jueves, febrero 15, 2007

Vaclav Klaus: el calentamiento antropogénico es un mito

Entrevista que hicieron a Vaclav Klaus, presidente de la República Checa, sobre varios temas. Extraigo la parte pertinente al mito del calentamiento global antropogénico:

INTERVIEWER: The European Commission on Wednesday approved a new directive limiting CO2 emissions in automobiles. The week before a UN panel published a report which again warns that global warming is one of the greatest dangers for all of civilisation. Before that, the Stern report on similar threats was published. And you say to this that global warming is a false myth. Try to explain how you came to this.

VK: I didn't come to this. It's a false myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says it. Pointing to a UN panel is unfair. It isn't a scientific institution, it's a political organ. It's like creating a non-governmental organization of green coloring. This isn't a choice of neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists. These are politicised scientists who are coming to this with one-sided opinions and assignments. It is again an undignified slapstick that isn't abided by this panel's May report, but now that there is a fundamental reaction to the political content of this report, when all the "buts," "whens," "ifs" are crossed out and left out, there are simple theses there.This is simply such an unbelievable failure by all, starting with the media and ending with politicians. If the European Commission doesn't immediately jump on this, it's another huge reason why it should not decide on such a thing and leave it up to individual states.

INTERVIEWER: How do you explain that, in Europe, no other statesman in your position can be heard advocating such a standpoint so loudly? No one is defining it so strongly ...

VK: I simply have an opinion, and the lash of political correctness strangles the voice of the next top-caliber politician.

INTERVIEWER: But surely you're not a climatologist. Do you think you have enough information and knowledge?

VK: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and a worldview that has absolutely nothing in common with science and the climate. Unfortunately, it has nothing in common with the social sciences either, and it is becoming the fashion of the modern era. That terrifies me. The second half of the sentence: We have bundles of studies and books by climatologists who have come to the absolutely opposite opinion. I don't measure the thickness of ice in the Antarctic. I really don't know and I don't aspire to. As a scientifically based person, though, I know how to read scientific reports on this issue and I know how to read how it is with the ice in the Antarctic. I don't have to be a climatologist for that. And any similar conclusions I have seen in newspaper headlines, I have not read. But let me promise you something: This topic bothers me very much, so I started to write an article at Christmas, which expanded for me into a book. During the next several months I will publish it. There I have organised my opinions on the topic. Of seven parts, one touches on the debate on climatological changes. Environmentalism and green ideology is something completely different. Various clamoring and findings by some scientists are later used and misused for this ideology.

INTERVIEWER: How do you explain that conservative and rightist media look at it skeptically and leftists take it as a foregone conclusion? Why do leftists and rightists divide on this point?

VK: It isn't a completely precise leftist-rightist division. But it is certain that environmentalism is the modern incarnation of leftism.

INTERVIEWER: Granted that, even if you were right ...

VK: I am right.

INTERVIEWER: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and realities observed with one's own eyes that man is destroying the planet and harming himself?

VK: That is such nonsense. I have probably never heard greater.

INTERVIEWER: You do not believe that we're destroying our planet?

VK: I'm going to act as if I did not hear that. That could only be said by Mr. Al Gore; a normal person would be hard-pressed. I see no destruction of our planet. Nowhere in life have I seen it, and I do not think that any serious and reasonable person could say it. You represent the economic press, so I assume a certain economic erudition. My book will answer that for you. But, for example, we know that there is a huge connection between the view toward nature and the development and riches of human society. It is evident that the poorer human society is, the more brutally it behaves toward nature; the more developed it is, the opposite is true.At the same time it is true that there are societal arrangements, such as those which liquidate private ownership and so on, that destroy nature far more than freer societies. Those are long-term tendencies and will lead us unequivocally to the fact that nature today on 8 February is infinitely better protected than it was on 8 February 10, 50, 100 years ago. How is it possible to utter the sentence you just uttered? In insensibility? Or as a provocation? That I would be so naïve and be provoked to answer that? I rather think that what is on my heart is on my tongue. That is simply your opinion.

2 Comments:

At 20:41, Blogger BuenaPrensa said...

Llegué aquí por mera casualidad. Me llamó la atención tu banner en diagonal de "I stand with Israel".

Con más tiempo creo que volveré y chequearé los contenidos del blog.

Saludos y espero que te des una visita por mi blog, trata sobre el conflicto en Medio Oriente. La difusión que puedas darle al blog la agradeceré encarecidamente.

Saludos!
Buena Prensa, Buen Mundo!
http://buenaprensa.blogspot.com

 
At 13:06, Anonymous Guillermo Pineda said...

Hey,

Thanks a lot for sharing this Interview! I have also been spreading the word about antropogenic implications that "cause" Global Warming and I have reviewed various emails confirming Klaus' insights.

Thanks for the post!

On Liberty,

 

Publicar un comentario

<< Home