New EU president says climate change is a myth

brianthebard

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5430362.ece

The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

Which side of the debate does this help or hinder? I guess any neutral greens or environmentalists may be scared away from the no vote after this. Will he be a boon to the no side here though, an example of a fellow european who is opposed to the lisbon treaty and therefore an example of why we should vote no in support of those in the EU who have not been given the vote?

K-9

Jaysus, I thought Sarkozy was bad!

brianthebard

He is.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

He is.

Still, how dare that jumped up Czech tell us Climate Change is a myth. I'm sick with the EU interfering in Ireland...........................etc. etc.

brianthebard

Its an interesting situation though, clearly a lot of it has to do with infighting in Czech politics. But the Czech republic has yet to ratify the Lisbon treaty and I think its fair to say that for the next six months the No side in Ireland bizarrely has the EU president on their side. Certainly interesting.

molloyjh

Given that I can't see a direct quote from Klaus on the matter in the article quoted above it is somewhat difficult to comment on what he said. If he said climate change was a myth the obvious response is that it is not. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occured constantly through-out our planets history. If on the other hand he was talking about anthropogenic (sp?) global warming, i.e. man-made global warming, then he is claiming to know something for a fact that he cannot possibly know. Noone knows for definite that we are or are not causing global warming.

The fact that the presidency has moved onto the Czech Republic where their President is so blantantly hostile to the EU (while their Parliament are the complete opposite) raises serious questions about the manner in which the title is passed around, and serious questions about the Czech position on the matter. Who better represents their views on the EU?

CDfm

Well I dont see why we must take on a whole set of expensive measures for unproven theories using pseudo science plunging Western Economies into recession.

Why should we all go green when the Chinese dont.

K-9

molloyjh wrote: »

The fact that the presidency has moved onto the Czech Republic where their President is so blantantly hostile to the EU (while their Parliament are the complete opposite) raises serious questions about the manner in which the title is passed around, and serious questions about the Czech position on the matter. Who better represents their views on the EU?

That is for the Czechs to decide, NOT the EU.

If it was the same scenario in Ireland, there'd be uproar if the EU changed the methods of the Presidency to silence our President. Many Yes and No side voters would be united on that one.

It really is another case of the EU not winning no matter what they do or don't do!

evercloserunion

As far as I know the PM and not the President is the EU president.

CantGetNoSleep

evercloserunion wrote: »

As far as I know the PM and not the President is the EU president.

Does this depend on the country?

I.E. Sarkozy not Fillon would be EU President from France, Cowen not McAleese would be President from Ireland. Probably in national constitutions

evercloserunion

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Does this depend on the country?

I.E. Sarkozy not Fillon would be EU President from France, Cowen not McAleese would be President from Ireland. Probably in national constitutions

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how the president is chosen but the point is to avoid having people in ceremonial roles at national level acting as EU president. I think it's probably the same "head of state" position that represents each nation in the IGCs.

EDIT: As usual, Wikipedia has the answers. There is no single president but rather the task is undertaken by an entire national government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

So while a national government holds the presidency, the "President" as we know it would be the head of government.

Dob74

Don't see a direct quote from Kluas about climate change. Considering China is opening a coal power station every week. There is very little the west can do about climate change.

evercloserunion

Dob74 wrote: »

Don't see a direct quote from Kluas about climate change. Considering China is opening a coal power station every week. There is very little the west can do about climate change.

Except cut back on their own CO2 emissions?

Scofflaw

Dob74 wrote: »

Don't see a direct quote from Kluas about climate change. Considering China is opening a coal power station every week. There is very little the west can do about climate change.

The US contributes 22.2% of world greenhouse emissions, China plus Taiwan 18.4% (and Taiwan is part of the "West" in most senses), the EU 14.7%. The US and the EU between them therefore account for about 37%, and if you include the rest of the countries over which the "West" has influence, you're pretty much covering at least 75% of the world's emissions.

There is, therefore, a lot the West can do. One thing it cannot do is opt out on the spurious basis that it's someone else's problem, because it isn't. Even if China chose to double its emissions while the rest of the world halved theirs, we'd still be better off - and the Chinese are not immune to sanctions, particularly since the majority of their emissions come from producing Western goods in Chinese factories. A carbon tariff at the borders of the EU would rapidly make the Western companies manufacturing in China cut "Chinese" emissions.

accurately,
Scofflaw

K-9

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Does this depend on the country?

I.E. Sarkozy not Fillon would be EU President from France, Cowen not McAleese would be President from Ireland. Probably in national constitutions

evercloserunion wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how the president is chosen but the point is to avoid having people in ceremonial roles at national level acting as EU president. I think it's probably the same "head of state" position that represents each nation in the IGCs.

EDIT: As usual, Wikipedia has the answers. There is no single president but rather the task is undertaken by an entire national government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

So while a national government holds the presidency, the "President" as we know it would be the head of government.

Wasn't 100% on it myself but going on previous Irish Presidencies, Bertie, Bruton and Charlie basically ran the show.

Would be interesting if say McAleese had a major difference of opinion with the Govt. on something like this. I remember FF being annoyed with Robinson overstepping her seemingly restrictive terms of office.

Still, we'd probably want to sort it out ourselves, not the EU!

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

Wasn't 100% on it myself but going on previous Irish Presidencies, Bertie, Bruton and Charlie basically ran the show.

Would be interesting if say McAleese had a major difference of opinion with the Govt. on something like this. I remember FF being annoyed with Robinson overstepping her seemingly restrictive terms of office.

Still, we'd probably want to sort it out ourselves, not the EU!

Funnily enough, it's the government of the member state that holds the Presidency. There isn't, strictly speaking, an "EU President", but a "Presidency" - not a single office but rather a rotating 'department'.

The post of "President of the Council of the European Union" is held by whichever of the country's Ministers is sitting at a particular session of the Council, so at a meeting of Finance Ministers during the Irish Presidency, Charlie McCreevy was President. There is no point at which Klaus gets to be President of anything EU - because Mirek Topolanek the Czech Prime Minister is the Czech representative on the European Council (the council of heads of state), so he will be President of that during his tenure.

You couldn't make this stuff up - unless of course you allowed 27 countries to choose a mutually acceptable permanent intergovernmental framework.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

The US contributes 22.2% of world greenhouse emissions, China plus Taiwan 18.4% (and Taiwan is part of the "West" in most senses), the EU 14.7%. The US and the EU between them therefore account for about 37%, and if you include the rest of the countries over which the "West" has influence, you're pretty much covering at least 75% of the world's emissions.



accurately,
Scofflaw

I think you are overestimating the influence and can you give a source for your figures.

If it really so cool and easy why are the tarriffs not in place now to protect our economies.

It should be no policy implementation without tariiffs.

So even if the science is a crock at least our economies and jobs are protected.

If it cant be done this way it shouldnt be done at all.

TheBigLebowski

The man is clearly delusional. Of course climate change is not a myth as it is fact. What he means to say is man made climate change is a myth which is true.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

I think you are overestimating the influence and can you give a source for your figures.

Back-issue of New Scientist, most recently. 2006 figures are slightly different - see here for example. It has the US at 19.8% and China at 17.7%, doesn't give a figure for the EU.

As to influence, the Kyoto Protocol now covers every country except the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Taiwan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Western Sahara, Chad, and a handful of micro-states (Vatican, Andorra, San Marino, Brunei, the Palestinian Authority...).

CDfm wrote: »

If it really so cool and easy why are the tarriffs not in place now to protect our economies.

It should be no policy implementation without tariiffs.

So even if the science is a crock at least our economies and jobs are protected.

If it cant be done this way it shouldnt be done at all.

That would require WTO agreement, I suspect - which in turn requires US agreement. You need to bear in mind that governments have, by and large, only been persuaded of the reality of the situation in the last decade.

Nor is it simply a choice between the economy and addressing climate change - reducing fossil fuel use is a sensible strategy at this point because we're at peak oil as well, plus the Middle East is hardly stable, and Russia is not really a supplier I'm happy with. For all the whinging about how hard it would be to reduce emissions, there's an awful lot of wasted energy - and there are really very few jobs in Ireland dependent on the oil industry. We are in a prime position to cut fossil fuel use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

The man is clearly delusional. Of course climate change is not a myth as it is fact. What he means to say is man made climate change is a myth which is true.

Of course we know this is true, but this could easily be the times mistake and not his, since it would have been translated. Besides at this stage we know that when politicians talk about teh climate change they aren't talking about how it was wet yesterday and now its sunny.

FloorBoard

Man made climate change is not a myth, it is a massive scam, and our new EU man is not the only one stepping out of line.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html

espinolman

CDfm wrote: »

Well I dont see why we must take on a whole set of expensive measures for unproven theories using pseudo science plunging Western Economies into recession.

Why should we all go green when the Chinese dont.

Absolutely , i agree with you , where is the proof co2 causes climate change !

Scofflaw

espinolman wrote: »

Absolutely , i agree with you , where is the proof co2 causes climate change !

All over the scientific journals.

off-handedly,
Scofflaw

FloorBoard

Scofflaw wrote: »

All over the scientific journals.

off-handedly,
Scofflaw

Oh, the scientists said so. That makes it true?

espinolman

Scofflaw wrote: »

All over the scientific journals.

off-handedly,
Scofflaw

The scientific journals will say whatever they are funded to say , and the environmental movement is politically driven .

sink

espinolman wrote: »

The scientific journals will say whatever they are funded to say , and the environmental movement is politically driven .

You obviously haven't got a clue what the scientific process is specifically what peer review is and what role scientific journals play with that process. For if you did you would realise how ridiculous that sentence is.

oscarBravo

This is the EU forum, not the Green Issues forum. If you want to discuss the reality or otherwise of Climate Change, do it over there. If you want to discuss the ramblings of EU heads of state, you can do it here.

brianthebard

So back on topic, and in relation to the lisbon issue, what side of the debate does the Czech presidency benefit? The infighting and disunity on the EU/Lisbon issue will have implications here, but for who? I see it as a boon for the No side.

ionix5891

this is what you get when right wing nutters get in power (or just look at the US for last 8 years) we have our own variety here called Sein Fein

aint he the same guy who met Liberats Declan Hanley recently or am I mixing up with some other Czech ?

FloorBoard wrote: »

Oh, the scientists said so. That makes it true?

just shows your ignorance, science doesnt deal in black and white "truths" but in percentages derived from studies and experiments dealing with theories, today the prevailing body of knowledge point to man made global warming, if better evidence is found this will change

.

sink

ionix5891 wrote: »

this is what you get when right wing nutters get in power (or just look at the US for last 8 years) we have our own variety here called Sein Fein

Sinn Fein are left wing nutters.

ionix5891

sink wrote: »

Sinn Fein are left wing nutters.

my bad you right, i need my politics license revoked

anyways they are there among the edges with other nutcases

brianthebard

ionix5891 wrote: »

this is what you get when right wing nutters get in power (or just look at the US for last 8 years) we have our own variety here called Sein Fein

aint he the same guy who met Liberats Declan Hanley recently or am I mixing up with some other Czech ?

I believe he met Declan Ganley of Libertas, and other no lobby groups, but your clever wordplay is duly noted. As for the "some other Czech" comment, I did post a link to the article where it states this is the case, do you actually have anything to add to the debate or do you just like petty name calling?

ionix5891

sorry i had to take a stab at libertossers, couldn't resist

BenjAii

Klaus belongs to a long tradition of politicians on the right & left, who are never ones to let the truth of the matter, get in the way of their dearly held principles.

He's not very relevant anyway as his role is ceremonial and the real work of the EU presidency is done by the executive arm of the Czech government.

We seem to live in an age that is drowned in information, yet huge amounts of people seem unable to deal with it intelligently.

I would put the climate change deniers in with the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job & the people who take Zeitgeist seriously, all people who are not going to let facts get in the way of what they want to believe instead.

Fundamentalist religious belief seems another illustration that many human brains seem hard wired for this.

oscarBravo

ionix5891 wrote: »

sorry i had to take a stab at libertossers, couldn't resist

Please try harder in future.

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

Why should we all go green when the Chinese dont.

Why should we all respect human rights when the Chinese (the regime, not the people) don't?

ionix5891

Ireland is #17 in world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

behind countries such as India or China and most of the EU


also see this 500MW facility, when the Chineese put their head to it they do things LARGE

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2420/83/

also check this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

ShooterSF

BenjAii wrote: »

Klaus belongs to a long tradition of politicians on the right & left, who are never ones to let the truth of the matter, get in the way of their dearly held principles.

He's not very relevant anyway as his role is ceremonial and the real work of the EU presidency is done by the executive arm of the Czech government.

We seem to live in an age that is drowned in information, yet huge amounts of people seem unable to deal with it intelligently.

I would put the climate change deniers in with the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job & the people who take Zeitgeist seriously, all people who are not going to let facts get in the way of what they want to believe instead.

Fundamentalist religious belief seems another illustration that many human brains seem hard wired for this.

He does seem a bit stubborn but hey he represents his people so leave it to him. As for the climate thing without getting into the is it isnt it debate the problem I have with it is that its a very new area for scientists and they are still making discoveries, which yes currently point to it as a possibility but environmentalists take these theories that are still very young and run them as actual fact. Take the whole renaming global warming to climate change when it was realised that a mis-calculation proved that the hottest decade in the 20th century was actually the 30's.
I trust scientists but I dislike eco-freaks who have this mentality that I have to care cause they do and any lies told are all for the greater good.

djpbarry

ShooterSF wrote: »

Take the whole renaming global warming to climate change when it was realised that a mis-calculation proved that the hottest decade in the 20th century was actually the 30's.

Eh?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote:

He does seem a bit stubborn but hey he represents his people so leave it to him. As for the climate thing without getting into the is it isnt it debate the problem I have with it is that its a very new area for scientists and they are still making discoveries, which yes currently point to it as a possibility but environmentalists take these theories that are still very young and run them as actual fact. Take the whole renaming global warming to climate change when it was realised that a mis-calculation proved that the hottest decade in the 20th century was actually the 30's.
I trust scientists but I dislike eco-freaks who have this mentality that I have to care cause they do and any lies told are all for the greater good.

Eh?

ShooterSF is referring to the recent (late 2007) modification of one temperature series (out of umpteen), and erroneously attaching to it the change in terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Now admittedly that change in terminology is over a decade old, but you have to remember that people have gone on using it as a straw man so that when the weather gets cold they can deride "global warming" in pleasingly simplistic terms. You could say that ShooterSF noticing it's now called 'climate change' represents a step forward!

You can see further confusion in ShooterSF's idea that climate science's discovery of climate change is "a very new area for scientists" as opposed to a 40-year old field, although again we can put this down to the assumption that he hasn't been paying attention to the scientific journals for the last quarter-century. I'll grant him his idea that some "eco-freaks" take extreme scenarios as factual, while others tend to adopt an "end of the world is nigh!" approach, or use climate change as a stalking horse for their personally favoured utopian solution.

Neither of those should be taken to detract from 40 years of science that has established with better than 95% confidence that the world is, overall, warming, and that human emissions are the cause of it - I say should, but of course they are being so, and by much the same PR agencies that defended the tobacco and asbestos industries. There's always someone who'll buy FUD and believe they're wiser than the sheeple.

wearily,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Sorry to carry on being off-topic but just to give djpbarry a link so he doesnt think I'm pulling this outta my ass. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/hottest-year-data-meltdown/
Again Im not debating whether it exists or not just that facts are changing and certain eco-freaks (eg Al Gore) aren't in such a rush to correct themselves because of said "greater good"

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

ShooterSF is referring to the recent (late 2007) modification of one temperature series (out of umpteen), and erroneously attaching to it the change in terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Now admittedly that change in terminology is over a decade old, but you have to remember that people have gone on using it as a straw man so that when the weather gets cold they can deride "global warming" in pleasingly simplistic terms. You could say that ShooterSF noticing it's now called 'climate change' represents a step forward!

You can see further confusion in ShooterSF's idea that climate science's discovery of climate change is "a very new area for scientists" as opposed to a 40-year old field, although again we can put this down to the assumption that he hasn't been paying attention to the scientific journals for the last quarter-century. I'll grant him his idea that some "eco-freaks" take extreme scenarios as factual, while others tend to adopt an "end of the world is nigh!" approach, or use climate change as a stalking horse for their personally favoured utopian solution.

Neither of those should be taken to detract from 40 years of science that has established with better than 95% confidence that the world is, overall, warming, and that human emissions are the cause of it - I say should, but of course they are being so, and by much the same PR agencies that defended the tobacco and asbestos industries. There's always someone who'll buy FUD and believe they're wiser than the sheeple.

wearily,
Scofflaw

----
Edit- Sorry, I missed that bit in bold. Fair enough that's the only problem I have with the subject.
----

First 40 years ain't along time in science by any stretch. Second Im not arguing nor do I have a problem with the concept of climate change.
As I said my problem is not the scientists but the eco-freaks who will say whatever it takes to scare people into believing the levels of climate change in effect.
To the point that djpbarry hadnt heard of said fact. I would imagine you'd agree that all facts pro or cons on the theory should be made available without the dramatizations typical of the Al Gore's of the world and not brushed aside when it doesnt fit what they want.
Again I'm not trying to debate climate change.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

First 40 years ain't along time in science by any stretch. Second Im not arguing nor do I have a problem with the concept of climate change.
As I said my problem is not the scientists but the eco-freaks who will say whatever it takes to scare people into believing the levels of climate change in effect.
To the point that djpbarry hadnt heard of said fact. I would imagine you'd agree that all facts pro or cons on the theory should be made available without the dramatizations typical of the Al Gore's of the world and not brushed aside when it doesnt fit what they want.
Again I'm not trying to debate climate change.

Hmm. If you're saying that there are people who get so wedded to their positions on climate change that they're unable to actually entertain 'inconvenient facts' (to coin a phrase) - well, yes, of course, and on both sides, indeed.

However, the problem tends to be that the kind of event you're referring to is itself a straw man, and that's something that's not admitted by those who trumpet it in their blogs. The temperature series that was corrected is a temperature series, and multiple other temperature series from around the world have not suffered from the data error that was corrected here. As the corrected data represent only the 48 contiguous US states, the change to the global picture isn't even detectable, because the US is 2% of the world's surface, and the correction involved was very small - 1998 is now the number 2 hottest year after 1934, which now wins by the same tiny margin as previously distinguished 1998. See attached graph for the amount of the change in the global trend produced by this much-heralded data correction.

Finally, fourty years is indeed pretty old for a scientific field. Geology - the whole discipline - is only four times that age. There are younger fields - biotech for example - that nobody seems to bother disputing on this peculiar basis.

So, the problem I have with pointing the finger at the eco-freaks (who I have no time for either, since their grasp of the science is usually abysmal, and who are frankly just slotting climate change into a pre-desired pattern of global disaster) is that it's often being pointed by people whose use of data is just as partial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw's covered this already, but...

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry to carry on being off-topic but just to give djpbarry a link so he doesnt think I'm pulling this outta my ass.

I am well aware of the "corrections" that were made to NASA data, but your claim that the 30's was the warmest decade of the 20th century is still wide of the mark. That is, if you are referring to the entire globe?

ShooterSF wrote: »

First 40 years ain't along time in science by any stretch.

4 years is a long time in science. 40 years is practically an entire career in science (or any other field, for that matter). You really think that understanding of climate has not advanced much in the last 4 decades?

oscarBravo

Everybody: there's a forum for this discussion, and indeed that forum entertains this very discussion on an ongoing basis. If you're interested in discussing it (obviously djpbarry is, because he participates continuously over there), do it in the right place.

BenjAii

ShooterSF wrote: »

He does seem a bit stubborn but hey he represents his people so leave it to him. As for the climate thing without getting into the is it isnt it debate the problem I have with it is that its a very new area for scientists and they are still making discoveries, which yes currently point to it as a possibility but environmentalists take these theories that are still very young and run them as actual fact. Take the whole renaming global warming to climate change when it was realised that a mis-calculation proved that the hottest decade in the 20th century was actually the 30's.
I trust scientists but I dislike eco-freaks who have this mentality that I have to care cause they do and any lies told are all for the greater good.

I am with you on thinking it healthy, to view things with skepticism and critical thinking.

However, my logical approach to critical thinking tells me that if the vast majority, >99%, of qualified scientists believe something to be so, then it is illogical for me to say the opposite is true, unless I know some enormous truths they don't.

Thus I hold it to be true that the planets climate is changing, that this problem is rapidly getting more severe, and that the cause is largely CO2, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Anyone who says this isn't true, is just a crank or a troll.

Húrin

Dob74 wrote: »

Don't see a direct quote from Kluas about climate change. Considering China is opening a coal power station every week. There is very little the west can do about climate change.

Two important facts:

The Chinese are also far closer to actually reaching their targets for renewable energy capacity than almost any western nation.

At least 25% of China's carbon dioxide emissions are due to its exports to the west.

CDfm wrote: »

I think you are overestimating the influence and can you give a source for your figures.

If it really so cool and easy why are the tarriffs not in place now to protect our economies.

It should be no policy implementation without tariiffs.

So even if the science is a crock at least our economies and jobs are protected.

If it cant be done this way it shouldnt be done at all.

Ah I see: man made climate change is a myth because you think that the policies to control its effects might affect how rich you are.

ShooterSF wrote: »

First 40 years ain't along time in science by any stretch. Second Im not arguing nor do I have a problem with the concept of climate change.
As I said my problem is not the scientists but the eco-freaks who will say whatever it takes to scare people into believing the levels of climate change in effect..

The internet is younger than climate science. Do you make online purchases, trusting its infrastructure to guard your credit card details? Other fields that are as young as climate science are plate tectonics and nuclear energy. All suspect?

Who are these 'eco-freaks' you speak of? The IPCC perhaps? How do you know that their claims are not supported by the scientists?

nesf

This forum is about European Union politics, not Green Issues. This thread is locked because people persist in thinking it's the latter.