Czech President Challenges Al Gore
May 28th, 2008 at 01:37am Mark Noonan
Lets see if the Goron has any guts at all:
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 was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.
“My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity,” he said.
Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Gore’s effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvienent Truth.
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.
“Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,” he said.
“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet,” he added.
Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.
“It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda,” he said.
Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
That pretty much says it all about the motivations behind global warming alarmism - just another attempt at making a utopia on earth, and the only thing we have to sacrifice is the Common Man…’cause the elites, once again, have need of his blood and treasure for one more attempt at getting it right.
I think, though, that Klaus is right about facts and reason having no place here - it is my view that we have utterly lost the global warming debate; not on facts and reason, but because of relentless, alarmist propaganda, all too often joined in by politicians on the make and grant-mongering institutions and individuals. But if Gore has the courage of his convictions - if he really thinks that the truths of global warming are so solid - then he’ll take Klaus up on his challenge…and if he doesn’t, then just what are we to make of such an act of cowardice?
Entry Filed under: Environment
17 Comments
1. Gaijin | May 28th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Yes, Al Gore should have to debate every third world leader who challenges him while that leader is trying to promote his book. Brilliant!
Mark, this is what I don’t understand about you: you are very pro-national sercurity, to a point that your type of beliefs actually harms our national security, IMO. But that’s fair enough.
However, Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, Iran is believed to support terrorism, among many other Gulf states. Now what do all of these states along with your good friend Chavez have in common, they make the bulk of their money from the sell of oil.
It would seem to me, the reduction of US use of fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, as well as an increase fuel effencey, in everything from cars to homes, would be good from a national security and an enviromental standpoint.
It’s win, win. On top of that, it would create jobs as things such as windmills, solar panels and other technologies were produced.
Before someone brings up Alaska, there isn’t enough oil there to fuel America’s cars, nor would it bring gas back down to a reasonable price, as it would be sold on the open market. I am not totally opposed to drilling in Alaska sometime in the future. However, I think we should save that oil in case of the event of an embargo such as in the 1970s. Just my opinion.
But hey, if you guys want to go off in pursuit of the last of a vanishing resource, while Europe and Asia become more fuel effecent and also get the jobs from those industries, and we pay higher and higher prices for gas with the money going to evil regimes who support terrorism, be my guest.
Peace, Gaijin
2. Dennis | May 28th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Noonan: “just another attempt at making a utopia on earth, and the only thing we have to sacrifice is the Common Man…’cause the elites, once again, have need of his blood and treasure for one more attempt at getting it right.”
Not to deviate from the thread topic, but since you brought it up that sounds like a pretty apt description of the Iraq war.
3. bongoman | May 28th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Tell that to the dirty hippies at NASA who recently concluded that it is “very likely” that there are anthropogenic causes to global warming:
4. Danish Artist | May 28th, 2008 at 6:52 am
“Al Gore should have to debate every third world leader who challenges him while that leader is trying to promote his book.”
No……………..
Al Gore should have to debate SOMEONE!…..ANYBODY!
Why is he afraid to debate, since he said, “the science is in and the debate is over.”???
Why won’t he debate….anybody?
5. phnx | May 28th, 2008 at 9:08 am
“I think we should save that oil in case of the event of an embargo such as in the 1970s. Just my opinion.” Gaijin
This is the latest in a long string of absurd reasons not to drill in ANWR. From the time we decide to do so until the time first oil is available will be several years. So deciding to drill in the event of an oil boycott will do nothing to help the immediate demand.
” Now what do all of these states along with your good friend Chavez have in common, they make the bulk of their money from the sell of oil.” Gaijin
Right so the more DOMETIC oil we use the less money to all of the above mentioned terror states. Brilliant you have just defeated your own argument against tapping ANWR, and off shore california and Florida. Now if you can just convince your leftist politicians in Congress.
Finally let’s develop wind, solar, water, and hot air from politicians…whatever alternative sources of energy that there are. Let’s also educate our public to conserve. In the meantime we still will have a large demand for oil for the forseeable future. Its not going away, so why not do everything possible to become energy self sufficient including tapping our own oil resources. That includes the estimate 2 trillion barrels of trapped in shale in the rockies?
6. Tractatus | May 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Tell that to the dirty hippies at NASA who recently concluded that it is “very likely” that there are anthropogenic causes to global warming:
See, this is what happens when you no longer have a George Deutsch in place to ensure ideological purity–they start talking willy-nilly about facts and data and stuff with no concept of how this might part company with the administration’s preferred party line. How terrible!
7. phnx | May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Tractatus,
What does that have to do with Algore debating somebody on Golbal Warming. Can you explain why he won’t debate?
8. OhioOrrin | May 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
they’re still snow skiing in the rockies n vermont.
it’s still cold at nite here in ohio.
late freezes deep into the south.
nationally one of the coolest Aprils on record.
record winter snowfall.
fewer hurricanes formed last yr & none hit the us.
so convince me that what I’m actually experiencing is warming…or is it the ol’ “follow the money” shell game?
9. Gaijin | May 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
OhioOrrin,
Your post vastly demonstrates your ignorance in regards to global warming. It is not the hypothesis of the global warming crowd that it will never be cold again. Your ignorance is quite amusing, Thanks!
Phnx,
I haven’t defeated my own arguement at all. You use “immediate demand” in your counter arguement, which I never referenced. Hence, you are attempting to shift the scope of the arguement.
What I essentially said was we should conserve now to decrease DEMAND, not increase production. In addition, we save ANWR for a rainy day.
If would be as if you had some savings in the bank, the economy went south and you had to decide between using all your saving to pay down credit cards or keeping it in the bank. Always a good idea to pay off credit cards, but not if you lose your job and cannot make your house payment in 2 months. It’s best to save something for later.
We do seem to agree on the conservation part, which I would say is a step forward when one can build bi-partisan support for an issue.
Peace, Gaijin
10. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“Your post vastly demonstrates your ignorance in regards to global warming.” - Gaijin
Well I will try and make sense from an incoherent statement. But I am assuming Gaijin is stating that ANY and ALL climate changes are attributed to AGW. Which is very convenient mind you, why even the movement of a single cloud can then be blamed on AGW.
Can you imagine how these loons would have reacted to the Great Dust Bowl? For nearly six years the midwest was a dry wasteland. And you know what, it recovered and today harvests are plentiful.
11. Neo | May 28th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Actually Neocon your response to Gaijin actually proves his point about ignorance.
By mentioning variablity of a single atmospheric occurance ie “movement of a single cloud” and a regional climate variance and then stating “imagine how these loons would have reacted…..”
you basically show that you don’t know what climate is ( I’ll give you a hint its neither of your examples) otherwise known as ignorance.
PS
Since you don’t know what climate is, by what means do you deny it is changing? obviously you didn’t come up with the idea yourself so who told you to think this way?
12. Jeremiah | May 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
The Lord stirs His finger on the earth and the weather obeys His every command.
13. FmrMarine | May 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
gagin
>>>”Yes, Al Gore should have to debate every third world leader who challenges him”<<<
Yes, Al Gore should have to debate every third GRADER who challenges him!
There fixed!
14. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Neo…..
uh….that was meant metaphorically.
I will try and dumb things down for you. Sorry.
15. Neo | May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
still don’t know what climate or climate change is ?
You can just ask I’d be happy to explain it to you. But if you’d rather get your info from a politician (former or current) that’s your choice
16. Gaijin | May 29th, 2008 at 12:48 am
NeoCon,
You assume wrong, and as Neo said, you have further proved my point, Thanks!
Jeremiah Springfield,
Man you crack me up! Just when I think you have reached your peak, you top yourself again. I have a question for you, since God is causing the weather, did he mean to kill innocent people in Katrina? Or, is there another justification for that? What about tsunamis, tornadoes, wildfires caused by lightning?
Peace, Gaijin
17. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
gaij
weather conditions have ALWAYS been considered “acts of God” look at your insurance policies.
Does GOD kill people? NO
Does GOD let nature take it’s course? YES
GOD is interested in ones eternal soul…and what he does with his mere 70 some years here, to win it or lose i. (etrnal life, or damnation)