Though I live in the USA, Vaclav Klaus is my favorite politician in the entire world! He has the remarkable ability to stand on principle with diplomacy and decorum. A friend from the Czech Republic asked me what I thought of Klaus and the "Global Warming" issue. My letter in response is below. Since I wrote this letter, I have now have read "Blue Planet" and highly recommend the book. It is a clear and sobering look at the implications of using false science for the expansion of tyranny.
(my letter to a Czech friend...)
Dear _____,
Klaus and Global Warming... where do I begin??
How about Global Warming (although now they are calling it "Climate Change", so in case there is cooling they will not be wrong... again!)?
Here it the short version of what I know:
Yes, there is some measured warming of the earth's surface, about 1 degree C. The warming started approximately two hundred years ago. It has been going up in a steady line since that time (minor year and decade variations).
Yes, there is an increase in atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide, especially since about 1945, when it started to increase logarithmically. These increased CO2 levels are mostly attributable to humans burning fossil fuels.
Do you see the problem with the Global Warming hypothesis here? The warming itself started two hundred years ago and continues in a linear fashion, but the large CO2 increase started sixty years ago and there has not been an increase in the rate of warming. (A cause has to come before the effect.)
There is a good correlation between solar activity and earth temperature. The charts align almost perfectly, with increased solar activity directly proceeding increased earth temperature. (Cause and effect)
There is good science to this. By "good science", I mean that there are many measurements made in the real world that show this to be true. However, the "science" behind the dramatic Global Warming claims are measurements projected by computer models. Computer modeling is not science.
There are many reasons not to be worried about the current warming of the earth. The first is that the earth has recently been warmer than now. About 1,000 years ago, the earth was about 1 degree C warmer than at present and that period was the Medieval climatic optimum (a good time for climate). Vikings could settle in Greenland, European populations grew, the Sahara was fertile, etc. History shows us that most of the world (except, perhaps, Venice) would be better off with warmer and more moist conditions.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is also re-adsorbed into seawater and the earth. This is happening at a slower rate than is being accumulated in the atmosphere right now, but there is a natural process that tends toward stasis (nature apparently re-balances the CO2 between earth, seawater, and the atmosphere). Natural systems tend to rebalance, not tip out of control.
Also, carbon dioxide is good for plants. More plants can grow when there is more CO2 available. This is already having a very positive effect on the biomass of the earth (there has been an increase of plants on the earth, very likely because of the increase of CO2). With increased plant life (food), there is a corresponding increase in all animal life, including that of humans.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide allow plants to thrive in environments where they could not grow with lower levels of CO2. This is especially true for plants that do not have enough water. Increased CO2 allows crops to be grown in dry places and so people with poor farms can grow food.
Some scientists and many "environmental activists" believe that Global Warming because of human burning of fossil fuels is a danger to the earth. About 2,000 people, a few of them were scientists, signed the "Rio Summit" paper saying that human-caused Global Warming was a problem.
Many are not convinced. About 30,000 scientists, most with advanced degrees in the "hard" sciences signed a strong paper saying that human-caused Global Warming is NOT a concern and that there are benefits to increased use of fuels (energy) and increased atmospheric CO2.
(I can give you lots of documentation on all of this.)
Klaus is a hero because he prefers liberty to tyranny. (I like him also because he wants to get along with other nations instead of anger them, but those are other issues.)
He (rightly, in my opinion) sees that the "science" of Global Warming is in question (he sees that there is no agreement about its cause, its dangers, or, if it is a danger, the solutions) within the scientific community. Yet he also sees that this issue is being used as a reason to drastically control mankind (carbon credits, etc.) and limit freedom. He compares Environmentalism with Nazism and Communism -- personal sacrifices for a fallacious (false) "good".
The fact is, many thought those "isms" were good at the time (though we look back at them now with horror). But if the radical Environmental Agenda is successful, there will come a time when we will see it through horror, as well. If energy consumption is reduced, there is less medicine, agriculture, refrigeration, jobs, stability. Rich countries will have a harder time, but it is the poor of the world who will suffer most. With totalitarian restrictions increasing the cost of food, I can eat rice instead of meat. When you only have rice, there will be nothing. The Soviets (Stalin) did this in the Ukraine. Eugenicists (those who select some to die and some to live) are monsters, be they of any color, red (Communist) or green (Environmentalist).
I have ordered Klaus' new book (it is just now available in English - I ordered it the first day it was available on Amazon.com!), but, from other speeches and articles, I know what he will say. He is right. We should not enslave others for any reason. And especially not for faulty science.
Best regards,
--Bruce
