Why that is from the AP

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. 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. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, 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.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. 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.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. Well, it makes a lot of sense, Prof Klaus. Other parts of the interview were dedicated to the Organization of European States (and Jo Leinen), the Czech civil cold war that has already ended, the radar for the U.S. missile defense, and his relations with the current Czech government. Show postings on this blog that contain the word Klaus.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

Developing...

Oh steve k... you are holding on pretty tight when your scientific opinions are coming from the leader of Czech republic. Nice source... let's just forget the 99% of environmental scientist who STRONGLY disagree with your head of state's skewed opinion.

You are such a sad little thing...

__________________
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

John Adams from the " Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

99% huh, got ANY proof of that.
Didn't think so

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

That 14% are the self loathing, MAN HATING, MAN BAITING, keep off the planet, don't run with guns or scissors, whiney manipulative little cuntrolling LOLITAS'. (layla)


Just tell them SHUT THE PHUCK UP....(go phuck yourself)....that don't work......kick their hating little hand biting asses out the door;-)


(-::-)

While everyone is bickering over whether global warming is real or not, people are freezing to death in the midwest and northeast.

Do you believe in God?

NBC this morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest
number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and
the percentage was the same as this:

86% to keep the words, "In God We Trust" on our money and "under God"
in the Pledge of Allegiance
14% against.

That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't.

Now it is your turn .. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a
mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "under God"
in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is the world catering to this 14%?

LETS KICK THEIR sexually and emotionally retarded ASS ES

IN CHRIST!

If you agree, pass this on, if not, YOU are part of the 14% PROBLEM CHILDREN. (rassa, kitty kitty, hillary........ehehehehehehe)


In ONLY God Can We Trust.

People like Hillary are just a bunch of intellectuall snotts:-O

DON'T B a pussy

BE A KICK ASS for CHRIST;-)

http://www.virtualdali.com/62Sacred-HeartOfJesus.html

(-::-)

Lets assume that the world is getting hotter (.7 degrees since 1907). What exactly will the ramifacations be? Who will gain, who will lose because of higher temperatures? Will the summer of 2020 for example be 150 degrees? Or will it be 95 degrees? If the oceans do rise will they flood the entire globe or just those Yuppies who built homes along the beach? Will it hurt all industry or just the ski slopes? Will we now be able to grow oranges in Minnesota or will it be so hot hot hot nothing will grow? If the ski slopes go out of business could we turn those into summer villas (they will be naturally cooler than the flat lands no matter what the temperature is).

Are we really ready to rush headlong into the economic destruction of the industrialized world because of something that has only been discussed by the drive by media????

February 15, 2007
Global Hot Air From the Media
By Thomas Sowell

If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves.

The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.

Remember how the unusually large number of hurricanes a couple of years ago was hyped in the media as being a result of global warming, with more such hurricanes being predicted to return the following year and the years thereafter?

But, when not one hurricane struck the United States all last year, the media had little or nothing to say about the false predictions they had hyped. It's heads I win and tails you lose.

Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates? Yes, there are.

There is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled "Hot Talk, Cold Science." More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."

There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries -- and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.

Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen.

His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically.

Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.

You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having "misstatements and errors" that he calls "egregious."

A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being "often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it." It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet.

Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.

The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags.

Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, "overpopulation" and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s.

In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria.

Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV.

Here is their chance to check out some heavyweight scientists specializing in weather and climate, instead of taking Al Gore's movie or the pronouncements of government bureaucrats and politicians as the last word.

Copyright

Global Warming Turns Ugly
New York Sun Editorial
February 12, 2007

The debate over global warming has turned hysterical in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress and the most recent United Nations report asserting a 90% likelihood of human-caused climate change. And anybody who disagrees had better be prepared for attacks on their scientific credentials, their honesty, and even their right to speak out.

Case in point — the singularly nasty attack by the left-wing Guardian newspaper of England a week or so ago attacking a distinguished American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute of Washington, D.C., for soliciting scholarly papers that might disagree with the so-called global warming consensus. "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study," the Guardian breathlessly headlined its story last week.

AEI, described as a "lobby group," was said to be offering $10,000 — plus, wait for it, travel expenses — to scientists and economists for essays that showed the "limitations of global climate models." In the second paragraph the Guardian described AEI as an "ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush administration."

Never mind that scientists on both sides of the issue take "cash" to study global warming. And never mind that AEI isn't a "lobby group" — under American tax law, organizations like AEI are expressly prohibited from lobbying. Or that ExxonMobil funding is less than 1% of AEI's total budget, or that a recent AEI research paper called for a tax on carbon, an idea that is hardly in line with ExxonMobil's financial interests.

When the left is out to smear an opponent, any brand of tar will do. Consider Vice President Gore's mantra, which has been picked up by much of the press, that global warming skeptics are "deniers" — as in Holocaust deniers. You might expect that liberals would be leery of attempts to liken an opponent to the nuts who deny that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. "Are you now or have you ever been a denier?" But no, the moral paragons of Beverly Hills appear set to deliver an Oscar to Mr. Gore for his bravery in telling supposedly inconvenient truths.

Mr. Gore has been caught at this sort of thing before. In 1994, Ted Koppel disclosed on "Nightline" that Mr. Gore had called to suggest he investigate various global warming skeptics for their ties to the coal industry and other interests. Mr. Koppel said he had refused. He went on to chastise Mr. Gore publicly for "resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis."

Just so. But Mr. Gore and others still seem unable to restrain their bile. The Washington Post recently quoted Mr. Gore as referring to a prominent Republican senator as a "denier." All of which makes one wonder: Do these people have as much confidence as they pretend to have in their theories about why the globe may be heating up? Maybe there is good reason for AEI and others to ask for a closer look at those computer models claiming to show a meltdown of the earth in coming decades.

The late Karl Popper, one of the 20th century's most eminent philosophers, wrote and spoke often of the glories — and dangers — of the Enlightenment's faith in science. " … the theory that truth is manifest not only breeds fanatics — men possessed by the conviction that all those who do not see the manifest truth must be possessed by the devil — but it may also lead … to authoritarianism."

You may think that's overwrought. But remember that just last week on February 9, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that government would have to impose a mandatory cap to reduce greenhouse emissions by 50%, a move that would bring government ever more deeply into the heart of the economy. And that, global warming enthusiasts add, would just be a first step. For, after all, it is the point of the whole global warming agitation to begin with.