Is er één staatshoofd dat kan denken?

Of zijn het allemaal politieke beesten?

Die vraag kregen we gesteld naar aanleiding van de milieu hype: het Klimatisme.

Eerst konden we niemand vinden, totdat we dachten aan Vaclac Klaus van Tsjechië.


Vaclac Klaus is niet een 100 % Libertariër, maar wel een goede econoom. Hij is waarschijnlijk de enige toppoliticus die 100 % tegen de EU is.
We schreven vroeger al over hem:
“Hij zei toen dat hij niet kan begrijpen dat een land dat zo lang onder (communistische) slavernij geweest is, nu, na zo’n korte tijd van vrijheid, weer vrijwillig tot een nieuwe (EU) slavernij toetreedt.”*)

Een paar dagen geleden nam hij eenzelfde logische houding aan in een interview over het klimaat.
Het deel van het interview dat specifiek op de klimaathype slaat, is zeer interessant en zeker de moeite waard om van te leren. Wij drukken het hier beneden voor u af. Met dank aan Hans Labohm die ons dit toestuurde.

Waarschijnlijk komt deze logica voort uit het feit dat Vaclac meer “econoom” dan “politicus” is.
——————-

*)Zie: www.vrijspreker.nl/vs/index…

Vaclav Klaus on global warming
Czech President explains his views on the IPCC panel
Questions and answers related to EU politics are skipped]
…
Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission (EC) has approved limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new cars. One week ago, the U.N. climate panel (IPCC) released a report that has described, much like previous reports, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern review about similar threats was published before that. At the same time, you decide to declare that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get your idea?
A: The idea is not mine. 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. IPCC is not a scientific body: it’s a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavor. It’s not a forum of neutral scientists or a balanced group of scientists. 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 “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.

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.
…
[Questions and Klaus’ answers about Czech politics followed]
Well, it seems to make a lot of sense, Prof Klaus. Other parts of the interview were devoted to the Organization of European States (and Jo Leinen, MEP), the Czech civil cold war that has already ended, a possible radar for the U.S. missile defense, and the president’s relationships with the new Czech government.