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

Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."

"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.

According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.

According to Klaus, "other top-level politicians" do not express their global warming doubts because "a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice". http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/28950.html

Now here's a guy who makes some sence.

"According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth."

Serious? What about the "serious" scientists that say otherwise?

It's starting to look like evolution-creationism debate

It's starting to look like evolution-creationism debate

How?

Now here's a guy who makes some sence.

If only he made sense.

How?

This (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1296839&postcount=2) sentence just reminds me of it

Now here's a guy who makes some sence.If the Czech president says it then it be TRUE!:rolleyes:

That's some bullchzit!

I'm an atheist when it comes to the religion of Global Warming, too.

The really funny aspect of the new religion is that its acolytes stay in character by denying the influence of a Sun.

:D

No they don't, but the sun is not a catch-all that explains all the warming that is going on.

spidergoat, really then explain the warming of Mars?

I'm an atheist when it comes to the religion of Global Warming, too.

The really funny aspect of the new religion is that its acolytes stay in character by denying the influence of a Sun.

:D

I think you should stop pretending to be an independent.

spidergoat, really then explain the warming of Mars?

what is happening on mars has little to do with what is happening on our own planet, im sure.

how many automobiles, factories, etc have been spewing poison into the air for the last 100-150 years? if you think that it has no effect on the environment, you are blindly following a party line.

thats like shitting on your living room floor and saying that the room smells just fine, and you dont need to stop shitting on your floor....in other words, a big pile of crap.

spidergoat, really then explain the warming of Mars?

That would really suck, then. If the warming trend started by the sun were to be exacerbated by a human-caused greenhouse effect, then it would be twice as bad.

finally, someone with balls

The Devil Inside, that is just it there are no car, factories, ect; spewing pollution in to the Martian atmosphere, and yet they are experiencing global warming, and it is interesting that in the last global warming cycle on earth the temperatures were much warmer than they are today, so is man the cause or even a major contributor to global warming, we have a pristine environment in Mars and the same warming is taking place, so tell me why the alarmist aren't looking at those facts, and look into the facts that the sun is just putting out more energy, so just like in your house when you turn on the furnace things warm up, but unlike your house we don't have a thermostat to turn down the heat out put of the sun.

The Devil Inside, that is just it there are no car, factories, ect; spewing pollution in to the Martian atmosphere, and yet they are experiencing global warming, and it is interesting that in the last global warming cycle on earth the temperatures were much warmer than they are today, so is man the cause or even a major contributor to global warming, we have a pristine environment in Mars and the same warming is taking place, so tell me why the alarmist aren't looking at those facts, and look into the facts that the sun is just putting out more energy, so just like in your house when you turn on the furnace things warm up, but unlike your house we don't have a thermostat to turn down the heat out put of the sun.So why not advocate returning leaded auto fuel? Removing pollution standards on industry? Repeal the Clean Air Act. Bring back the glory days of the 1960's & 70's pollution. Do you also want cars to burn more fuel? We could return to ethyl! Build neighborhoods on dioxin dumps like before and make our rivers flammable again. Who gives a shit if you disagree with science because it doesn't fit your agenda, why not support new fuel sources? You must be loyal to the Saudi Royals or you're hoping for an interview on Fox.

Because there are good medical reasons for those, and you are doing the red herring rout with your last post, those are thing we could do something about, or do you have the thermostat for the sun in your pocket, I don't deny that there may be global warming, but I do deny that man has the ability to do anything to speed it up or slow it down, we have heard for decades that this was the last decade for man and the world, the population bomb was suppose to have already destroyed the world, the oceans were suppose to have died in the eighties, we were suppose to have been destroyed by a meteor, we were suppose to have run out of food in the last century, and everybody was suppose to have starved, have any of the dooms day prophecies come true? is global warming truly a bad thing? I don't know anybody that can give a accurate predication do you?

Because there are good medical reasons for those, and you are doing the red herring rout with your last post, those are thing we could do something about, or do you have the thermostat for the sun in your pocket, I don't deny that there may be global warming, but I do deny that man has the ability to do anything to speed it up or slow it down, we have heard for decades that this was the last decade for man and the world, the population bomb was suppose to have already destroyed the world, the oceans were suppose to have died in the eighties, we were suppose to have been destroyed by a meteor, we were suppose to have run out of food in the last century, and everybody was suppose to have starved, have any of the dooms day prophecies come true? is global warming truly a bad thing? I don't know anybody that can give a accurate predication do you?Continued reliance on fossil fuels will prove more costly than progressing to another source of energy. You say Man has reached his zenith and we can't do anything to modernize our way of life. I say we need to achieve some goals re: the environment and move into the future not dependent on oil. The oil barons will make certain things remain as is, a profit is to be made you know. But the best interests of this country and the world exceed those of the billionaire oil dynasties.

Genji

You say Man has reached his zenith and we can't do anything to modernize our way of life.

Where did you ever come up with that idea? never made such a statement in my life, there is infinity to what man can achieve.

Why do we have to rush of a cliff to produce a new form of energy? if the technology was mature enough for that energy source to compete with fossil fuels it would be on the market today, name me a new energy source that is not receiving massive government funds to make it even marginally viable? the funny thing is that almost weekly I here about new oil reserves that are being found, here in the U.S. we have massive reserves on the west coast, the Florida coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Face of Alaska, Anwar, and even the Great Lakes, we have Nuclear energy available if we can ever get the plants licensed, Europe is almost all nuclear, for electricity, so tell me why we can't continue to live and work on new energy sources at the same time, we have cleaned up the environment in the U.S. dramatically since the Forty's and we continue to do so to day, but check out the rest of the world, look at the former Soviet Union, China, India, Africa, take a look at the air quality in these countries, the visible air pollution in their air, and then tell me that the U.S. is the major problem, and I will laugh in your face, pictures speak in any language.

Genji



Where did you ever come up with that idea? never made such a statement in my life, there is infinity to what man can achieve.

Why do we have to rush of a cliff to produce a new form of energy? if the technology was mature enough for that energy source to compete with fossil fuels it would be on the market today, name me a new energy source that is not receiving massive government funds to make it even marginally viable? the funny thing is that almost weekly I here about new oil reserves that are being found, here in the U.S. we have massive reserves on the west coast, the Florida coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Face of Alaska, Anwar, and even the Great Lakes, we have Nuclear energy available if we can ever get the plants licensed, Europe is almost all nuclear, for electricity, so tell me why we can't continue to live and work on new energy sources at the same time, we have cleaned up the environment in the U.S. dramatically since the Forty's and we continue to do so to day, but check out the rest of the world, look at the former Soviet Union, China, India, Africa, take a look at the air quality in these countries, the visible air pollution in their air, and then tell me that the U.S. is the major problem, and I will laugh in your face, pictures speak in any language.So, we "Stay the Course." Ignore science and buy the oil baron spin doctors. Head in sand technology doesn't have a kind history. Rush? What rush? We aren't doing anything at all about reducing greenhouse gases or finding new fuel sources, and we won't. The oil moguls will make certain of that. Insert head back into sand.

So, we "Stay the Course." Ignore science and buy the oil baron spin doctors. Head in sand technology doesn't have a kind history. Rush? What rush? We aren't doing anything at all about reducing greenhouse gases or finding new fuel sources, and we won't. The oil moguls will make certain of that. Insert head back into sand.
Genji,
As the purveyors of doom are fond of pointing out, we are running out of oil. The less there is, the higher the price will get. The higher the price of oil, the more economical alternative fuels become. Simple economics will solve this problem.

Genji,
As the purveyors of doom are fond of pointing out, we are running out of oil. The less there is, the higher the price will get. The higher the price of oil, the more economical alternative fuels become. Simple economics will solve this problem.Like I said, just Stay the Course until...we run out of oil. Irresponsibility in the extreme. Nothing doom or gloom about it. I think it's exciting to forge ahead with new technology, something global warming critics, religious fundamentalists (both reject science) and the oil barons fear with every fiber of their being. To act is rushing.:rolleyes: To point out a problem and encourage a government level discussion on it is Gloom & Doom:rolleyes: Ignore it and keep those Arabs rich! Just does not make sense to me.

Were did I say that? any technology take time to develop, the alternatives are not ready yet, they are not economically viable, and they cannot replace the energy needs of today, unless you want to take our world back a generation, is that what you want? a generation ago we burned coal in unfiltered furnaces, wood, and other fossil fuels and polluted the shit out of the atmosphere, today were have smoke stack scrubbing technology, catalytic converters on our cars, we use unleaded gas, stopped using Freon and a hundred other things to control green house gasses and if we don't do this properly we will end up in the same mess again, the world runs on energy, and today there is no alternative energy source that is able to replace fossil fuels yet, if there is it would be on the market, it isn't, can you name me one source that can meet the energy needs of the world today that is new technology? ready to use today? if you can name it and I will stick my last dime into it as this would make me a billionaire!

Were did I say that? any technology take time to develop, the alternatives are not ready yet, they are not economically viable, and they cannot replace the energy needs of today, unless you want to take our world back a generation, is that what you want? a generation ago we burned coal in unfiltered furnaces, wood, and other fossil fuels and polluted the shit out of the atmosphere, today were have smoke stack scrubbing technology, catalytic converters on our cars, we use unleaded gas, stopped using Freon and a hundred other things to control green house gasses and if we don't do this properly we will end up in the same mess again, the world runs on energy, and today there is no alternative energy source that is able to replace fossil fuels yet, if there is it would be on the market, it isn't, can you name me one source that can meet the energy needs of the world today that is new technology? ready to use today? if you can name it and I will stick my last dime into it as this would make me a billionaire!That's the point BR, we DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY to change our energy sources on a grand scale, so let's TALK about it as a nation and hopefully through science we can come up with a solution. With the $$$ pissed down the drain in this corrupted administration and it's failed wars we could be well on our way to some progress. Your fear is unfounded. We will not come up with an alternative to imported oil, we will not progress at all in this area, and the oil industry will continue to drive any discussion on the subject into a wall. Swig some mint julip and relax. America ain't goin nowhere, certainly not forward.

Like I said, just Stay the Course until...we run out of oil. Irresponsibility in the extreme. Nothing doom or gloom about it. I think it's exciting to forge ahead with new technology, something global warming critics, religious fundamentalists (both reject science) and the oil barons fear with every fiber of their being. To act is rushing.:rolleyes: To point out a problem and encourage a government level discussion on it is Gloom & Doom:rolleyes: Ignore it and keep those Arabs rich! Just does not make sense to me.First of all, I most definately do not reject science, or new technology. Hell, I even considered buying a Prius. I test drove one, but I read that the technology is not really ready for prime time and is quite expensive to repair as the batteries are not covered under the warrenty.

I do not trust the government to do anything. I do not want any government level solutions for problems that can be handled quite well by industry.

Genji yes lets talk, but until we have a alternative source we have to get through the now, and if you really want to lay some blame for our energy problems, how about the environmentalist and the democrats who have sealed off our own energy sources, the oil reserves off the California coast, the ANWAR reserves, The Gulf coast, the Florida cost, in the Great Lakes Basin, stopped nuclear energy in its tracks, closed off the coal reserves in Colorado and Nevada, if we were using these sources of energy we maybe wouldn't need to depend on the middle east so heavily, could that be possible? if we used our own energy reserves?

Genji yes lets talk, but until we have a alternative source we have to get through the now, and if you really want to lay some blame for our energy problems, how about the environmentalist and the democrats who have sealed off our own energy sources, the oil reserves off the California coast, the ANWAR reserves, The Gulf coast, the Florida cost, in the Great Lakes Basin, stopped nuclear energy in its tracks, closed off the coal reserves in Colorado and Nevada, if we were using these sources of energy we maybe wouldn't need to depend on the middle east so heavily, could that be possible? if we used our own energy reserves?Republicans also voted, as a majority, against ANWAR.:rolleyes: We're talking about OIL ALTERNATIVES. Democrats have taken the lead in that discussion, with science backing them up. Oh, and of course the American people. Something called "election."

Democrats have taken the lead in that discussion, with science backing them up. BULLSHIT!

I for one think that scientists are much more likely to make baseless political assertions than, say, a Czech president.

Democrats have taken the lead in that discussion, with science backing them up. BULLSHIT!We know Republicans are doing their best to stifle discussion at a national level, starting with King George's Exxon "scientists" hired to fudge real science about the climate to favor their industry. Corruption doesn't faze righties, they're too busy still yapping about Clinton's blowjob. Over 90% of scientists agree there is a significant global warming trend. Dismiss science if you want, like a typical fundie of any religion, but it WAS the Dems that brought this to the table, which is the ONLY reason your type oppose it and SCIENCE is on our side.

I for one think that scientists are much more likely to make baseless political assertions than, say, a Czech president.LOL! Right. Because science is bunk, right? Why are you on a science forum? But we ALL know! What the Czech prez says is FACT!!!!!!!!:p

Okay I will be the first to agree that global warming is happening. However I will point out that Man's contribution has been negligable at worst. There are 15,000 cvolcanoes on this planet spewing megatons of COrbon Dioxide every day. Now take the sum of human civilization and at our worst we have produced 5% of the carbon dioxide of just one of those volcanoes. Then there is the matter that we are currently the closest to the Sun we have been since the last warming cycle ended. The Sun has also entered a period of solar activity much more active than it has been in mankinds history. These event transpire to make a warming/cooling rollercoaster on wheich we are riding.

Okay I will be the first to agree that global warming is happening. However I will point out that Man's contribution has been negligable at worst. There are 15,000 cvolcanoes on this planet spewing megatons of COrbon Dioxide every day. Now take the sum of human civilization and at our worst we have produced 5% of the carbon dioxide of just one of those volcanoes. Then there is the matter that we are currently the closest to the Sun we have been since the last warming cycle ended. The Sun has also entered a period of solar activity much more active than it has been in mankinds history. These event transpire to make a warming/cooling rollercoaster on wheich we are riding.I have no reason not to believe that could be true, but why do nothing to advance ourselves above primitive fuel sources? Is it possible it's a combination of things? One way or the other we will be forced to deal with our lack of responsibility and end up paying a higher price. Sound gloom & doom? It is in some regions of the world already. Insect devastation across northern reaches spreading disease to animals and wiping out crops is one single example. (Russia, central Asia, Canada.) Is being pro-active in this subject a vast leftwing conspiracy? Do we DARE question Exxon Science? Where is the outrage I wonder?

Genj, and your proof that we aren't trying to advance ourselves past fossil fuels? as has been stated before when those energy sources become viable enough to provide more than a fraction of a percentage of the energy needs of this country they will come on line, but right now it take more energy to produce that type of power, than that power produces for use. The only alternative energy that is readily available no that isn't fossil energy based is nuclear, and the rest of the world is using it, but do we in America? no the anti nuke crowed has made sure with their endless court tactics that it become to expensive to open new plants, so here we sit, dependent on foreign oil from a area that is extremely unstable, and requires our attention for national interest, we could have the energy we need from our own sources, and it would give us the time to developed new energy sources, with out having to be dependent on the Middle East Oil, but even if we did this the terrorism wouldn't stop, they have a agenda that supersedes our involvement in the oil from there.

Technology isn't energy. "Alternatives" aren't really. There is no economically viable alternative because there won't be. Nuclear isn't it. You can't fly an airplane on nuclear energy for one thing, and it takes alot of fossil fuels to mine and process uranium, to say nothing of construction of plants. It works now only because it is heavily subsidized. We are spoiled by 50 years of cheap energy. Expensive energy won't run the economy as we know it. It's a long shot, but if we use the last remaining fossil fuels to reduce the need for energy, we might be a little better off when it all comes down.

Exploring for new oil sources has a limited return. There are no large reserves left undiscovered. Better technology allows us to exploit small reserves, but they won't last long, and you can't put wilderness back together again. Investment in oil and refineries is a losing proposition.

Driving a Prius isn't the solution. We have to stop thinking in terms of running the national highway system on something else. It's a tremendous waste of energy, better to rebuild the railroads and river ports. The only reason we need to drive everywhere is the car allowed us to build things so far apart.

spidergoat, explain Europe, most of their electric power is nuclear? and please provide proof of your cost analyst on nuclear energy, Nuclear energy it would save millions of tons of fossil fuels, and reduce millions of tons of pollutants released into the air, help reduce global warming would it not?, and again tell me of a power source that can today, replace oil for transportation around the world, tell me were the production facilities exist to produce this magic elixir, in quantities large enough to supply the energy need of the U.S. let alone the world, it still is a fact that the alternatives aren't ready for prime time, and there is alternative sources for fossil fuels available to us today to cover the gap until we have alternative sources ready, if we switched to our own reserves do you really thing research into alternatives would stop? technology more on its own, if it viable it will be produced, why because it will make money for the investors, and it will move technology forward for more efficiency in our world, that is the pattern thet has been going on since the beginning of time, when it becomes viable the world move to it, Human Muscle, animal power, wind power, steam power, gas and diesel fuels, nuclear, and eventually the new fuel source that will come when it is developed, man has to move forward it is his genetic imperative, once we stop moving forward we will become extinct as the Dodo Bird, a sad fact of the cycle of life.

High taxes, heavily subsidized, oil is still cheap enough to make nuclear power viable. I'm not against it, but it won't solve our problems.

Plus Europe wouldn't be handicapped without cars.

I think you should stop pretending to be an independent.
I think you should stop pretending to possess the power to define independence for Independants.

what is happening on mars has little to do with what is happening on our own planet, im sure.
Surely, you jest.
...you are blindly following a party line.

thats like shitting on your living room floor and saying that the room smells just fine, and you dont need to stop shitting on your floor....in other words, a big pile of crap.
A fox first smells his own hole. ;)

...global warming critics, religious fundamentalists (both reject science)...
No. Global warming critics reject bad/no science.

Religious fundamentalists reject all/the most inconvenient science.

Speaking of religious fanatics, why are you global warming religionists so fearful of global warming skeptics that you're resorting to the same debate tactics as utilized by Popes Paul V and Urban VIII on Galileo?

E pur si muove.