The European Union’s new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.
The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.
The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.
But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy – including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases – the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.
Found by Joe Carlson.
Mark Steyn made some great comments yesterday about our perverted fixation on Climate Change.
Let’s take a look at the history of California since Arnold Schwarzenegger arrived.
He came as a penniless immigrant to a land of plenty and now he is an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land.
Is he doing anything to correct the real crisis affecting California – his state is broke.
NO!
Instead, he is obsessing on lunatic regulations to ward off fictional climate change.
Citizen:
Well, look, there seems to be a lot of people just walking across the border into our country and demanding free medical care and benefits.
Do you think we could build a fence?
Arnold:
Oh, no, no!
It would be absurd to even talk about building a fence. That’s pie-in-the-sky Utopian stuff. It’s never going to work. The idea of building a fence along our border, why, it’s completely preposterous.
But changing the climate, – that is something we can do.
And not just the planet, but even into outer space and the ultra solar system as Al Gore talks about in his book “Earth in the Balance”, changing the very heavens
We can’t build a fence – that’s Utopian, pie-in-the-sky, never going to happen;
but changing the heavens – that we can do.
He prospered under communism and now is a hard right-wing power player.
#1 – Jay Benson II
>>We can’t build a fence – that’s Utopian, pie-
>>in-the-sky, never going to happen
You hit it right on the nose there, Benson II. That fence is the biggest boondoggle that has ever been proposed.
I realize the xenophobes and rednecks need someplace to vent their misery over their shitty lot in life, but come on. A fence you can just walk around? $49,000,000,000.00 for a fence blocking off 700 miles of a 2000-mile border?
Criminy.
It’s actually run by committee and consensus. Translation: nothing gets done.
The figurehead is a largely ceremonial role.
I think by definition it has to be ceremonial given Europe’s penchant for invading each other.
But at least the guy has some common sense when it comes to this <a href=”http://locomotivebreath1901.blogspot.com/2008/12/twelve-days-of-global-warming.html”algore church of glow bull warmer crap.
Mustard==when you consider the fence, don’t forget to add in the benefits of keeping the infamous Gaudelupe Jackalope on the Southern Side of the Rio Grande. Sierra Club is up in arms on this one.
Mr. Sarcozy that fashist trying to impose the lissbon treaty on the people of europes time is finally up. With best regards from scandinavia: mr. Sarkozy “Please go f**k yourself up the rear end you bloody bender!”
I would like to see a rational, evidence based argument against the scientific consensus on global climate change. Not against Al Gore. Not against a politician.Not against the lunatic fringe, but against the consensus. Against the science. When you can do that you will convince me that global climate change is not real and is not man made. It will be a great challenge to keep our world industrial growth( a plus for everyone) sustainable. That is a challenge that we can overcome if we act on what is right for whoever is going to inherit the world for the future.
# 2 sargasso said, “He prospered under communism and now is a hard right-wing power player.”
Umm, no. But keep trying to revise history.
Another anti global warming maven who doesn’t live near a shore.
Is not the wording of this particular argument wrong? The controversy should be over “the cause of climate change”; not that the climate is changing. The climate does its deal & changes all over the place, independent of what we do it.
In 5,000 years with the new ice age, they’ll be ringing their hands over “what did we do wrong” & how can “we” put everything right again, when we can’t do jack shit about any of it.
This is the EU’s version of Czechs and Balances. nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Oh my head….
# 7 Jezcoe, “I would like to see a rational, evidence based argument against the scientific consensus on global climate change.” The consensus you apparently believe in, is basically a few hundred hand-picked-by-the-UN scientists who submitted their findings to a group of editors and rewriters who picked and chose the details that reinforced the idea of global warming. It is notable that many scientists, after reading the final report, asked to have their names removed from it. The evidence for global warming is scant and, in fact, it certainly seems that a global ice age is more likely in progress. Maybe we should be actively trying to put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere! Not that it would matter. We’re in a cycle that geologists have documented occurs over and over throughout geological history. If our cow farts bring a million year cycle around a thousand years early, so what? I’m not gonna stop eating steaks.
to #7 you wont ever get an answer or evidence thats going to point one way or the other. The only fact is that we do effect our planet, everything does. our planet also effects us and everything else.
plants naturally scrub C02 from the air and store carbon. some is burned in fires and is re released some is eaten burned in animals and re released.
but a lot of the carbon stored on earth is from plankton and other plants in the ocean and is never released. the dead matter falls to the bottom of the ocean and is trapped in dirt and over time becomes various forms of carbon like oil.
the problem is we are burning millions of years of stored carbon from such processes in a very short time. and throwing it into the atmosphere, on top of the earths natural carbon release like cows, fires… also by burning this carbon we make life easier and thus more population = more people burning carbon
you cant say we are not “changing” anything. carbon credits are ridiculous though. its someone using our “end of the world” paranoia to make money.
Be especially careful of websites that sell carbon credits. They are simply sending a portion of your money on to charities that claim to be providing assistance to third world countries that offset your carbon usage. The big themes seem to be cook stoves that use less wood and replanting schemes. Pish! I’ve worked in these areas most of my professional life. New cook stoves (solar, especially) are introduced regularly and with great enthusiasm – by the introducers. Locals take them with a smile – and all the other swag they can get – and then continue cooking the old way. Replanting trees? There’s a reason those areas are bare. It’s usually because the people are using the land for agriculture. Most loggers in the world now have reforestation programs. (I know a printing company in Indonesia that maintains forests in Indonesia and Malaysia. They plant far more than they harvest.) But, let’s assume these programs ARE worthwhile. YOu buy a “carbon offset” for $1. The website immediately takes half for administration costs. Fifty cents is sent onward. That agency needs 20 or 30 cents for overhead. So your generously donated dollar ends up as 20¢ worth of wasted effort. Save your carbon offsets and plant a tree in your backyard. It’ll help just as much and be a lot more fulfilling.
Please accept my apologies. Due to the wonderful tabs in Firefox (which I sincerely love), I accidentally posted message #14 in the wrong place. I meant to post it in the item on Carbon Credits. I beg your indulgence for my incompetence.
#12 Animby. You did not provide an answer that I asked for. I asked for one that was backed by data and science and instead you gave a story attacking the validity of the IPCC’s report. If you need more consensus opinions from “handpicked” scientists then look at http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change which lists internationally over 30 scientific bodies that agree with the consensus.
#13 Somatic Yes the oceans will remove CO2 from the atmosphere over time but they are losing the ability to absorb it. The oceans are getting more acidic http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3136266.stm making it harder for any creature that uses calcium carbonate in their shell to form it. If that is not a sign of the man made rise in CO2 then I do not no what is. If you do look at the data CO2 has been on the rise. It is clear from the timing of the rise of CO2 that it is man made. The challenge ahead is to keep the rise in productivity without ignoring the affect on the climate.
The discussion on climate change and global warming is misguided. The real discussion needs to be pollution…. What happened to acid rain, etc.?
#17 – “What happened to acid rain, etc.?”
The fact is, we cleaned up after ourselves. Look at the air in S. Cal. That is what real conservationists do, they clean up their messes.
Global warming fear mongering is a political tool used by craven bureaucrats to take money from gullible people.
#11 – roflmao!! -good one.
#19 wins.
too bad this guy will be powerless to *enlighten*
those who buy into the the global warming religion/hysteria.
/absurd mode
if governments are so concerned, why not just have all military forces on the planet shutdown for i dunno, 3 days a month..
maybe a global commercial aircraft holiday
one day a week.. during the 3day no-fly period
of 9/11 tempratures went up 1-2c..oh wait..that would make thing warmer…nevermind.
or maybe stuff a cork up the arses of india’s 300-400 million sacred cows. think all the far worse methane that would stopped for a day..
better yet, lets just kill anything that excretes
co2, yeah thats the ticket..the trees might bitch a little, but hey, they dont have any pull with the IPCC…
-its still puzzles me how they come up with emissions outputs of entire countries, use them as gospel -and no one ever seems to question the math behind it..
then there’s that hockey stick graph that completely ignores, well, everything..(like mediaeval warm period for one..)
eh..
-s
I think I like this new guy. Someone who doesn’t bow to the pressure of the Nazi tactics of the Global Warming Alarmists. Vaclav Klaus – I think I’ll remember that name.
It’s too bad they don’t have an IQ test for politicians (or GWA’s). I suspect 80% would never be allowed to take office, including Arnold. Don’t get me wrong, he clearly knows how to entertain, but that’s a far cry from governing.
# 16
I think you misread me. I was stating that the ocean has been storing C02 for millions of years…
and that we are mining it burning it and throwing it up into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, for better or worse we ARE changing the environment.
keep in mind this is carbon that is and has been out of the earths cycle for millions of years… and not its being put back in on top of the normal carbon cycle…
I was not stating the the ocean is cleansing our carbon use ….
Apparently, belief in Global Warming is the latest benchmark of testing sanity. If you believe in it, you get the seal of approval from the so-called consensus of environmentally concerned scientists and politicians. Only their numbers are as overwhelmingly a majority, as they like to pretend they are. And if you don’t believe in the Chicken Little (the sky is falling), Global Warming threat. That you must be a dangerous lunatic. And not allowed a job at anything that might mold public opinion. Or affect any governing policies. Which seems kind of one-sided, don’t you think? Who decided belief in an unproven theory, was the make or break for leadership worthiness? It’s sounds like the science community’s version of the Spanish Inquisition, without the torture (so far). Let me know when they get around to chopping off hands, will someone?
I heard that they had to add another second of time to the year. Seems like they did that just a few years ago. This means a couple things. But trust the news media to screw up the explanation, to protect Global Warming.
Our planet is taking longer to obit the sun, because it’s moved slightly away from it. And this will continue as the sun basically loses mass. It’s wearing out, and probably will grow colder (not hotter). But even if it doesn’t change much, we’re moving away from it. Thus not getting as much of its heat. Some century soon, we might welcome global warming. And try to make it happen, to keep from freezing. And if some of this year’s early snowfalls were any indication. We could be in a cooling trend that makes liars of the G.W. proponents.
Glenn E. I hope that you were kidding about the sun. That has to be (and I am sorry if I offend) one of the stupidest things ever. While it is true that the sun is burning its mass away as it is converting Hydrogen into energy that is not the reason there was a leap second. The sun is a few billion years away from running out of mass but by that time the planet will be a burnt cinder from the sun’s expansion. If you believe in global cooling from the sun expending it’s fuel then I have to question your reasoning skills. Once again I do hope that you were kidding.
What I do not understand is the belief of a global effort to promote climate change if it is indeed a hoax. What do the body of scientists that are putting forth the idea and supporting it with data have to gain? It makes no sense that it would be the reality. What is the scientific argument against Climate Change? Present me an argument backed by data that trumps the consensus and I will be willing to change my mind.
Why didnt I believe about this? I hear exactly what youre saying and Im so pleased that I came across your blog. You genuinely know what youre talking about, and you made me feel like I really should discover more about this. Thanks for this; Im officially a massive fan of your blog.