Григорий Громов (abcdefgh) wrote,
Григорий Громов
abcdefgh

"Vaclav Klaus on global warming": чешский Президент первый в Европе решился

сказать про "глобальное потепление" то, на что не осмелился до него кажется ни один западный политик.

В лекции - см. ниже первое видео - проф. Вацлава Клаус напоминает, что Environmentalism - это не наука а идеология.

По сути это следущая - после падения коммунистических режимов и их базовой идеологии коммунизма - идеологическая напасть такая и кажется что с той же целью опять завелась, которая нынче представляет по его мнению наибольшую опасность для свободы в западном мире.

Он при этом отмечает что не следует путать Scientific Ecology - что есть наука, и никакого к ней отношения не имеющую новешую идеологию - Environmentalism.

Eсли Scientific Ecology - это наука, действующая по строгим каконам и в этических традициях академического сообщества, то Еnvironmentalism - это агрессивая идеология, которая уже породила этот самый зловещий "global warming" как новейший инструмент оболванивания и порабощения людей и кто знает какие еще иллюстрации старой мантры: "сон разума рождает чудовищ, - вскорости еше из того же чрева исторгнет.

То есть, если все понял правильно в лекции профессора Клауса, то его отношение к "global warming" намного серьезнее, чем скажем у меня до сих пор было.

Те кто читал мои по данной теме здесь сообщения наверное обратили внимание что воспринимал это все "потепление" как узко коммерческую хоть конечно и глобальных масштабов аферу для проталкивания которой лукавые бизнесмены используют левых политиков. Писал потому в осоновном в ироническом о том ключе.

Тогда как Президент Чешской Республики проф. Вацлав Клаус полагает что ситуация намного серьезнее. Воспринимает это все как новую форму идеологического порабощения, которая после аннигиляции коммунистеческой идеологии возникает на Западе.

klaus VS. Gore

Если раньше для проталкиваняи идей тоталитаризма в обществе использовалась "наука Марксизм", то теперь применяется по упрощенной схеме того же уровня наспех сляпанный в Голливуде "ученый АльГоризм" [термин мой - abcdefgh], но суть однако остается все та же.

Disclamer: Еще раз напомню что пересказывал выше свои впечатление от лекции и текста интервью нижерасположенных. Именно что мои субъективные то впчателения. Вполне могут быть наверное у др. зрителей ниже расположенных видео и текста об том иные мнения. Вообще все в этом дневнике - дополнительный повод напомнить - мои впечатления от того что где вижу или читал. На истину в конечно инстанции не претендую, но и свое мнение о чем либо меняю редко. У каждого из нас свои впечталение от любого - в том числе и одно и того же - пейзажа пототому что оказываются.

    * Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so.

    It is unfair to refer to the United Nations panel... Its members are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided sentiments and one-sided tasks.

    Also, it's an undignified practical joke that people don't wait for the complete report that will appear in May 2007 but instead react, in such a serious manner, to the summary for policy makers where all the "ifs" and "whens" and "buts" are scratched, erased, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

    * This is obviously such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission were instantly going to buy such a trick, we would have another solid reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar matters.

    * Q: How do you explain that we can't see any other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would defend your viewpoint? No one else seems to offer such strong opinions...

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

    * Q: But you are not a climatologist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

    * A: Environmentalism as a meta-physical ideology and as a world view has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or the climate itself.

    Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Despite these facts, it is getting fashionable and this process scares me.

    The second part of the assertion should be: we also have plenty of reports, studies, and books of climate scientists whose conclusions are diametrically opposite.

    * You're right that I never measure the width of ice in Antarctica. Indeed, I don't know how to do it, I don't intend to learn it, and I don't pretend to be an expert in such measurements. Nevertheless, as a scientifically inclined man, I know how to read science articles about these questions, e.g. about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. The papers I have read simply don't lead to the conclusions we may see in the media. But let me promise you something: this topic worries me which is why I began to write an article about it last Christmas. The article grew in size and it turned into a book. In a few months, it will be published. Among seven chapters, one will organize my opinions about the climate change.

    * Environmentalism and the green ideology are something very different from climate science. Various screams and findings of scientists are misused by this ideology.

    * Q: What do you think is the reason that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media interpret the global warming as a well-established fact?

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

    * Q: If you look at these things, even if you were right...
    * A: ...I am right...

    * Q: ...Don't we have empirical evidence and facts accessible to our eyes that imply that Man is ruining the planet and himself?

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

    [This page was the 8th hottest page of the global blogosphere on Feb 13, 2007. Besides a thousand of blogs, a special report at the Drudge Report, and the Washington Times - where congratulations from James Inhofe were also reported - the interview was publicized at Foxnews.]

    * Q: Don't you believe that we're demolishing our planet?

    * A: Let me pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore can argue along these lines: a sane person hardly.

    I don't see any destruction of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a sensible and serious person might say that he has.

    Look: you belong to the economic media so we should expect a certain economical erudition from you.

    My book will clarify these questions. For instance, we know that there exists a strong correlation between the care we give to our environment on one side and the technological prowess and wealth on the other side. It's obvious that the poorer the societies are, the more roughly they behave towards Nature, and vice versa: the richer they become, the more they care about the environment.

    * It's also the case that there exist social systems that are damaging the environment - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the free societies. These tendencies become crucial in the long term. They unquestionably imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8th ten, fifty, or one hundred years ago.

    * That's the reason why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you told me?

    Perhaps when you're unconscious? Or was it meant merely as a provocation? And I may perhaps be just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to present all these answers to you, am I not? It is more likely that you simply present your honest opinion.


Cи. также: Перевод на русский язык текста лекции "Vaclav Klaus on global warming"


Как выше то уже отмечал, Президент Чешской Республики очень серьезно воспринимает угрозу "глобального потепления", но не с точки зрения температуры Земли, к котрому это политическое движение и вообще не имеет никакого отношения, а как наиболее агрессивной по его мнению из нынче на Западе существующих тоталитарных идеологий.

___
Ссылка по теме: Global Warming: A Convenient Lie, by Andrew Marshall. Global Research, March 15, 2007

_________
Update: Global warming skeptics say they believe the media and Congress aren't interested in hearing their side of the debate.
    "The size of the megaphones for the other side is very large," said Myron Ebell , director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading doubters of the issue. "On our side we are using bare voices without amplification."

    But those who don't believe humans contribute to global warming have some scientists, and an influential lawmaker, on their side.

    Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously declared global warming a "hoax," said this week that the skeptics were gaining momentum. He said President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic and scientists from France and Israel, among others, are now among the doubters.

    "Debate over global warming is shifting: Some skeptics resolute, others revisiting views". By John Donnelly, Boston Globe. February 15, 2007
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments