As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole society from above, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which are very similar to those we had to live with decades ago. The arrogance with which the [Global Warming Doctrine] alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate the prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes) is something I know well from the past[10]. All the old, already almost forgotten economic arguments against communism should be repeated now. It is our duty to do so.

The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science: Notes for Cambridge
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830

Jeg afviser ikke, ligesom de fleste andre skeptikere vist heller ikke gør det, at der er klimaændringer i gang. Det ville også være rigtigt dumt, for klimaet ændrer sig hele tiden og har altid gjort det. Jeg afviser heller ikke, at mennesker spiller en rolle i påvirkningen af klima og miljø - det kan man jo se overalt i verden, selvom denne påvirkning langtfra er entydigt negativ. Snarere må man sige, at menneskehedens slidsomme arbejde med at kontrollere sine omgivelser igennem århundrederne har dannet det uundværlige grundlag for, at mere end seks milliarder mennesker i dag kan overleve på Jorden. Men jeg forholder mig yderst skeptisk over for, at vi skulle have tilstrækkelig indsigt til definitivt at vurdere konsekvenserne af disse ændringer til fulde på nuværende tidspunkt – især når vi kun lytter til halvdelen af argumenterne.

Jeg forholder mig yderst skeptisk over for, at den individuelle menneskelige rationalitet og intelligens sættes ud af spil, og beslutningerne centraliseres hos politikere. Jeg forholder mig yderst skeptisk over for, at den økonomiske vækst, der har skabt så meget bedre et liv for store dele af Jordens befolkning i helt konkrete termer, begrænses af hensyn til ukendte virkninger om hundrede år. Lars Seier Christensen

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

From: The Climate Change Climate Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
by Kimberly Strassel

Seen on: Time to re-engage debate on global warming science
http://www.cfact.org/a/1545/Time-to-reengage-debate-on-global-warming-science

Statsministeren har ifølge 180grader.dk tralvlt med at male sig selv grøn op til dette års klimacirkus i København: Ordet "grøn" i forskellige afskygninger er blevet statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussens nye yndlingsord, skriver politiken.dk. I sin nytårstale i går aftes brugte Fogh således "grøn" otte gange, "grønne" fire gange og "grønt" én gang. Dertil kom ordet "miljø", som han brugte to gange. Statsministeren vil som bekendt også have befolkningen til at sluge dyngen af socialdemokratisk orienterede dokumenter, der flyder fra EU, og som man - alt efter stemninger og strategi - kalder for forfatning, traktat(er) og/eller forfatningstraktat(er).

Heldigvis findes der en modvægt til denne magtfikserede levebrødspoltiker i Tjekkiet:

Fra Information: Václav Klaus priste [ved et besøg i Irland] Declan Ganley [Ganley er grundlægger af Libertas, en organisation, der arbejdede aktivt for nej'et i forsommerens folkeafstemning om Lissabon-traktaten.], som han sammenlignede med tjekkiske systemkritikere, der bekæmpede kommunismen. - Samt fra anden artikel i Information: Udover sin EU-skepsis har Vaclav Klaus også åbent erklæret, at han ikke tror på, at verden har et alvorligt klimaproblem, og har sværget, at han ikke vil ratificere Lissabon-traktaten, som i øjeblikket behandles af Tjekkiets højesteret, og som sidst på året skal have en underskrift af både parlamentet og præsidenten.

http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/search/label/EU

Danmark har ulykkeligvis altid haft svage miljøministre. Ingen af dem vovede at sætte sig op mod miljøbevægelsen. Den nuværende minister, Connie Hedegaard, hopper og springer ved miljøbevægelsens mindste trut i hornet. De to andre ministre, Hans Chr. Schmidt og Carina Christensen, er lige så rædde for Danmarks Radio. Det er en ynk at se dem sprælle rundt i manegen. Gid Danmark ejede politikere af Vaclav Klaus’ kaliber.

- Det skriver Steen Steensen i dagens kommentar.

Besøg Kyoto Kritik.

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.

- Det skriver Tjekkiets præsident Vaclav Klaus i en kommentar i Financial Times den 13. juni. Læs Freedom, not climate, is at risk (Set via Hodja)

Den 9. marts holdt den tjekkiske præsident Václav Klaus en tale ved the Cato Institute, hvor han blandt andet besvarede følgende spørgsmål:

What are the beliefs and assumptions that form the basis of the environmentalist ideology? Og han svarede med følgende liste:

• Disbelief in the power of the invisible hand of the free market and a belief in the omnipotence of state dirigisme.
• Disregard for the role of important and powerful economic mechanisms and institutions, primarily those of property rights and prices, in an effective protection of nature.
• Misunderstanding of the meaning of resources and of the difference between potential natural resources and real ones that can be used in the economy.
• Malthusian pessimism over technical progress.
• Belief in the dominance of externalities in human activities.
• Promotion of the so-called precautionary principle, which maximizes risk aversion without paying attention to the costs.
• Underestimation of long-term income growth and welfare improvements, which results in a fundamental shift of demand toward environmental protection and is demonstrated by the so-called environmental Kuznets Curve.
• Erroneous discounting of the future, demonstrated so clearly by the highly publicized Stern Report a few months ago.

All of those beliefs and assumptions are associated with social sciences, not with natural sciences. That is why environmentalism — unlike scientific ecology—does not belong to the natural sciences and can be classified as an ideology. That fact is, however, not understood by the average person and by numerous politicians.

Læs Environmentalism and Other Challenges of the Current Era , hvor Klaus også beskæftiger sig med andre idé-retninger og 'ismer.

Brug 4. maj i frihedens tjeneste: SKRIV TIL COIN OG FÅ EN BOG

Besøg Kyoto Kritik.

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

Vaclav Klaus: 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.

Læs - President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity