Vaclav Klaus

The President of a former Communist country has some good advice for the president of the country known so far as the world's bastion of capitalism.

Massive government spending and tighter regulation would prolong recession, Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Monday, as he urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to endanger the free market economy in his response to the financial crisis.

EU Leadership: Vaclav Klaus

A somewhat surprising statement from the European Union Presidency yesterday:

"At the moment, from the perspective of the last days, we understand this step as a defensive, not offensive, action," Czech EU presidency spokesman Jiri Potuznik said.

Of course, Israel's actions are defensive. But perhaps this statement is not so surprising considering that the Czech Republic now holds the Presidency of the EU. That would be Vaclav Klaus, who's frank talk and common sense is not limited to topics like global warming.

Update: More level headed comments from German Chancellor Angela Merkel: the responsibility for the conflict lies "clearly and exclusively" with Hamas.

Michael Bloomberg heads to Israel to show his support.

George W Bush: Hamas is entirely responsible for the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

Also of interest Robert Fulford: Israel vs. Hamas; civilization vs. terror, Victor Davis Hanson: Surreal Gaza, Roger L. Simon: Israel Alone, Melanie Phillips: the Moral Battleground, John Hinderaker: Internecine Warfare

EU Leadership: Vaclav Klaus

There may still be hope for the European Union.

Leadership: Far from an effete welfare statist, the EU's next president is a bold free-market advocate who suffers neither fools nor the usual Euro-nonsense. In short, just what the doctored ordered for a sclerotic continent.

...Klaus, a student of the great F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, is exactly the sort of leader that Europe has to have. The liberty-minded defender of free markets has the opportunity to rock the continent out of its self-inflicted economic malaise.

(...)

Unlike his critics, Klaus has some experience in reviving a mundane economy. After helping the former Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 while serving as prime minister, he took the Republic from the depths of a former Soviet economy to where, according to the CIA, it is now considered "one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe."

The Czech Republic's healthy per capita GDP of $24,500 far outpaces that of Ukraine, which has moved in almost the exact opposite direction.

(...)

Under Klaus' guidance, the Czech Republic became the first post-communist nation to be given an investment-grade credit rating by international credit institutions. Unemployment has been kept low and productivity is running high. This, from a state-owned economy in which the private sector produced a mere 3% of the national income in 1989.

Vaclav Klaus is just what Europe needs if there is any hope of the EU pulling itself out of its drift towards socialism. Klaus is right on track on another important front too.

More recently, Klaus has turned his attention to global warming, believing the environmental movement has become an assault on freedom, and to regulation, too much of which, he says, caused today's financial crisis.

Bravo Mr Klaus.

Rush

on Vaclav Klaus, Communism and the Ideology of Environmentalism:

RUSH: You want to hear some conservatism? Vaclav Klaus, president, Czech Republic, yesterday, National Press Club, trying to warn everybody in America that we are being hoaxed with global warming and Algore.



Last night on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume during the panel discussion, the All Stars, Brit Hume spoke with Juan Williams about Vaclav Klaus, and Hume said, "Do you think Klaus is on the right track here or that he's an alarmist in the other direction?"

WILLIAMS: What he's saying is really interesting to me. I hadn't thought this through. But he's saying it's now beyond the scientists. He is saying in fact that it's an ideology that's seeking to take control of the world, is gonna tell us how to live, what cars to drive, whether you can have a refrigerator and all that, and suggest that it would somehow go beyond politics and not the way that suggests, oh, we have a green movement that everybody gets behind, but in fact would have political consequence not unlike a dictatorship. In all honesty, it struck me as something different. I had not heard this line of argument before because I've never felt threatened by an environmentalist. I think my consciousness is raised.

RUSH: I'm speechless. This is so typical. Here is a learned man, Juan Williams is a smart guy, and only yesterday has he ever heard somebody suggest that the environmental movement is not about environmentalism, that it's about large government, total control, dictatorial powers?

Right on Rush. Right on.

Update: Charles Krauthammer:

Look, on climate change, I'm agnostic. I wrote 20 years ago and believe today that humans pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere can't be harmless.

But the idea that we know exactly what it does, and that it's catastrophic, I think, is rank speculation. It depends on computer models which are inherently speculative. It depends on a cascade of events and a prediction of a cascade of events, all of which are improbable. And if you add it all up, it is pure speculation.

And I think Klaus is right. By pretending that the issue is closed — one of the news magazines had a cover article that the argument over global warming is over. No arguments in science are over. Newton's laws of motion, people for 300 years imagined was over the debate on that, and they turned out to be wrong.

So the idea that at this early stage in the science the argument is closed — but Klaus is right that it is being used by the new class, people, the experts, the planners, people on the left — they used to say we ought to control society in the name of the working class-that's communism- -and then in the name of state control of industry, and our superior knowledge of how to control society — that is the British socialist model.

All of those models have collapsed. And what they have been handed here is a gift. In the name of the planet, now, these experts are going to tell us how to live, and regulate.

And Klaus is right. It's a way to take these decisions out of the hands of individuals and to put it in the hands of experts acting in the name of the state and in the name of the planet. That is the new socialism, and he's right.

Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Vaclav Klaus has a new book and has challenged Al Gore to debate the science of global warming.

Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

[...]

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Goracle to enter the debate. He won't - because he would surely lose and he knows it.

It's been said that the global warming alarmists resemble a pseudo-religion with all the trappings: a struggle for salvation (of the planet), a doomsday scenario, a belief system based on faith (not science) and a high priest in the form of the Goracle Himself.

Klaus has made this analogy to communism before and he knows of what he speaks, having grown up under totalitarian rule. Communism failed both ideologically and as a form of government. Says Klaus:

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet,"

Despite the best efforts of the lefties, socialism hasn't succeeded in western democracies. But environmentalism has become the new rallying cry for those who would like to impose state control on every aspect of our lives.

Klaus' new book is Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Here are some notes from his presentation in Washington:

To make my position and my message clear, I should probably revoke my personal experience. My today’s thinking is substantially influenced by the fact that I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command “wind and rain” is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively very sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.

I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.

That's worth reading.

I can't find a link where the book can be purchased yet. Let me know in the comments if you know it.

Update: here's a link to Klaus' book from Barnes & Noble.

Vaclav Klaus

New report counters IPCC AR4

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC - not to be confused with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) will be published this week by the Heartland Institute.

It promises to be the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report's Forward:

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The report is highly critical of the UN's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report's Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(...)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.

Related: Climate change not due to greenhouse gases, NYT: Global Warming Skeptics Convene in New York, The Earth Times: Research of Hundreds More Scientists Shows the Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle, Fox News: Global Warming: Is it really a crisis?

Notes for the speech of the President of the Czech Republic at the UN Climate Change Conference

Václav Klaus:

Distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

As responsible politicians, we know that we have to act when it is necessary. We know that our duty is to initiate public policy responses to issues that could pose a threat to the people of our countries. And we know that we have to form partnerships with colleagues from other countrieś when a problem cannot be confined to national boundaries. To help us doing it is one of the main reasons for the existence of institutions such as the United Nations.

However, the politicians have to ensure that the costs of public policies organized by
them will not be bigger than the benefits achieved. They have to carefully consider and seriously analyze their projects and initiatives. They have to do it, even if it may be unpopular and if it means blowing against the wind of fashion and political correctness. I cońgratulate Secretary General Ban Kimoon on organizing this conference and thank him for giving us an opportunity to address the important, but until now onesidedly debated issue of climate changes. The consequences of acknowledging them as a real, big, imminent and manmade threat would be so
enormous that we are obliged to think twice before making decisions. I am afraid it is not the case now.

Let me raise several points to bring the issue into its proper context:

1. Contrary to the artificially and unjustifiably created worldwide perception, the increase in global temperatures has been – in the last years, decades and centuries – very small in historical comparisons and practically negligible in its actual impact upon human béings and their activities.

2. The hypothetical threat connected with future global warming depends exclusively upon very speculative forecasts, not upon undeniable past experience and upon its trends and tendencies. These forecasts are based on relatively short time series of relevant variables and on forecasting models that have not been proved very reliable when attempting to explain past developments.

3. Contrary to many selfassured and selfserving proclamations, there is no scientific consensus about the causes of recent climate changes. An impartial observer must accept the fact that both sides of the dispute – the believers in man's dominant role in recent climate changes, as well as the supporters of the hypothesis about their mostly natural origin – offer arguments strong enough to be listened to carefully by the nonscientific community. To prematurely proclaim the victory of one group over another would be a tragic mistake and I am afraid we are making it.

4. As a result of this scientific dispute, there are those who call for an imminent action and those who warn against it. Rational behavior should depend on the size and probability of the risk and on the magnitude of the costs of Its avoidance. As a responsible politician, as an economist, as an author of a book about the economics of climate change, with all available data and arguments in mind, I have to conclude that the risk is too small, the costs of eliminating it too high and the application of a fundamentalistically interpreted "precautionary principle" a wrong strategy.

5. The politicians – and I am not among them – who believe in the existence of a significant global warming and especially those who believe in its anthropogenic origin remain divided: some of them are in favor of mitigation, which means of controlling global climate changes (and are ready to put enormous amounts of resources into it), while others rely on adaptation to it, on modernization and technical progress, and on a favorable impact of the future increase in wealth and welfare (and prefer spending public money there). The second option Is less ambitious and promises much more than the first one.

6. The whole problem does not only have its time dimension, but a more than important spatial (or regional) aspect as well. This is highly relevant especially here, in the UN. Different levels of development, income and wealth in different places of the world make worldwide, overall, universal solutions costly, unfair and to a great extent discriminatory. The already developed countries do not have the right to impose any additional burden on the less developed countries. Dictating ambitious and for them entirely inappropriate environmental standards is wrong and should be excluded from the menu of recommended policy measures.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. The UN should organize two parallel IPCCs and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the onesided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists is a necessary starting point.

2. The countries should listen to one another, learn from mistakes and successes of others, but any country should be left alone to prepare its own plan to tackle this problem and decide what priority to assign to it among its other competing goals.

We should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution of human society, not in the virtues of political activism. Therefore, let's vote for adaptation, not for the attempts to mastermind the global climate.

Klaus: Environmentalism is a religion

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic has been an outspoken critic of the global warming crowd. He spoke to the CATO Institute today:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science, the president of the Czech Republic warned Friday.

Speaking at the Cato Institute, a public policy think-tank, President Vaclav Klaus said that environmentalists who clamor for policy change to combat global warming "only pretend" to be promoting environmental protection, and are actually being driven by a political agenda.

"Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide.

full article.

Update:

"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Update: Full text of Kluas' speech is here.

Czech president derogates UN global-warming panel

From German Press Agency via the Raw Story:

Prague- Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday. Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."

"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.

According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.

See also Václav Klaus about the IPCC panel

h/t: TOC