1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6249/this-man-truly-is-a-santa-klaus/

This man truly is a Santa Klaus

February 12, 2007 by

Czech President Vaclav Klaus – according to a report posted on Drudge – actually came out and told the Environmentalist Emperor he really ought to put some clothes on. Bravo!President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinionsɉۢ

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ɉۢ

A: …I am right…•

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]



David White February 12, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Thank goodness politically incorrect science is still going on, albeit with difficulty:


John February 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm

I’m waiting for the English version of his book.

Jim Fedako February 12, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?

I couldn’t imagine living in an environment similar to Ohio of just two hundred years ago. From Oberlin College http://www.oberlin.edu/news-info/02jun/observations_mary_garvin1.html

Wolves and rattlesnakes were a constant threat, but the fever, commonly referred to as malaria, ague, or bilious or autumnal fever, was feared most. One pioneer confessed “a wholesome fear of two things: fever and ague and rattlesnakes” (3). Because the fever was often contracted around the wetlands, settlers thought it was caused by inhaling the “bad air,” “miasma,” or “malaria” that they associated with the rotting vegetation of swamps.

However, the fever was often debilitating and accommodating the shakes wasn’t always an option. Malaria disabled entire families as described in this account of Michigan frontier life: “The malarial gases set free, that country became very sickly…crops went back into the ground, animals suffered for food, and if the people had not been too sick to need much to eat, they too must have gone hungry. The pale, sallow, bloated faces of that period were the rule; there were no healthy faces except of persons just arrived”

I’m much too soft for such a life. Man has ruined the environment of Ohio and Michigan? Hardly.

Matthew February 12, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Wow, maybe I should move to Prague! Beautiful scenery, great beer, lots of hockey to follow, and politicians who actually make sense.

Dan Coleman February 13, 2007 at 7:14 am

That interview is awesome. I can’t believe a politician came out and simply said those things!

RogerM February 13, 2007 at 8:27 am

President Klaus is a fascinating man. Before the fall of communism, he was a poet and playwright who fought the communist system with is art and spent some time in jail. He has many years of experience fighting the left’s propaganda. As the first president of the Czech Republic, he was largely responsible for it’s peaceful breakup when the Slovaks no longer wanted to be a part of Czechoslovakia. An extremely intelligent man, he married a beautiful porn star after he became president. It’s not surprising that he would be so well-informed and honest about the efforts of the socialist die-hards to use global warming as a weapon to mount a coup against free markets.

Yancey Ward February 13, 2007 at 8:37 am


I think you have Klaus confused with Vaclav Havel.

RogerM February 13, 2007 at 9:07 am

Yancey, You’re right. I’m sorry!

Bill February 13, 2007 at 9:47 am

Well this is refreshing. The truth hurts and the way this fellow snubbed the reporter with truth and observation was great.

The reporter just assumed things. This man actually used his brain and reason and observation and research to develop his opinions.

I wish our leaders in the US would do the same.

Bill February 13, 2007 at 9:50 am

I bet 5 bucks that Klaus will not get an Oscar nomination for the movies based on his book.

xX February 13, 2007 at 9:59 am

This is really sad, politicians (not generally known for their intelligence) are taking the role of scientists.

Go Czech Republic!

Tidiazuron February 13, 2007 at 11:09 am

Fortunately, we are not alone. There are scientists (even climatologists) that doubt seriusly that those purported facts are real. I suggest to look for a Spanish translator and read:
If they want facts, facts it’s what they should recieve.

Hospodarske noviny February 13, 2007 at 11:40 am

Thanks for your nice report. The Drudge link could stop working soon. The original source of the translation is here:


Click… Have a great day!

Pabloft February 13, 2007 at 11:41 am

At least there is one voice of reason in the political front of the environmental histeria we’re living…

Anyone knows what kind of measures he had taken on other fields [like economics for instance]?

Walt D. February 13, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Fernando February 14, 2007 at 10:11 am

I’m from Peru. I can’t really understand how someone who leads a coutry can express that way. In SouthAmerica like other continents, certain old beutiful places are not so as before, because it’s obvious that humane damage has maed them changed. Here, for example, our mountains that had snow at the top had lost many centimeters of it in the last 15 years. Huascaran Mountan and Misti Vulcano are the big signs of this catastrofic problem. May be, Czec Republic is a paradise until now, but other sides of the world are continuosly suffering effects of global warming. Islanders in Oceania can tell us how they see that impact dialy.

Sione Vatu February 14, 2007 at 11:27 am


That’s BS! You don’t know anything about Oceania.

I’m an Islander in Oceania. So stop making things up about my home.


Graham February 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm

One thing is clear: the climate is changing in various parts of the world. Even if it is only shifting, there will be repurcusions.

Instead of arguing about the cause, or taking one set of data over another from a different region as evidence of any case, we should be concerned about the future.

It is clear that the future will not be like today. Some areas will be colder, and some hotter.

Science should be attempting to track these changes by regions, and governments should be prodding scientists and engineers to come up with solutions as to how each region can deal with the climate change.

If the antarctic gets colder, but the arctic warms up, there will still be an impact on weather patterns.

If the sun gets “lazy”, there will be an impact on weather patterns.

Why don’t we ignore cause and look at how to deal with any consequences (colder in food-producing regions, increased ocean levels, ect…)


David White February 14, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Graham, I think that would be like treating the effects of statism without acknowledging the existence of the state. That is, you have to link cause and effect to solve problems; otherwise, you only stand to create more problems. Just look at the welfare state.

Besides, global warming aside, we know we’ve got to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and the sooner the better. And if the market were set free to do so — i.e., if the pump price of gas weren’t so highly subsidized: http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=11520 — we could essentially put the global warming issue to rest.

Indeed, had the market been free up to now, the subject never would have come up, as we would have long ago transcended the Age of Oil.

Sione Vatu February 15, 2007 at 12:21 am


Dream on! The fact is that hydrocarbons (including oil) are the most convenient and economical method of getting energy for certain applications and that’s how matters will stay for the forseeable future. Sure there are market distortions caused by government involvement but the fact is that swingeing gasoline taxes (in NZ it’s in excess of 114%, Australia is similar), taxes against vehicles that consume hydrocarbons (luxury tax, registration, ACC, WOF, COF, compulsory insurance, licensing regimes etc. etc.), taxes against the people who use them (fines for travelling faster than the govt likes, parking taxes, tolls and so on) have not prevented people from employing the most convenient and technologically suitable product there is for their purposes. That speaks volumes.

You need to learn a bit of engineering and technology prior to making such wild assertions. Less vapourware and more examination of real hardware is what you need to do! You can’t just wish things into existence in opposition to facts of reality.

“We” do not have to do anything except act on an individual basis to purchase and use those products which best suit each person’s particular purposes.

Meanwhile you can dream on about how YOU WANT to replace oil. Unless you personally investigate and use a substitute, or better, develop a commercial alternative, you have nothing of value to contribute.


RogerM February 15, 2007 at 9:17 am

Check out this interesting site: http://www.iceagenow.com. It’s about evidence than volcanic activity at the ocean floor is heating the oceans, causing them to give off CO2 and water vapor. It’s not peer reviewed, but it’s interesting.

tokyotom February 15, 2007 at 9:29 am

Walt, you might try reading through this and comments for more on Shaviv and Veiser. They have an interesting theory about long-term trends, but it seems they`ve been well-rebutted as to the last century.

Fernando, thanks for your comments, at least in your own part of the world. Maybe there is someone else who can speak to higher sea surface temps and their effects in the South Pacific.

David, you have a good point about subsidies; they certainly make no sense and are not helpful. Sione is right that we will remain a predominantly fossil-fuel economy for at least the next century, but clearly higher prices in different countries have led to much greater GDP/BTU performance. We are quite inventive and can adjust to changing commodity prices, even as we may wish to minimze government interference with them.

tokyotom February 15, 2007 at 9:38 am

Sean, Klaus has some good points, but he`s off the deep end on others.

I agrre with him here:
“For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run.”

But disagree with him that “on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago”. He forgets that the world is full of kleptocracies that are destroying common resources like tropical forests, and that even the developed countries have a tough time coordinating policies to deal with fisheries and global, open-access commons – for which there are no owners and hence no wealth-creating private transactions.

“Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so.”

How can he say this with a straight face? Does he think that Stephen Hawkings is not a serious scientist?

“IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

The IPCC represents the member nations of the UN Framework Convention, including the US. Our own scientists have been signing off on its reports. Have they corrupted Bush and Exxon too? They must be amazingly persuasive for a bunch of commie bastards that want to destroy capitalism!

N. Joseph Potts February 15, 2007 at 10:01 am

Klaus is the FIRST person I’ve seen to take MY position that the SOCIAL science of climate change utterly trumps whatever CLIMATE science appears to have to say on the subject (and even what climate science appears to have to say is itself determined largely by SOCIAL rather than CLIMATE science).

The fact is (in my view), all the other “science” is completely moot in the face of social realities that are far more determinate than any geophysical measurements, analyses, and prognostications.

For climate change as for the environment in general, the best strategy for dealing with it is in keeping government OUT of it totally and permanently. I think Michael Crichton may be among those who stated that the best means of dealing with climate and other environmental change is wealth.

And wealth grows with feedom, as Klaus can attest from massive personal experience.

David White February 15, 2007 at 10:10 am

Thanks for the lecture and the personal attack, Sione, but consumption taxes don’t compare to the subsidies inherent in things like our Interstate Highway System, which was funded almost exclusively out of income taxes.

Which is to say that America’s “love affair with the automobile” is more “free love” than a reflection of how Americans would now be traveling had the market held sway for the last hundred or more years. And thus are we, in our Dear Leader’s words, “addicted to oil,” as our love affair is greased on the wheels of massive taxpayer- (and debt-) funded military intervention in foreign lands.

As for my “WANT[ing] to replace oil,” all I said is that we’ve “got to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels,” since our subsidized consumption of them has not only depleted them far faster than the market would have, but it has also created a false sense of their abundance.

Even so, however, I’m not “dream[ing]” about replacing them (1) because I’m commercializing a new and highly energy-efficient building technology and (2) because to track technology as a whole — http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1 — is to understand that “we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century; it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).”

Will the state nonetheless manage to muck everything up? Perhaps. But as long as Moore’s Law holds, there’s reason to hope that the state, and all the problems it quite unnecessarily creates, will be triumphed over and that along the way we will “wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.”

Sione Vatu February 15, 2007 at 11:54 am


Don’t be so precious. A personal attack would have gone something like, “David you are an ignorant fool, wipe the dribble off your chin, put your finger on the words and read them out one at a time etc.” Clearly that’s not the line I took with you.

The facts are that hydrocarbon fuels are the most convenient, easiest, most economical sources of energy presently available. That’s how the situation is going to stay for the forseeable future (certainly for the rest of my lifetime and quite probably most of my kids lifetimes as well). Wishing them away with assertions about “laws” (which are really no more than “expert” opinion applicable within particular context and circumstances ONLY) does not make the cut.

As far as government is concerned, sure they have distorted the market, but they can’t overcome what is technologically possible. They can’t CREATE knowledge and new energy sources out of thin air by fiat or regulation. That idea is Canute-like!

Now we could argue about the level of subsidy and taxation and what effect it has had or might have had all you like- still, that’s completely irrelevant to the point.

For example, highways (freeways) could well have been created by private means, as has in fact occurred in many places. The technology has existed for a long time now and does not require govt. for its deployment. You do not know what would have occurred in the absence of govt. interference. All you have is supposition. And the claim that some other technology to replace oil “by now” is similarly specious. Similarly, you can make up stories all you like about what modes of transport Americans (and other) would be using presently were the govt. to have stayed out of the road building and energy market etc. BUT hydrocarbon fuels it would be. Know why? Because that happens to be the best, easiest to get, most convenient source of high-availability stored energy available on the planet. Nothing you assert changes that.

Returning to the central point, Chirac and his thugs can rapidly impose a regime of anti-productivity far sooner than any new (non-hydrocarbon) technology can be developed, distributed and employed. That means destruction of wealth and a SLOWING of the rate of technological advancement. That’s the issue of concern.


David White February 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm


Then let it be said that I hope never to suffer a personal attack from you, as be told that I “have nothing of value to contribute” is quite enough (though I think you know better).

Anyway, while it’s certainly true that I “do not know what would have occurred in the absence of govt. interference,” it is not true that all I have “is supposition.” Ss a late-night comedian recently joked: “An official from Cuba said that his country restricts use of the Internet because it’s a ‘wild new technology.’ Other wild new technologies in Cuba? The eight-track, the typewriter, and Tupperware.”

In other words, the less government intervention, the more technological innovation. And had there been no government intervention in the marketplace over the course of the past century, I think it’s fair to say that fossil fuels would play a far lesser role today.

TokyoTom February 15, 2007 at 9:34 pm


“Chirac and his thugs can rapidly impose a regime of anti-productivity”

This is a strawman. There is no global regulatory body that can impose a climate change control regime on anybody. And certainly the US and China have a greater influence on what may transpire than France. The past decades are proof of both points.

Any agreement among nations will require the consent of all of them.

TokyoTom February 15, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Mr. Potts, sorry, but when you say that “the SOCIAL science of climate change utterly trumps whatever CLIMATE science appears to have to say on the subject” you don’t really provide much that elucidates exactly what your position is, so I am at a loss to evaluate it. Care to explain further?

If I guess you mean that a big part of the problem is a tussle over rent-seeking and statism, I would agree, but would point out that the humanity-hating enviros are merely one of the groups fighting for advantage. There are industry groups on both sides, for example.

I would also say that all of this should not lead one to forget that the global atmosphere is an open-access commons, so that private, wealth-creating transactions that allow economic actors to express their respective preferences in it cannot occur.



Sione Vatu February 16, 2007 at 4:24 am


You wrote: “And had there been no government intervention in the marketplace over the course of the past century, I think it’s fair to say that fossil fuels would play a far lesser role today.”

I disagree. It is fair to say that in the absence of govt. intervention in the market the use of hydrocarbon fuels would be much greater than it is today. The development of that source of energy would have taken place faster and more thoroughly. It would be available to far more people than is the case presently. People would be better off.

As to the value of your previous contribution on this topic, I did qualify my statement regarding that.

Putting all that aside for the moment, the main issue of concern has to be the ability (and intent) of Chirac and other politicos to impose a regime of anti-productivity, anti-wealth and anti-liberty on as many people as possible. Chirac has been explicit in support for environmentalist policies as a pathway building towards international government. It’s comparatively easy to set the necessary regulation & legislation etc. in place to so do. It’s far faster to create such a restrictive regime than it is to develop new technologies and bring them to market.

For example, you were expecting 20 years until the hydrocarbons would be replaced as an energy source. Compare that with the one or two election cycles required to empower an anti-production regime and have various governments agree to abide by it (carbon trading schemes being but one example, carbon taxes another). And in the long run don’t expect govts to restrict their imposts against energy utilisation to hydrocarbons alone. Once govt. gets into an area it is very hard to evict.

Now, while Europe has progressed further down the road towards crippling production than has the USA, don’t be surprised to witness the next President of the USA following the European example. Of course, it’s all for the good of the weather. Got to keep the climate appropriately politically correct don’t you know!



Sione Vatu February 16, 2007 at 4:36 am


I should add, the gap in time between the eight to ten years necessary to set up Chirac’s energy imposts and regulations and the twenty years (assuming you’re correct in that time estimate) to replace hydrocarbons is the “window of poverty” when everyone gets plundered ruthlessley. The destruction of wealth during that period is the issue I’m directing your attention towards. Further, I’m saying that even if hydrocarbons do get replaced, the govts will simply alter regulation and legislation to extract wealth and destroy productivity derived from the new energy source.

As much as I like new technology, I’m quite satisfied with hydrocarbons and I’m quite unhappy about govt. I do not perceive technology as a solution to govt. In the end govt is an actual threat. Hydrocarbons are just molecules that may be usefully employed to suit people’s energy needs and purposes.


David White February 16, 2007 at 8:00 am


Time will tell, of course, on the fossil fuel replacement issue (and we can agree to disagree on where fossil fuel use would be today without government intervention). But not only do I agree that “govt is an actual threat”; I would emphatically state that government is THE threat and that if we fail to make it to The Singularity, it will be for that reason.

That said, however, I DO perceive technology — i.e., applied mind — as the solution to government. And forgive me for posting, yet again, the primary reason why — http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html — but I believe Eric Garris speaks volumes when he says:

“In the Internet we see our greatest hope for freedom and for the continual progress of humanity. In the Internet we see the anachronistic and obsolete institutions of society being pushed aside for a new dawn of better things. In the Internet we see the key to diminishing the power and status of the state and liberating ourselves from its oppression and deception. Let us first consider an indirect but nevertheless essential reason to have hope for freedom, thanks to the World Wide Web. The Internet is proof of libertarianism in action. In this unregulated sector of society, we have seen more progress and changes and improvements than in any other sector in any comparably short period of time. No other invention went so far so quickly. And all of it rests on the economic principles of spontaneous order that we have been touting for years, but had to wait until now to see fully realized.”

I believe it is not too much to say, in fact, that the fate of humanity rides on the outcome of this battle. Either liberty prevails or the state does. And given the exponential advance of “libertarianism in action,” we should know the outcome soon enough.

Sione Vatu February 16, 2007 at 11:04 am


OK. Good point(s).

I hope freedom and liberty wins.



PS. Ca you clarify what you think about the Singularity, what it is to you and that will mean.

David White February 16, 2007 at 11:15 am


The Singularity is obviously way off topic, so I’ll just quickly say that I hope to live to experience it and will point you here:


Sione February 16, 2007 at 11:46 pm


OK. Thanks.


msi laptop January 27, 2011 at 12:51 am

MSI laptops are very high quality. They are as smashing as if not good than ASUS build quality. I do know that most of the retail merchants that sell MSI are very good and trustworthy. msilaptops.net is my personal favorite, they are very advised and can help you with any questions you have.

ex boyfriend come back August 25, 2011 at 6:13 am

Hi, Neat post. There is a problem along with your site in web explorer, could test this… IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a large component to people will miss your magnificent writing due to this problem.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: