Czech President Vaclav Klaus on the occasion of the award of the honorate doctoral degree at the University of Innsbruck on March 16th, warned of a looming threat: after communism and ‘Europeanism’, we should be aware of the danger of, what he termed, ‘environmentalism’.
I consider such an utterance incredible, irresponsible and shameful. Given the enormous human and other living being’s suffering that global climate change is about to cause in only a few decades, statements like this one will be remembered by future generations as lack of insight, arrogance and ignorance.
I’d recommend him to visit the river deltas in Asia – like the Bay of Bengal -, where millions of people will have to flee due to rising sea levels; travel to the Amazonas, where increasing drought is taking a severe toll on the rain forest – the lungs of the world; go further to the Antarctica, where the ice is melting and watch the polar bears to disappear. Men like you, Vaclav Klaus, are the grave diggers of living beings; with humans like you, mankind deserves no more future.
Dear univ. prof. dr. Mangott, I think it is very sad that people like you who are not willing to think rationally have become univ. prof.’s. Environmentalism is a pernicious ideology based on lies, attack on science and freedom, and perverse political goals that is already influencing the world today. For more details, see e.g. Klaus’ talk at Cato http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/klaus-talk-at-cato.html . Best regards, Harv. univ. prof. dr. 🙂 Lubos Motl
You are obviously not endowed with above the average scientific analysis skills but act like a proselytic priest of neoliberal ignorance for anything else but financial profit. I would very much wish, Klaus were to warn one day of the threatening ideology of Klausianism – a man whose alleged masterpiece of economic reform as Prime Minister ended with a gross devaluation of the Czech crown, destabilization of the Czech banking sector, economic recession and shady privatization.
Dear Mr. Motl,I wonder whether your above statement reflects your view on differing positions and counter-arguments? Differing perspectives on topics are – as I assume you know as a member of Harvard University – not symptoms of irrationality or unwillingness to think rationally, but the motor of all science.
Minimum of reasoning and maximum of snobism… very rational, Mr. Motl…
"…go further to the Antarctica, where the ice is melting and watch the polar bears to disappear."
You should be more careful with what you write – there are definitely no polar bears in Antarctica and melting of ice is not a big problem there (IPCC AR4 actually predicts ice growth for Antarctica ice sheet…).
Similarly with the "drought in Amazon" it seems that you will be not able to present any causal link between global warming and changes in precipitation here – e.g. IPCC AR4 does say:
"It is uncertain how annual and seasonal mean rainfall will change over northern South America, including the Amazon forest."
and a quick "research" on google would shouw that there is much stronger link to deforestation than GW etc.
I am not a big fan of Lubos or Klaus, but at least he (Motl) seems to do his "GW research" better…
well obviously you did not get the main message of my comment: the arrogant rejection of scientific research results on climate change by the Czech President. If you refer to IPCC then you ought to know how its findings are screened once and again by governments – the bulk of which has the greatest interest to dilute scientific warning about GW.
Whoever Mr. Hunsen is (google does not find you) seems immune to the main argument – that climate change is a fact and that politicians who deny GW and its impact on living beings are completely out of touch with reality.
"google does not find you"
Actually I am pleased by the fact (=that google does not find me). I have tried names of several coleges from our company with essentially the same result – it seems that an average "internet surfer" (i.e. one who just surfs and leaves few comments on blogs) is still invisible for the Google Big Brother…
Back to the original point:
"…you did not get the main message of my comment: the arrogant rejection of scientific research results on climate change by the Czech President."
Ok, I dislike that also – as stated before I am no fan of Vaclav Klaus…
But at the same time I am no fan of the use of pseudoscience by any party, be it Motl or Mangott. You are profesor of political science, so you might be willing to accept "victory" achieved by means of propaganda, public hysteria etc., but I just like rational facts. I have no problems accepting IPCC results, as they seem pretty rational.
On the other hand in your original post there had nothing rational at all – just unspecific reference to "enormous suffering", words like "arrogance, ignorance", few more sentences mixing south with north and reference to some possibly man related phenomena but genarally unrelated to GW, and the post ends with just a plain ad hominem attack ("grave digger") and "dark future" for the mankind…. I would view this as a typical propaganda product…
What about to write something more reasonable and rational, e.g. like "without new nuclear power plants like Temelin mankind has no more future"…