"Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate," Czech President Vaclav Klaus courageously told a Prague daily newspaper. "Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either." I don't use the word "courageously" in a thoughtless manner. In Boston, where the mercury has dipped into the single digits too many days in the past month, columnist Ellen Goodman has likened doubters of man-made global warming to those who deny the Holocaust. In Europe, the political pressure to conform on this scientific issue is even greater. Klaus is a brave man. The environmentalcases fear those who don't fear them. All it takes, after all, is one man to shout, "The Emperor has no clothes!," and the group lie begins to crumble. Klaus, an intellectual and not a yahoo, did this, and did this in such an unapolagetic way--see the final three questions and answers in the exchange for an amusing example of this--as to make others feel comfortable pointing out inconvenient truths.

Interesting read on the a related topic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

It seems clear that the Global Warming whiners have just about had it with those naysayers among us who are clearly the unwashed and unenlightened. And damn it, they're going to make sure it's a social crime to be a non-believer! Right down to taking away our Valentine bouquets!

The hypocrisy of the Left with regards to this topic is astounding. Al Gore, advocate for and owner of vast amounts of Occidental Oil stock cruising around in multiple gas guzzling SUVS back and forth to a his 30,000 sq. ft. mansion heated by fossil fuels and in between winging around the Globe to promote his book and movie in a fuel sucking jetliner. Nancy Pelosi, who says that she will make the government solution to Global Warming her #1 priority as leader of the House, lobbying for and getting the biggest most palatial government funded fuel sucking jetliner possible. Richard Branson who is offering billions of dollars to science to discover a solution to Global Warming. Billions made on an airline that could be considered a prime contributor to destroying the ozone through the burning of mass amounts of fossil fuels.

These are serious people who very few are taking seriously and they can't stand it! They want to live an unrestricted elitist lifestyle while making sure that the proletariat pay higher taxes and are less comfortable to support their phony boloney theories. Wish they'd just go away.

Thanks for spreading the word. ;-) The Drudge Report link could be temporary. If it stops working, here's the original source of the translation

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html

You may click my name, too.
Best wishes, Lubos

I was reminded of an excellent quotation from another man from what is today the Czech Republic: "When natural science speaks, we listen gladly and as disciples. But it is not always natural science that speaks when natural scientists are speaking."

Why bother with science when you can listen to a free market economist?

The fact that you mention how cold its been this month in Boston betrays a serious (and probably intentional) lack of understanding of what the global warming crowd is claiming.

One should always try to separate political rhetoric from scientific (and in the case of global warming wonder if this is even possible). However by quoting a non-scientist--an avid free-market politician at that--you are confusing the issues just as much (if not more) than those you oppose.

His "proof" that we are not ruining the world doesn't really hold water either. Just because "nature" is more "protected" today than 10 years ago, does not in any way imply that "nature" (again in quotes--whatever this term might mean for Klaus--how do you define "nature" let alone the idea of a "nature" that is "protected" by man)
is more or less present, healthy, or safe.

In the end this man is a political leader with a couple economic degrees and a belief in the self-regulative powers of a free-market, his comments on global warming should be seen as such and not as an authority on global climate change.

r.c.

p.s. How many times did he allude to answers contained only in his book? Methinks this is more sensationalistic self-promotion than anything courageous.

Would you say the same about Al Gore R.C.? Isn't he just a political leader with a couple degrees? What makes him an expert that Global Warming is in fact legitimate?

By the way, I'm freezing my a$$ off here. I would use a little Global Warming.

asdf,

I never claimed that Al Gore was an expert on global warming (although I'm sure he has dedicated more time to understanding it than Klaus).

The point I made is that science should be separate from political rhetoric. The issue of global warming is precarious in this regard because it implies a degree of responsibility and necessitates changes in rules and policies. That being said I don't think our responsibility towards the environment is a political issue.

I'm not sure what part of what part of my previous post you interpreted to be my support of Al Gore over a real scientist, but hopefully this clears up your misunderstanding.

r.c.

R.C:

You complain that the Czech prime minister did not "prove" that we are not causing global warming.

He doesn't have to "prove" anything, indeed proving a negative is impossible. It is those who say that we are that have the burden of proof, as they are making the statement of value. There is scant evidence that what is occurring currently is any different from the Earth's natural warming/cooling cycle, or is being caused by man.

Ben-T,

The point I made was about his "proof" that we are not ruining the world. I said nothing about proof that we are causing global warming. And while you may defend his right not to have to prove anything, he did put forth the following argument (you as an obviously devoted student of logic I think should be able to appreciate what I'm getting at, or correct me if you prefer)

This is what Klaus said:

"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...My book will answer these questions..."

"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..."

"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."

The main question I am raising is what does the "unambiguous" fact that "nature" (an ambiguous term at best) is more protected today than 10 years ago have to do with the current state of nature, 10 years ago, 100 years ago.

The more subtle point is: what does the word "nature" refer to when it is protected by man. Because much of what is contained in the notion of nature is something outside of the sphere of civilization. One could go so far as to say "protected nature" is not nature at all. That is, it is certainly within the sphere of civilization.

In closing man's relationship with nature is antagonistic (as is inherently implied in their respective definitions) on the one hand man's "protection" of nature is first of unnatural, and second of all mostly self-serving. On the other hand an increase in protection says nothing about the status of what is being protected. You might have a basket of 12 eggs and get 10 of them stolen so you naturally increase the amount of protection over your basket of eggs but you only have 2 left.

However all of this is certainly out of the way of what I really wanted to say which is that this guy is another politician talking about something he admits he has very little authority to talk over. I suggest people stop listening to politicians about such issues and listen to the real authorities. I'm not advocating one side or the other with this, its just that I'll believe a scientist before a politician about global warming.

r.c.

rc, Scientists have agendas as well. After all, they're human. Also, Government grants can cause corruption. It's a well that can dry up if the answers aren't what certain Congress Critters are looking for. Just my opinion..

That's right R.C., you never did claim that Gore was an expert. But that doesn't stop him from spouting junk about our "planetary crisis" that is supposedly a result of Global Warming. So, in that case, why use Klaus' comments to make an argument as he, admittedly, is no expert in debunking Global Warming theory?

You recognized that Klaus is not a scientist and that only a scientist can make a valid assessment about Global Warming, yet you quote him like he is:

"His "proof" that we are not ruining the world doesn't really hold water either. Just because "nature" is more "protected" today than 10 years ago, does not in any way imply that "nature" (again in quotes--whatever this term might mean for Klaus--how do you define "nature" let alone the idea of a "nature" that is "protected" by man)
is more or less present, healthy, or safe".

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

I agree with most of what you said, R.C. I apologize for misunderstanding at first. I also certainly agree that politicians are full of crap.

Often, so are scientists.

The key question here then becomes, if you will permit me to submit an economist's answer: How much of nature do we want to destroy (that is to say, transform into things useful to us) as opposed to how much we want to conserve?

I submit that, in accordance with Mises' Economic Calculation Challenge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_debate )

The only possible rational calculator of this is price. The government, not being able to calculate where, when, how, etc to invest (or not invest) resources, will be unable to do very much at all about the environment.

It is no surprise then, that the most environmentally ravaged areas of the Earth are in places where communism triumphed, such as the former Soviet Union.

Classic: House hearing on planet warming cancelled after ice storm.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Ben-T,

Thanks for the link. I'm trying to wrap my head around this Economic Calculation bit, its interesting, but an economist I'm not so...These are my loosely formed thoughts on the matter.

The problem for me is, much like the economic calculation problem, is how do you assess the price of environmentalism.

I would disagree with your economists question/answer on the grounds that I don't think that conservation and creating something useful should be opposed to each other.

It is useful to conserve/protect our environment for a variety of reasons (sustainability, health, quality of life).

My personal opinion is whether or not armageddon is upon us in the form of global warming, the current market needs to find a way to value the usefulness of environmentalism.

Yeah, that's all I got.

r.c.

I agree that conservation is useful. And I think people want conservation. People like having lakes to swim in, forests to go visit, etc.

For this reason, these commodities could be bought by private firms and sold, on a basis of admission.

But of course there is another problem, in my mind created by the existence of public property. Nobody owns roads, or rivers, etc. Rather, simply, the state owns them. They are in the public usage.

For this reason, nobody has any incentive to incur costs of upkeep. That is to say, people will simply use them and abuse them until they are gone, since they have no personal claim of ownership over them, and so no reason to preserve them.

This is why, for example, we have more trees in the USA today than we had in 1945. Lumber firms can buy large areas of forest, and so have an incentive to re-forest those areas, so that they will have more trees to sell.

by contrast, Dan posted a thread here recently showing that the waters off New Bedford are in danger of being depleted of fish? Well, why? Because the waters off New Bedford are in the public domain, there is no incentive for upkeep costs. If areas of water could be privately owned like areas of land are, than firms would choose not to totally deplete their fish resources, knowing that they will need them in the future. In economics, we call this "demand to hold".

But because of the non-property allocation of resources in these waters, we are faced with what is little more a race to grab as much fish as possible before anyone else can.

So then, I would argue that the best way to combat environmental damage done by economic growth would be best dealt with by introducing greater privatization of nature. Elsewise, we are faced with little more than a repeat of the infamous "tragedy of the commons".