to expand...

At least in some countries, it'll start off as a cynical marketing exercise, for sure. That shouldn't stop buyers from weeding out the bad ones and sticking with the good.
 
Labcoatguy said:
Hold up...things float because the amount of water displaced by a floating object (the amount of the object at or below the water line) is equal to the mass of the object (the entire object, whether above or below the waterline). So when an iceberg melts, the water level shouldn't change at all, because the volume of water that would've been displaced by the iceberg is now just the iceberg from the water.

HOWEVER, the problem with this assumption is that the seas, unlike icebergs, are salty and denser than the fresh water locked in ice; if icebergs were salty, they wouldn't freeze. So less-dense fresh water flooding into denser seawater in large amounts should, in theory, increase sea levels, but not by much, I'm assuming.

Furthermore, this only applies to the northern ice cap, which is all floating on the sea. The southern ice cap is on top of land, namely Antarctica, and it's that bit melting that would add to sea levels, not just barely tweak it.

...I think I just took three paragraphs to agree with you, armenair. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Yea I think I made a goof with what I said. I agree if you have ice floating in water and it melts the water line will remain the same because the volume of fluid displaced when the ice is whole is the volume of that the ice when it melts and turns to water, therefore no change in the waterline. Now we would have a problem on our hands if we took all the solid floating ice on earth and forcibly submerged it below the surface.

Yea and on antartica if that melts and turns to water and flows into the ocean we would have a raise in sea levels since that volume has not been accounted for.

Agreed on how things float too, but if ice were more dense than water it would most likely sink because it is solid. A boat floats because it minimizes it weight and maxmizes its volume, so a ship with a thin steel hull stands a better chance of floating that a ship with a solid steel hull.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand!

Shit I had a hard time explaining that, haha. :p Anyway I agree! :)
 
If I remember Gore's doco correctly, they mentioned the Northern polar icecap melting (more specifically the glaciers) was a problem because of the disruption to the sea currents caused by the massive input of cold water. Then they went on to explain how the ice on Antarctica melting would increase sea levels. They kept the 2 issues separate.
 
airmenair said:
Since when did being a geography student have anything to do with global warming/climate change? Maybe I'm not up to speed with geography curriculum...

And, I hate to burst your bubble but ice is less dense than water. That is why ice floats on top of water. You could make the case that melting ice wouldn't raise the sea levels since it will actually contract as it melts. But, any ice above sea level will in fact add to the total volume of the earth's oceans because its volume has not been accounted for by displacement. Just take piece of ice and put it in a glass of water, the water line will raise because your adding more volume to it, but that only applies to what is actually under the surface. If you push the cube down until it is totally submerged that water will raise again and the displaced volume will be equal to the volum of the cube.
Click to expand...
Doing a geography degree actually means studying such things as climate change and weather... The point I made was that the Artic ice cap melting will cause sea levels to drop, not rise serveral meters over night as some environmentalists claim. The Artic is made up of frozen sea water so if this melts and contracts the sea levels will fall.

On land ice melting will cause sea levels to rise, however this rise is predicted to be at most 17cm by 2100, however thermal sea level rise is predicted to be close to 30cm, yet this is very rarely bought up as the main cause of sea level rise by environmentalists.

As for the Artic melt ice effecting the ocean currents its hard to say, some studies show that it will be cancelled out by the increased sea temperature, others have suggested that it will effect the currents but will not stop them so its anyones guess really.
 
"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.
Click to expand...

It seems so, as the majority of people are dumb.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
Click to expand...

Thats is exactly it, and governements who use it as an excuse to tax and corporations who make money from it as well
 
Hell, I respect the man for HAVING OPINIONS. It seems that the politicians here are so far up EU's ass that they HAVE to be the model country in everything. Finland is the teachers favourite student at elementary school, full of itself without realizing that he is hated by everyone. That, plus the Chech president actually has THE CORRECT OPINIONS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top