You can guess whether the BBC journalist and the Czech president agreed about every word or not. ;-)
I find the approach of the journalist somewhat incredible. It's the same kind of guys who like to say that George Bush is unprecedentedly stupid. But he finds it sensible to take the opinions of the same George Bush and other similar people and accuse Prof Václav Klaus of "plain arrogance" just because he doesn't agree with those fashionable talking points by all these lesser minds. It is apparently not "plain arrogance" to treat a European president in this way.
Their behavior is just an amazing combination of stupidity, intimidation, and hypocrisy.
After the second part of the video, Klaus answers that he has grandchildren. They won't know about the global warming debate in 30 years because it will be forgotten. But if they find something about it, they will just say that their granddad was right.
Finally, Stephen Sackur asks a few questions about the European constitution and the radar.
Klaus vs Smolin: a comparison
If you happened to think that HARDtalk is always equally hard, have a look at the interview with a far-left critic of physics, Lee Smolin: Real Video, HTML. I can't watch the whole interview because 90 percent of his statements are lies so that it drives me up the wall. But one observation is clear.
The approach of the journalist is very different. Suddenly, Sackur doesn't seem to think that it is "plain arrogance" to suggest that the top 2,500 high-energy theorists might be wrong and a criticism of a crank could be right. Especially when you take into account that string theorists' IQ exceeds climatologists' IQ by more than 20 points (and even all of physics is 7 points above Earth sciences in average), it is hard not to ask: where does the different attitude come from? Why is it that in the field controlled by lousy scientists, it is always the majority who must be right and any disagreement is "plain arrogance", while in fields dominated by the smartest people on Earth, it is the "audacious" minority cranks who must be supported by the journalists?
Well, as long as it is the far-left loons who are fighting against the basic values, principles, "establishment", and achievements of the Western civilization and science - such as crackpots of the Lee Smolin type - they deserve the support. Once this politicizing crap takes over - for example in the case of the left-wing climate "scientists" - heretics must be liquidated. This is how the left-wing movement thinks and this is why it is comparably dangerous as Al Qaeda if not more so.