Well, they smeared the man who is about to become the most vocal face of the growing "global warming is bullsh*t" chorus, anyway. That would be the brave anti-Communist poet and politician Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic - and soon be the president of the European Union.
Obviously, the Times - acting as the chief mouthpice of the Church of Global Warming - cannot let this rise go unpunished, so they try to smear Vaclav in classic Times style - by quoting enemy propoganda as if it is gospel. Hey, it worked with the Iraq War!
Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.
The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius", and asserts there is "palpable fear" he will "embarrass" the EU.
But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.
As the global financial crisis takes hold, perhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.
Why is the Times so afraid of Klaus? Check out this Q&A with a EuroMedia-weenie, and feel the tremble in the institutions of the liberal elite:
Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission (EC) has approved limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new cars. One week ago, the U.N. climate panel (IPCC AR4) released a report that has described, much like previous reports, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern review about similar threats was published before that. At the same time, you decide to declare that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get your idea?
A: The idea is not mine. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is unfair to refer to the United Nations panel. IPCC is not a scientific body: it's a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavor. It's not a forum of neutral scientists or a balanced group of scientists. Its members are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided sentiments and one-sided tasks. Also, it's an undignified practical joke that people don't wait for the complete report that will appear in May 2007 but instead react, in such a serious manner, to the summary for policy makers where all the "ifs" and "whens" and "buts" are scratched, erased, and replaced by oversimplified theses.
This is obviously such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission were instantly going to buy such a trick, we would have another solid reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar matters.
Q: How do you explain that we can't see any other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would defend your viewpoint? No one else seems to offer such strong opinions...
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-tier politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voices.
The SMH is right, Klaus is right, the Times is wrong, and will be on the losing side of history, again. Ironic that just as the Left has taken its firmest hold on power in America since 1992, the public (European as well as our own) is turning against the fallacy of its "global warming = death!" mantra in a big, big way. Late to the party, as usual...
Doesn't mean they won't try to force some economically deadly "cap and trade" schemes and gasoline taxes down our throats anyway. It would likely put said liberals out of a job in two years, but for the Democrats ideology has always trumped reality, anyway. One can only hope...
The article at the link above closes with a great line, incidentally, about the Church of Global Warming's use of its power to smear those who don't hew to its radical dogma:
...you can't stop people [from] thinking. Yet.
Yet...
No comments:
Post a Comment