I'm feeling an all-caps moment coming on....

You know what would really impede our freedoms? BEING UNDER FUCKING WATER! How's that for an intervention in human lives?

Although at that point I suppose Klaus would argue we have the freedom to develop gills...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

Did he bump his head?

Unbelievable is an excellent title.

Unbelievable ... like a South African president rejecting basic science related to HIV/AIDS transmission.

Now, I am not sure that this is "all" arguments (see, for example,

Grist's excellent How to talk to a skeptic section.

I did too long a question/comment:

Mr Klaus,

You write: ""scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority".

What evidence do you have of some form of "silent majority" of experts on climate issues who disagree with the base points in the IPCC reports and believe that they are too pessimistic?

Who should I believe about the scientific communities viewpoints?  The heads of the world's National Academies of Science or a politician who choices to prominently cite a science fiction novelist?

RE: The heads of National Academies of Science, see, for example, the statement prior to G8 summit: "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

Sir, with all due respect, your editorial flies in face of scientific evidence. And, your editorial flies in the face of your responsibilities to your nation and people to prepare for a better future.

Should we -- the world -- believe a scientist like Lindzen, who compares himself to Galileo, or the 1000s of scientists who have contributed to IPCC reports and studies over the past several decades?  Should we believe people paid by oil companies or our own lying eyes seeing changes all around us?

We have an obligation to act responsibly in the face of threats.  Acting to seek greater energy efficiency and develop more renewable/less polluting power sources are responsible actions that reduce / mitigate the potential future impact from Global Warming. They will also improve economies.  Hmmm ... Win-Win-Win solutions. You don't get those too often. Why not embrace this rather than fight facts?

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

PS: You will be posting at Daily Kos, no?

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority;

Jesus!

I am speechless.

There is no silent majority in science, it's all in the open. Unless he's saying that the loud minirity are the scientists and we need to stop listening to them.

These people are dangerous.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

They push for their ideas unashamedly, consistently, loudly, from the very top (this is the President of a EU country writing) to the lower rungs of the think tank machinery, and are successful in slowly impregnating the discourse with their insane ideas and thus in no longer appearing like the extremist hard righters they've always been.

And when the Anctartic Ice Cap melts, they'll somehow avoid getting tarred and feathered because "one couldn't possibly have known".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

This, in a nutshell, is why this debate is not rational. On one side are the Malthusians and on the other side the cornucopians. Because the difference is at the level of basic assumptions, there's little that can be done to argue rationally.

Also, although "past performance is no guarantee of future performance", etc, Capitalism has seen 6 centuries of uninterrupted growth and progress, so "fundamental" arguments based on carrying capacity, etc, are too theoretical.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

# Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants;

Good idea! Maybe we should also be more sensitive to the rights and needs of, say, child molesters as well? After all, shouldn't each one make up their own mind about whether or not to abuse their children? Any 'suppression of freedom' is after all bad...

# Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority;

Yeah, let's also be wary of such 'freedom restricting' scientific theories like thermodynamics. If people would like to create or destroy energy, that should be their choice, not restricted by some freedom hating physicists with a totalitarian agenda. Remember, science is amusing theories about the world, there to delight and amaze us. They can however never be allowed to indicate there might be some limit to what we can and cannot do.

# Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction;

Grraghghh! How do you think anything ever gets done? What the fuck is 'spontaneous evolution of human society'? Doesn't someone make some kind of decision about how to proceed at some point? How are unregulated decisions based on personal whim by those who can back it up financially not 'undemocratic'? And who selects these 'deciders'? Oh, wait, it happens 'spontaneously'...

# Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

This applies to terrorism fears as well, I presume? Thinking about it, with that first blockquote above, maybe we should not restrict the ability of those called 'terrorists' in their pursuit of blown up buildings, infrastructure, and people? Is saving a few lives really worth the infringement on their 'freedom' to kill and maim?

Not that Klaus can actually disappoint me, but in terms of Czech politics this ranks high up there with the disappointment of seeing Vaclav Havel (who, unlike Klaus, was a dissident under Communism) call Bush "a man of peace".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

Well, I wrote an extraordinarily subtle comment with an undetectably light touch of sarcasm (keywords: conservatism, responsibility). Let's see...

From the FT article:

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.

From the same FT article:

Let us resist the politicisation of science

My head hurts.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

The elites are getting so disconnected from reality that Science is about to become again [here's me being optimistic for a change], as it was in the 18th century, and instrument of liberation from obscurantist opression.

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. — John 8:32

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

Mr. Kraus,

It strikes me as puzzling that you place your weight behind the projection of a long-term positive impact of the economy, compared to your rejection of Stern's projection of long-term negative impact on the economy. Favouring one truth above another is, as you might say, a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem.

Your bet that positive economic impact will renounce us of any possible climatic change is as singularly unconvincing as the stock-broker who is whistling on his way to Wall Street on the morning of October 29, 1929.

Version 1.0

Comments and additions are highly welcomed.

Klaus is a strange guy. Avowed reader of Mises and Hayek, he managed to run a very corrupt and invasive government. He pushed CEU from Prague (by refusing Soros to honor a deal on a symbolic rent for the premises, because "markets should price everything correctly"), which was one of the stupidest things one could possibly do - to refuse a gift of a world-class university? But he also delayed privatization of banks, and kept a lot of economy controlled by funds owned by these banks (and so indirectly by the government). In other words, he refused government responsibility for education, but accepted it for commercial banks. I'd guess any "Austrian" economist would have it just the opposite.

So, he's one of the "do as I say, not as I do" guys.

His book is everywhere in Prague. But there seems to be very little debate of it in the media.

His popularity consistently hovers in the Putin range, though...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/14/81319/1719

using the input from many of you. Thanks - and do join the debate over there.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

My question:

Mr Klaus: Please compare and contrast the two threats of terrorism and global warming. In particular, replacing 'global warming' by 'terrorism' and 'scientists' by 'intelligence personnel' in an excerpt form your article, how would you justify the need for a foreign military installation in your country, considering these same issues of 'propaganda', 'hysteria', 'established truth', and 'arrogance'? How do you justify that the one is urgently in need of action (terrorism) and the other not (global warming), when the latter has the potential to cause injury and death on a scale that far exceeds that of the former in any realistic view of the two threats? How do you propose we view the challenge of Michael Crichton in the two cases, the one where data is publicly available and peer reviewed, and the other where evidence is kept secret?

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda". I feel the same way, because [terrorism] hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the 'established' truth, although a lot of people -- including top-class [intelligence personnel] -- see the issue of [terrorism] entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the [global terror] hypothesis...

...that the FT is buying into the frame not all too subtle?

From FT Q&A page:

Mr Klaus writes that "global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem" and the issue "is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature."

Do you agree? Or do small climate changes demand far-reaching restrictive measures? Mr Klaus will answer your questions in an online Q&A. Post a question now to ask@ft.com or use the online submissions form below - his answers will appear on Thursday June 21 from 1pm BST.

Emphasis mine, to stress how the subject gets neatly framed, the Bush way. You either agree with Klaus, or you belong to the group that thinks that "far-reaching restrictive measures" are needed for "small climate changes". Never mind what one should expect for -large- climate changes.

Or this is just a clever trick of the editor to get frothing responses - which Klaus & co then can mock as a rabid collection of environmental fundamentalists.

Dear sir,

How would you differentiate your position from that of Lyssenko regarding the Theory of Evolution? He, just like you, rejected a scientific theory on the basis that it didn't fit his political opinions, not on its scientific merits.

The only difference I can see is that he merely managed to set Russian biology back a decade compared to the rest of the world. If your opinion prevails over science and reason, however, the sake of humanity is at stake.

So would you care to elaborate? Thank you.

A 'centrist' is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

Klaus gets it. He keeps the terms of debate simple, provides a coherent narrative, doesn't bore us with the details, gives the citizen hope in the future, believes in progress of a sort. All the while the mostly bourgeois left talks about details, gets into scientific or economic (or both) minutiae, insists that progress is "finite," belabor the term "responsibility," talk about demographic time bombs, environmental catastrophe, sustainable economic growth which leaves whole swathes of folks who want to participate inactive.

What movie would you want to see?

And then we wonder why the overton window shifts inexorably rightward.

Most people, including the working class and the poor the left used to represent, don't want to hear about that bullshit, they want their lives to be relatively fulfilling, secure with occasional diversions. They want their three "b's". They don't want to be told why nuclear is better than coal, they just want their television to be working, and relatively cheaply so, when their team is playing in the Rugby World Cup.

The problem with the so-called "serious" and ever-educated left? They never took communications 101. You can't get a point accross to most people if it has more than five to seven relatively simply, easily understandable and digestible points.

The other side gets it. They invoke "freedom," "democracy," "liberty," "opportunity."

We play fun with numbers exercises to fool ourselves that there's no problem for the working class, there's no unemployment, opportunity abounds for all, it's all how you play with statistics. And this interests very few outside of our lefty circle jerk, and convinces less still. So the other side, beyond their hackneyed phrases "freedom" and "liberty" and the rest get to add, increasingly with conviction, "respect," a word Sarko used to great effect, coupled with "work". The left doesn't respect you, they don't care if you've a gainful occupation.

The left used to understand this, back when the left was led not by over-educated enarques who may or may not have risen from the ranks, but by working class heroes who chose to rise with the ranks. The lyrical left.

Our power words? "Class," "struggle," "equality," "peace," "security," "solidarity" to name a few. All of which have been de-emphasized by our more "serious," well-educated representatives on the left.

It's not a question of nuance versus black and white. It's a question of taking man as he is, rather than as one would like for him to be. Man as he is doesn't give a shit for all your policy nuance any more than you give a shit which sort of friction grease he uses before facing a bottom bracket. He wants you to deliver equality, peace, security and solidarity, and that's that, just as all you want is your bike to be built well.

Small wonder the PS got its clock cleaned. The left is losing the ideas war, and it is because the left has forgotten how to talk to its core constituencies: the poor and the working class. Royal was a good candidate, but once she was no longer the face of the party for legislatives, the old faces, Fabius, Strauss Kahn, came back to remind many of the PS no one liked anymore.

Unsurprisingly, they stayed home. And no amount of belly-aching about how the other side communicates better than we do will change this.


The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

I think the most powerful narrative that Klaus uses is the general metaphor of "enviormentalism is like communism".. He uses a very standard technique (101 of communication and narratives) where with selected quotes and analogies tries to get a comparison).

he is very good, the important thing of a history is not its realityabut its internal coherence..

His article is inrternally coherent except for the part of not politcising science.. here you can attack mhim mercilles and discredit.

Other htan that.. well you cna opnly fight back with another narrative...s oemthing you cna hardly do just posing question.

Given the situation... he is basically the winner.. unless you can explain a history with a couple of questions because I somehow doubt tha tthe Ft will let us put soemthing which is different narrative...basically you need another article to counterattack..

And I can not think of anything right now..

So I will attack him on his mistake on science politization..

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

Proposal:

My question would be  the following: how can I convince my fellow scientists (yeah I am one of those nasty hippie-communist scientists posed to destroy your freedoms.. or whatever) that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, the second law of thermodynamics should not exist, HIV has no virus origin and global warming is either a hoax ot, at most, would produce minor problems are not just fringe lunatics but also very powerful people interested in a pre-enlightenment world?

It is very difficult to convince them that some people in your group are not lunatic but a have a clear agenda to discredit science and enlightenment values. A world where facts do not exist (it is just "scientific consensus"), evidence is irrelevant (because oh my Lord. scientific ideas depend on a "minority who speaks louder") and where words like "freedom" and "liberty" are twisted to favour one's particular religion (in the case of the author a particular deluded version of economic and human reality) in front of any bothersome fact, are the common talk points behind people pushing the narrative you present in the article.

But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientific handicapped person. What can I do to convince them that you are really serious about what you are saying? How can I convince them that you really mean it, that you really want to explain to the world that those pesky facts are nothing to worry about, that taking preventing action to prevent highly likely catastrophes is dangerous enviromentalism, that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time we should not politicize science ?

By the way, next time you should also check the internal coherence of the whole article, it really looks like "Science I do not like=politicized science"; "science I like=not politicized science"

Any input?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

The Prague Post: President & future: Václav Klaus' reign shows the immaturity of Czech society (Martin Jan Stránský, April 11th, 2007)

Leaders have a greater potential to determine the future of the nation, its identity and the outlook of its citizenry in young democracies as opposed to democracies that are more securely established. Conversely, those leaders can also create a great deal of harm, especially if they brake the process of fostering a democratic mindset.

Such braking can be intentional, or it can simply come about as an act of omission. Either way, the result is the same. Simply put, leaders become great because they identify and fulfill the "requirements of the moment" that are the most important in moving the country forward.

It follows that, for the Czech people, the person who is best poised to make such a difference is their president. As opposed to Václav Havel, who in many ways fell into the job and never fully embraced it from a political point of view, the current president, Václav Klaus, could not be more different. For the Czech people, the results have been devastating.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

What incentives exist in a free market system to resolve long-term problems that cannot be expected produce profit?

You can't be me, I'm taken

Migeru suggested this entry to me with words "read this and weep". I have to admit that I am so far removed from Czech politics that I don't find myself affected by it any more. I don't like to learn about what's going on at home because in 99% of cases it's always a disaster... whether it's radars or Klaus' denial of global warming, or the prime minister buying villas with taxpayers' hard-earned money. There is simply nobody at the moment that I know of that is in any way inspiring (and if there is, his or her voice is not strong enough). I do agree our society is very immature. They just want STUFF. And they want it all, and fast, no matter what the cost is. Klaus is, even after all these years, riding on the wave of the Velvet Revolution; he was a key actor there and established himself strongly as one of the strongest leaders, which gave him the credibility to be elected later as a president. The Czechs are desperate to shift the pendulum radically to the other side: the more "right-winged" someone is, the better. If you dare to say you're more to the left, you're pitied and ridiculed, and viewed as hopelessly backwards. I have considerable trepidations about returning back home, (although I have thought about it), and our shitty political scene and the opinions and actions of those in power are a sizeable factor in my hesitation.

Today I got the movie The Czech dream from a friend... watch it if you ever get hold of it. It takes a close look at the Czechs and their greed and short-sightedness. I hope we will grow out of it some day. But it may be too late already.

"If you cannot say what you have to say in twenty minutes, you should go away and write a book about it." Lord Brabazon

I don't know who is responsible for his bio in Wikipedia but at least Havel's reference to his policies as "Gangster Capitalism" is there.  His chair in economics is like many chairs in Czech Institutions of Higher Education which have little reformed over the last twenty years.

He was the architect of Coupon Privatisation which lead to massive corruption, and the near destruction of the counrty's reputation as a place to do business, in the mid 1990's.  The Zelezny, Ron Lauder, CME, fiasco provides an illustrative case, in which the Klaus's government failed to protect foreign investors.  Czech tax payers are still paying Lauder for damages won in international courts.

As PM and head of the ODS party the neo-lib capitalist bachanalia was thrown into full throttle.  A friend from Strakonice once described the time as "Prague threw a Party, and all the villages paid."  Then came the autumn of 1997 when secret Swiss bank accounts were uncovered and it was further revealed that ODS contributors included long dead Austrians, clueless residents of Trinidad and Tobago, and shady figures in the US.  More from the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University - Prague

Of course many Czechs have to be the best at whatever they buy into, whether its Communism, Nazism, Conspicuous Consumerism or Gangster Capitalism, and so the ODS held on dearly to this Thatcherite wilfully unquestioning about how he obtained a post at the State Bank during the horrid period of Brezhnevite normalisation (the 1970's).  Curiously, for someone supposedly publishing reformist articles during the Prague Spring, Klaus ended up with a choice position for a Czech of his background, when lawyers, journalists and engineers where reduced to cleaning windows, sweeping streets and stoking boilers.  

As head of the ODS, which was formed when practical politicians (many former communists among them) pushed aside the dissidents of the Civic Forum in early 1990, he made a deal with Meciar in a park in Brno in the middle of the night to destroy the Slavic federation once dreamt of by Massaryk.

Corruption, having divided the country without a referendum, the ousting of the Charta 77 dissidents (look for his name among the signatures...  look again real hard... between Mojimír Klánský and Oldřich Klein - post '79... maybe not), he was considered too divisive a figure to follow in Havel's footsteps as President.  As in Germany the president is chosen by Parliament.  The Social Democrats and minority parties searched long and hard for anyone, anyone but Klaus in 2003, but the ODS would not play ball.  However they couldn't get enough votes to put him into office, until all other options were exhausted and he made a deal with the Communists.

It speaks poorly of the Czech political environment, (Děkujeme, Odjedte! Konečné Vole!) that four years on there is still no one who could take the job.  Oh yes, and their "Green" party is now in coalition with Klaus's ODS.  Martin Bursík, please speak up.

I simply asked the following question (paraphrase): What is the expertise of Mr Klaus in the science of ecology and climate change in particular?