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 suggestradical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
In the past year, Al Gore's so-called %26quot;documentary%26quot; 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: %26quot;the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda%26quot;. 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 %26quot;established%26quot; 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: %26quot;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%26quot;.
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:
*Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
*Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
*Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
*Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term %26quot;scientific consensus%26quot;, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
*Instead of speaking about %26quot;the environment%26quot;, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
*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
*Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.If you believe Gore you will believe anything?For every scientist that believes climate change is %26quot;no big deal%26quot;, about 99 think it is a serious and urgent problem.
Are you telling me you know something climatologists, zoologists, geologists, biologists, chemists and a whole host of other scientists who are confirming climate change more and more every day don't?If you believe Gore you will believe anything?You sure have a lot to say... did you actually view Al Gore's movie??
Half the people that criticize Gore's attempts to be aware of the proven fact behind global warming have never even seen the movie.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. If you want to believe that natural disasters come from global warming or the apocolypse that is your decision.
Frankly, I will always put more validity into what scientists have to say before a simple minded majority of non educated folkIf you believe Gore you will believe anything?do you believe anything that scientists study about and report with research?Do they have to share your politics inorder to %26quot;believe in them%26quot; Is scientific study a political opinion or basically observation and recording of observable facts?If you believe Gore you will believe anything?first... this is by Vaclav Klaus, who you are probably not...
but to his points... I don't really agree... he seems to think that scientists should just shut up if it may hurt the politicans or possibly the economy? yet he talks about not letting the %26quot;established truth%26quot; go by unquestioned?
it's like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth?
these scientists are raising the issue because they are concerned... granted, you may disagree with them... but I think it would be MUCH MORE DANGEROUS for the to self-censor themselves because it may not, in their opinion, be in the nation's best interest...
I don't really want them deciding that... how about you tell us and let us decide...
sounds like he did live under communism...
but to your question, no... many scientists support it and have quite a bit of evidence...If you believe Gore you will believe anything?I'm not going to argue with you. Hide your head in the sand if you want to. Big sh*t is coming whether we do anything or not. Its already too late.
But your right. If you ignore it, it will go awayIf you believe Gore you will believe anything?Gore is BS just like global warming.If you believe Gore you will believe anything?Yes, now the question makes sense.If you believe Gore you will believe anything?Al Gore is my heroIf you believe Gore you will believe anything?Lets put it this way...the Gore supporters are the same morons who could not mark their ballots properly in 2000...like the poster why are you so upset..If you believe Gore you will believe anything?I love algore.....I love comedy and he is at the top of the pile...he beats Robin WIlliams and that takes some doing
