A Thoughtful Dissent to the Global Warming Juggernaut

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, has done a great deal of studying on the environment as it relates to global warming. He disagrees with the so-called consensus on the issue. His views were recently published in the Financial Times. Now he interacts with readers raising serious questions. Several of these interactions are published below unedited. Be certain to go to the main article for the complete list of questions and answers. The portions quoted below are hereby attributed to the article in the Financial Times.

Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask - and then provide his answer - the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question. Robert Bruegel, Denver, Colorado

Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:
• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

What is the financial and/or economic incentive for those governments and organisations who go along with, and even support environmentalism? Justin Kelly

Vaclav Klaus: There are huge material (very pecuniary) and even bigger psychological incentives for politicians and their bureaucratic fellow-travellers to support environmentalism. It gives them power. This is exactly what they are searching for. It gives them power to organise, regulate, manipulate the rest of us. There is nothing altruistic in their environmentalist stances.

There is no doubt that modern human society can adversely impact our living environment. This manifests itself from city air quality and industrial spills to deforestation and overfishing. Overwhelming evidence points to that when human beings find the condition too unpleasant to tolerate, the opportunity to stop or reverse the trend requires extreme action. How much evidence for environmental damage do you need to see before you are willing to advocate collective action in order to prevent the need for later extreme action? Oddi Aasheim, London

Vaclav Klaus: You ask how much environmental damage I need to see before I am willing to do anything? My problem is that I do not “see” sufficient and persuasive evidence for environmental damage you have – probably – in mind, and I wonder whether you see it yourself, or whether you just read about it.
Do you really “see” any damage caused by current warming? I do not. I would prefer more snow for skiing during this winter but we are – in Central Europe – enjoying warm evenings this May and June, which is very pleasant. Do you see meltdown of glaciers and icebergs? You may see some retreating of continental glaciers, but they represent only 0.6 per cent of the planet’s ice. There is no meltdown either in Greenland or the Antarctic just now.
When I study and analyse environmental indicators concerning my own country and when I compare them with the situation in the communist era, there is an incredible improvement. The improvement is not because of “collective action” you advocate (it existed in the communist era), but because of freedom and of free markets.
That’s my main message.

If Noah Were Alive Today ...

In the year 2006, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark. Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision. Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it. Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go! When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space. Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I 'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew. Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience. To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."

The Impotence of Democracy: Defining Goodness

The United States as a democracy (yes, I know – we’re a democratic republic) has a great many things going for it. I wouldn’t choose to live anywhere else. But frankly, our democracy has a number of serious flaws which can only be overcome by a good monarchy. A king, you see, doesn’t have to take opinion polls to find out what is "good." And a good king will make good decisions based on good standards.

The most serious flaw of a democracy is that it reflects an average standard of what is good and acceptable instead of an absolute standard. Inevitably, the average standard of goodness and acceptability declines decade by decade into the amoral abyss of "anything goes." Anything, except, of course, evaluation of society by an absolute standard. That is absolutely immoral, and the only sin that absolutely cannot be tolerated, according to today’s progressives (a.k.a. liberals).

In 1830 Alexus de Tocqueville came from France to study our country. In his two volume work, Democracy in America, he wrote:

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors, in her fields and boundless forests, in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if American ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

I wonder what De Tocqueville would think if he visited us today?

John Gardner wrote, " We would not put up with a debauched king, but in a democracy all of us are kings, and we praise debauchery as pluralism." (On Moral Fiction. Christianity Today, Vol. 40, no. 2.)

From her inception, the Ten Commandments have long been America’s bedrock. That is no longer the case. It is now quite fashionable in our country to use God’s name in vain, to worship other gods (hedonism, secular humanism), to construct and worship models of other gods (the evolutionary tree), to ignore any day set aside for rest and worship, to marginalize our parents, to murder our unborn babies (do they ever get to choose?), to commit every sort of sexual immorality, to permit the state to balance its budget on the backs of people on low and fixed incomes (and call it gaming), and to covet absolutely everything our neighbor has (and bankrupt ourselves on credit because we don’t have the cash to pay for it).

Sir Isaac Newton, brilliant mathematician, wrote of three laws of motion in 1687. His Third Law states, briefly: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I have long believed that Law applies not only to the material, but also to the spiritual universe. As our country has jettisoned the foundational moral laws of the Creator, we have compensated by micromanaging away our freedom in a plethora of imbecilic, nanny-state laws: No more good firecrackers; six-year-olds in car seats; tobacco free zones (outdoors, for crying out loud); banning trans fats in New York City; proposing a "Twinkie tax" (just what we need – the Food Gestapo) – the list goes on and on. It’s OK to hand out condoms to kids in high school (because they’re going to do it anyway), but woe to you if you sell them (even diet) soda on school property! I can hardly wait until they fine me because I didn't brush my teeth!

Frankly, we could use a good king to set absolutely good standards in our crazy, mixed up world! Some day we will get exactly that. Jesus will return as King (Isaiah 11:1-5) and set up an absolutely Good government based on principles of Goodness! And by the way, this King is so good he has already died to pay for all your legal infractions (Romans 5:8-10). I think you can trust him!

The Intolerance of Truth

There was a small town that had a high incidence of cancer. Research showed that a chemical substance manufactured in the town was the culprit. Almost everyone in town used Feel Good. It kept people mellow, reduced anxiety, and tempered hostility. No one really ever hallucinated when using it. It seemed to have no serious side effects save for one ... cancer. Rather than ban Feel Good, the town determined to ban the use of the word "cancer."

A new doctor came into town unaware of the town's history. Every time a patient came to him complaining of a pain, he would run tests. He met with each patient and said, "I'm sorry, but you have cancer. Now it's a very treatable kind of can..." But each time the patient would interrupt, "I can't believe how intolerant you are! How dare you threaten me with the C-word?" And the patient would get up, furious, walk out, and never pay his bill.

Deeply concerned, the doctor advertised a town hall meeting on the subject of public health. Hundreds of people showed up. As he addressed the meeting, he said, "I want to share with you my deep concern about the level of health. There is a mystery disease going around that is taking peoples' lives prematurely. My research shows me it affects a highly abnormal percentage of our town's population. The good news is that this disease is treatable if caught in its early stages. I would like to share with you the results of my research. The room grew deathly quiet. He continued, "There is a toxic substance that nearly every one of you in town is using." People in the room began to shift uneasily. "It is the cause of your premature death.” The doctor was shocked when a couple of men in the back stood up and started booing. Undeterred, he proceeded. "I know you enjoy this substance, but it's causing cancer, and I would like to help you ..." He was unprepared for the violent reaction. The whole crowd stood up and began screaming, "Bigot!" "Intolerant!" "He used the C-word!” “How utterly insensitive!" The crowd would not let the doctor finish his speech, and he finally threw up his hands in resignation and left the assembly hall.

Within a week a coalition of citizens had filed a lawsuit against him. The county judge convicted him of hate speech and intolerance. He was sentenced to fifty hours of remedial sensitivity training and 100 hours of community service.

As a result of the whole business, the doctor found himself completely ostracized from the community. Because no one would come to his office anymore, he was forced to work in the local Wal-Mart store selling aspirin and band aids.

When he had completed his sensitivity training and his community service, he moved out of town. As the doctor left town for the last time he mumbled quietly to no one in particular, “How sad it is when people refuse to admit their practices are self-destructive and refuse to accept the cure.” The town continued on its way, dying prematurely in a state of euphoria.