As the Veneer of Global Warming Hysteria Starts to Fade

Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Vaclav Klaus
Friday June 15, 2007

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 suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” 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: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. 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 “established” 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: “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”.

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 “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
  • Instead of speaking about “the environment”, 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.

Financial Times

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Posted in History, Science, Someone Clever Said, Yes yes yes!
3 comments on “As the Veneer of Global Warming Hysteria Starts to Fade
  1. […] oh. TOTALITARIAN ALERT!!!! While Westminster reeled, a challenge on a whole other scale was on the table a few […]

  2. […] We have already written about this particular individual before. […]

  3. irdial says:

    Vaclav Klaus, Eco Criminal

    Kurt Nimmo
    Saturday June 16, 2007

    Consider Vaclav Klaus, eco criminal. Klaus, due to his status as the president of the Czech Republic, is allowed to speak his mind on the pages of the Financial Times. In the not too distant future, however, such dialogue will be forbidden, even for national presidents, as the scientific dictatorship, masquerading under the cloak of environmentalism, will punish all who dare question the new orthodoxy of control, no matter status. Soon enough, such dissidents will be persecuted, even punished as heretics, enemies of mankind, or rather enemies of the global elite who sell us one problem-reaction-solution trick after another in their quest for total domination.

    Mr. Klaus dares question the emerging eco-fascist hierarchy, namely Al Gore, Tony Blair, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Gang of Eight, commonly known as the Group of Eight, all conspiring to hammer out control mechanisms predicated on a foundation of junk science. “Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond,” Klaus argues. “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…. 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.”

    Vaclav Klaus agrees with professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “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.”

    Of course, future generations, if the global elite are successful, will not possess the capacity for “bemused amazement,” as they will be bio-chipped, medicated, surveilled via the pantopticon and, to use the Matrix metaphor, reduced to mere batteries, that is to say rendered into a greatly reduced, through the coming Great Culling (i.e., “population control”), slave class in perpetual service to their psychopathic rulers, the heirs of Al Gore, Tony Blair, and the Gang of Eight.

    “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,” Klaus notes, and follows with specific suggestions:

    “Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures.”

    Certainly not, but then the idea here is not to save the planet and humanity from fantastical climatological cataclysm, but rather, as noted above, impose a water tight social control mechanism, one far more effective in frightening the blinkered masses than the current emphasis on manufactured terrorism, almost effortlessly forgotten, unlike “climate change.”

    “Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided.”

    Indeed, but again Mr. Klaus misses the point: our rulers fully intend to eradicate not only the possibility of “freedom and democracy,” but eliminate, in Orwellian fashion, the very presumption of natural rights and freedom, a postulation already working its way to the graveyard of ideas, toward the memory hole where the past is methodically liquidated. Few of us understand that natural or universal rights are inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs, not predicated on political absolutism or the repellent idea of the divine right of kings, or in the modern context the divine right of transnational corporatism.

    “Instead of organizing people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants.”

    Surely, a commendable thought, but one that will soon be extinct as the ill-fated dodo bird. Our oligarchic rulers fully intend to organize humanity, or more accurately the emerging slave class, “from above,” or on-high, as they have done for several millennia. In order for the global slave plantation to function as the psychopathic oligarchy intends, the very idea humanity has a natural right to decide how (or where) to live must be exterminated, put on the extinction list same as the dodo bird.

    “Instead of speaking about ‘the environment,’ let us be attentive to it in our personal behavior.”

    Our “personal behavior,” by and large, here in the United States and somewhat to a lesser degree in Europe and the “Western” world, is bound and determined by rampant consumerism and “status-enhancing appeal,” e.g., the idea that frivolous and transitory products, increasingly manufactured by slaves in China, “make the man,” or woman for that matter. According to the new eco-fascist paradigm emerging under the “climate control” rubric (actually a human control mechanism), such mindless consumerist behavior will be deemed a crime against the planet, as the agenda calls for a massive and global-wide feudal order based on the China Model thus dictating the elimination of the middle class.

    “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, instead, confront the psychopathic oligarchy, the plutocracy of death and disease, of poverty and diminishment. Unfortunately, with the current degree of stepfordization endemic among the masses, this task will be extremely difficult, to say the least, as most people do not realize they are working their way toward a dismal future in cradle-to-grave service as batteries to the plutocratic oligarchy.

    “Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.”

    Indeed, although the process of frightening the masses is well underway—a process hardly unique, as the masses were long ago inculcated by the “irrational interventions” of the state by way of its subordinate propaganda apparatus, otherwise known as the “mainstream media,” so accomplished at not only diversion by way of bread and circus “entertainment,” but the highly advanced art of gussying up the truly horrific as benevolence.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: