We now know what Vaclav Klaus thinks. And the answer is... some very stupid things. On the "science", he says No in answer to "If it is a reality, is it man-made?" and "if it is a reality, is it a problem?". This is explicit enough. Unfortunately the very next question reveals the weakness of his understanding, as he fails to grasp the difference between climate and weather (see this, this\and this).
Next Q is "Why do you disbelieve the science when every serious national scientific establishment appears to support it?" to which his answer is "I do not disbelieve the science, but I see a big difference between science and "national scientific establishments". Which is an evasion, or a lie, depending on how you look at it. There are large piles of papers out there attributing warming to human activity; and saying that T will go up if we keep on. VK's gives no reason at all for disbelieving all that (unless he is suggesting that because lots of people believe it, it must be wrong? I don't think so). And then he recommends Singers book. Oh dear.
Overall: nothing very interesting; std.septic_tripe. We do at least know he doesn't believe humans have contributed to the warming; but he has ducked out of any kind of estimates of future change; and he has presented no reasons at all for why he thinks any of his nonsense. Perhaps Lubos really is running his mind.
- Log in to post comments
According to my analysis, thousands of people on our planet receive the credit loans from good creditors. Thence, there is great possibilities to get a financial loan in every country.
seems to be a double-standard: US prez says stupid things and is laughed at all over the world, Eastern European prez says stupid things (I'm thinking Poland & Czech recently) and we're all supposed to give it serious pause for thougt, serious articles in the Financial Times, praise from Lubos, etc.
Dear Carl, you live outside reality. Look how the distribution of responses of the whole world look like:
http://technorati.com/search/vaclav-klaus
William's grammar-violating impolite reaction is certainly a huge exception. Concerning your double standards, I also feel that there exist double standards. Unfortunately, politicians in traditionally Western countries are currently not required to have coherent thoughts and consistent attitudes like Central European presidents.
William: science is different from scientific establishments. But science is also different from piles of papers that scientific establishments produce. It's because the piles of papers and the scientific establishment is very much the same thing. And it's not the same thing as science.
[I look forward to VK addressing the science, sometime. So far he has ducked it. Perhaps the book has some scientific content? -W]
Best wishes
Lubos
Lubos, from his first couple of responses, Klaus seems pretty keen on cost-benefit analysis. I assume that he's done one of these - do you know if it's available on-line (and in English)?
>you live outside reality
thus sayeth the guy who hates his own field and is trying to rebrand himself as a "climate scientist." And the guy who said "Americans want Vaclav Klaus as President" (when I doubt 99% my fellow countrymen would know anybody from Czech outside of Vaclav Havel, or even find Czech Rep on a map! ;-)
politicians in traditionally Western countries are currently not required to have coherent thoughts and consistent attitudes like Central European presidents
Zing! No, Lubos, all politicians are chumps. Klaus is just another one, don't kid yourself.
Plus, he seems to have taken a page out of your book and managed to have absolutely no position whatsoever on the science.
Also, one of my faves of his:
We do not know the prices in the year 2050 and we do not know how important one million dollars (or euros) will be in the year 2050. Therefore, any "calculation" is meaningless
So, just because he's not sure exactly how much his face will hurt when I punch him, there's no point making a bit of an attempt to figure it out an approximate level - and then act to mitigate it?
I'm puzzled what school of economics this guy subscribes to - because economists are the WORST at making handwaving arguments and making assumptions in face of heavy uncertainty. Plus, he should himself know that economic "theories" are some of the poorest at explaining reality.
Yet we still make government policy based on econ research. How does he think the interest rate or budgets, for example, are set? We deal with uncertainty ALL THE TIME - it's not new to climate. We don't need to plan for 2050 now, we can simply hedge, or take interim steps.
I'd be embarassed to have Klaus as my leader. But then Steve Harper's my prime minister, which isn't much better...
I love my field. I am leaving it because it started to be influenced by the same kind of human political trash as climate science started to be influenced by in 1998.
Be sure to tell Peter Woit Lubos
Needless to say, that's exactly the type of folks I am talking about. Sorry but I don't talk to him at this moment. ;-)
really Lubos? do you think something magical happened in 1998 that filled the field with jerks? I mean, I've met my fair share of jerks in the area (mainly via blogging ;-) -- and I of course am not a climate scientist but a computer geek -- but it seems a bit far-fetched this notion of the McIntyre/ClimateIdiot gang that Michael Mann or whomever took over the whole field in '98 with the hockey stick etc. the problem with climate science is any idiot feels qualified to weigh in (even me ;-). I can't think of many other fields that have lawyers & politicians & fiction writers & economists & right-wing pundits thinking their opinion is just as valid as published scientists.
From my experience, scientists are more anal & about as likely to herd as cats, so the entire notion of the "evil network" taking over the field is a bit silly -- whether it's claims to "keep me out of Nature" or some larger conspiracy theory or "network." Sorry your field has been politicized (how the hell is "string theory" politized, I mean it's not like there's money & inventions out of it! ;-)
"really Lubos? do you think something magical happened in 1998"
Regular readers of this blog already know the answer to that question, i.e. global warming stopped.