Freedom, not climate, is at risk

By Vaclav Klaus

Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is
enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th
century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for
the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures
to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

Ask President Klaus
Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your
questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary� film was shown in
cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern
report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the
Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the
weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The
dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted
truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us.
Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge
facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda�. I feel the same way, because global
warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus
propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established�
truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see
the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against
the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and
relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel
obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy,
the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism,
not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and
spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global)
planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they
do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of
society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are
Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the
political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an
obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how
much they have affected their selection and interpretation of
scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see
it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of
millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature
variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the
Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time
temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the
rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise
themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically
increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential
consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in
bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went
into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of
a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of
highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains
of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial
age�.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences
and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree
Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest
the following:
â–*Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
â–*Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
â–*Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to
live as he wants
â–*Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term
“scientific consensus�, which is always achieved only by a loud
minority, never by a silent majority
â–*Instead of speaking about “the environmentâ€�, let us be attentive to
it in our personal behaviour
â–*Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human
society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or
divert it in any direction
â–*Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them
to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.


The writer is President of the Czech Republic

In article .com,
Earl Evleth wrote:

By Vaclav Klaus

Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is
enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th
century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for
the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures
to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

Ask President Klaus
Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your
questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary� film was shown in
cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern
report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the
Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the
weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The
dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted
truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us.
Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge
facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda�. I feel the same way, because global
warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus
propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established�
truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see
the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against
the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and
relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel
obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy,
the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism,
not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and
spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global)
planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they
do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of
society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are
Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the
political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an
obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how
much they have affected their selection and interpretation of
scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see
it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of
millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature
variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the
Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time
temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the
rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise
themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically
increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential
consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in
bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went
into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of
a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of
highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains
of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial
age�.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences
and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree
Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest
the following:
Å°Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
Å°Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
Å°Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to
live as he wants
Å°Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term
Ã…gscientific consensusÃ…h, which is always achieved only by a loud
minority, never by a silent majority
Å°Instead of speaking about Ågthe environmentÅh, let us be attentive to
it in our personal behaviour
Å°Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human
society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or
divert it in any direction
Å°Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them
to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.


The writer is President of the Czech Republic

Global Warming isn't creating a secret police and secret imprisonment
system. Global Warming isn't routing our phone calls through Canada. Global
Warming isn't listening to all "international" calls. Global Warming isn't
wiping out the middle class, the engine of our democracy. Global Warming
isn't creating hundreds of thousands of voter registration accidents,
misidentifying people as criminals or "caging" them. Global Warming doesn't
say that the constitution is just a peace of paper. Global Warming doesn't
politicize the whole government.

--
http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/bb...he_slaw_n.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...code=20060222&
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America http://www.iava.org/index.php
Vote in a Wonder: http://www.new7wonders.com/

On Jun 14, 12:20 pm, Earl Evleth wrote:

Not really. As we all know, the real Earl E. would not touch this
post. No, this is what GoogleGroups tells us about "Jake", the poor
lost soul who posted it:
__________________
Google Groups Profile

Name: Jake
Location: Paris France
Title: asshole emeritus cyberspace
Industry:
Email address:
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating:
___________________

Notice that the email address is bogus.

By Vaclav Klaus

Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is
enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th
century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for
the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures
to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

Ask President Klaus
Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your
questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary� film was shown in
cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern
report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the
Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the
weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The
dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted
truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us.
Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge
facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda�. I feel the same way, because global
warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus
propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established�
truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see
the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against
the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and
relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel
obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy,
the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism,
not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and
spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global)
planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they
do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of
society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are
Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the
political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an
obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how
much they have affected their selection and interpretation of
scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see
it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of
millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature
variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the
Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time
temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the
rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise
themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically
increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential
consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in
bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went
into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of
a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of
highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains
of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial
age�.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences
and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree
Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest
the following:
â–*Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
â–*Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
â–*Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to
live as he wants
â–*Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term
“scientific consensus�, which is always achieved only by a loud
minority, never by a silent majority
â–*Instead of speaking about “the environmentâ€�, let us be attentive to
it in our personal behaviour
â–*Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human
society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or
divert it in any direction
â–*Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them
to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The writer is President of the Czech Republic

In article .com,
says...

Certainly your freedom is at risk, Stephen Bach. Looking forward to
Sarko kicking out all you undesirables, are you? Don't worry, I'm sure
the US will find you a nice room in a well-secured neighbourhood when
you're deported.

Now be a good little man and go and polish your "glock".

In article om,
says...
On Jun 14, 12:20 pm, Earl Evleth wrote:

Not really. As we all know, the real Earl E. would not touch this
post. No, this is what GoogleGroups tells us about "Jake", the poor
lost soul who posted it:
__________________
Google Groups Profile

Name: Jake
Location: Paris France
Title: asshole emeritus cyberspace
Industry:
Email address:
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating:
___________________

Notice that the email address is bogus.

The "Jake" referred to above is in fact Stephen Bach, a US citizen who
lives in exile in France rather than staying in his own country to face
the criminal charges that await him there.

His cowardice is apparent at all levels.

On 15 juin, 01:14, Florida wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:20 pm, Earl Evleth wrote:

Â* Â*Not really. Â*As we all know, the real Earl E. would not touch this
post. Â*No, this is what GoogleGroups tells us about "Jake", the poor
lost soul who posted it:
__________________
Google Groups Profile

Name: Jake
Location: Paris France
Title: asshole emeritus cyberspace
Industry:
Email address:
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating:
___________________

Â* Â*Notice that the email address is bogus.



By Vaclav Klaus

Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is
enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th
century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for
the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures
to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

Ask President Klaus
Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your
questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary� film was shown in
cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern
report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the
Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the
weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The
dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted
truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us.
Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge
facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda�. I feel the same way, because global
warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus
propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established�
truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see
the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against
the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and
relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel
obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy,
the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism,
not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and
spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global)
planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they
do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of
society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are
Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the
political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an
obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how
much they have affected their selection and interpretation of
scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see
it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of
millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature
variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the
Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time
temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the
rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise
themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically
increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential
consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in
bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went
into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of
a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of
highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains
of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial
age�.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences
and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree
Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest
the following:
â–*Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
â–*Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
â–*Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to
live as he wants
â–*Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term
“scientific consensus�, which is always achieved only by a loud
minority, never by a silent majority
â–*Instead of speaking about “the environmentâ€�, let us be attentive to
it in our personal behaviour
â–*Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human
society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or
divert it in any direction
â–*Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them
to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The writer is President of the Czech Republic- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Bogus? the e mail address worked when I sent mail there. You're a
asshole ElaineJ

Jean Smith you are a textbook example of
paranoia.........................BTW whay's you social security
number?