Friday, November 26, 2010

Huge EU funds plan to corrupt Czech science and fabricate Czech alarmists

The percentage of the Czechs who are climate alarmists is negligible today. Passionate desires to "save the planet" are virtually non-existent among the generic people which is also why the media rarely write about the topic and if they do, their approach is balanced in average.

Even in the academic system, there are just a few IPCC-faithful alarmists - right now, I can only think of Mr Ladislav Metelka as a clear example - and the number of skeptics is arguably higher: for example, Dr Miroslav Kutílek has just received a presidential medal. ;-) The alarmists are confined to the extreme environmentalist movements.

Of course, our president, Václav Klaus, is probably the most powerful climate realist among the world's politicians. Also, the party he founded - ODS - which is the main party forming the current government coalition - is "softly" on Klaus' side, too. Interestingly enough, the list of Klaus' soulmates more or less includes the current minister of environment. ;-)

However, this may change as people get paid from the EU.

As a Prague Post blog and lots of Czech media reported, the education minister has accepted a EUR 25 million - or USD 35 million - subsidy from the EU that will create a huge research team, "CzechGlobe", composed of 150 people in Brno, the second largest city in the country.




This single step will increase the funding meant to create climate alarmists in the Czech Republic at least by one order of magnitude. The money is just gigantic. Even if you divide the EU subsidy among the 150 people, you will learn that each of those people may be given the average Czech salary for 15 years.

In other words, the EU will fund 150 people who will suddenly emerge out of the vacuum and who will spread lies about the climate and create the completely flawed impression that the Czech scientists have actually reached a conclusion that there is a global warming worth talking about. And you should have no doubt that the loyalty to the global warming lies is a key necessary condition for a person to be paid out of the grant. The Prague Post blog describes the mission as follows:
Both Czech and foreign scientists will recreate extreme conditions of global warming like increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to test the effect on plants, as well as studying water cycles and geological patterns.
As you know very well, there exists nothing such as "extreme conditions of global warming" so to "recreate" these conditions, your expenses should be zero rather than USD 35 million. The average temperatures may change by something like 0-2 °C per century and the CO2 concentration will increase by 50 percent or so.

That will of course gradually make even crazy things such as biofuels - that are also mentioned among possible "applications" of this grant - easier to be grown. The plant growth rate may increase by 20 percent or so. But what do they actually want to measure or invent? It's clear that there will be no moment at which the CO2 concentration will suddenly and qualitatively change to allow plants that were previous uneconomic.

Clearly, if a scientist realizes that there won't be any "extreme conditions of global warming", he or she can't participate.

This whole thing looks like a scam. I kind of believe that if there will suddenly be people paid from these foreign funds who will spread lies as a result of this corruption, they should get a life in prison for their high treason because they will have clearly joined foreign powers to fight against the interests of their own country.

There are at least two such interests: the most important one is "Veritas", i.e. the truth, which is explicitly mentioned at the Czech president's flag since the era of the first Czechoslovak president Masaryk. Comparably importantly, however, the health of the Czech economy depends on the industry for which the freedom to produce the gas we call life is vital.

Via Willie Soon and klimaskeptik.cz



Snow is back in Pilsen

With 4 weeks of the autumn remaining, Pilsen is below the freezing point and there are lots of snow covering our roads. I have changed the seasonal background image on this blog accordingly.



On Friday, while Obama got 12 stitches in his First Lip after being elbowed by an unnamed opposing basketball player, your humble correspondent has experimentally verified the law for centrifugal acceleration and the reduction of the coefficient of static friction in freezing conditions.

My mopped slipped in a highly curved curve. I fell 2 meters away from it while the moped escalated its noise. My digital camera got an acceleration shock and had to be rebooted, clothes had to be washed. The rubbed knees are the most visible and painful memory of the accident. ;-)

Like tubs, roads are slippery. ;-) They are most slippery when covered by a film of liquid sufficient to reduce the coefficient of static friction between the tire and the road to essentially zero but not so deep as to introduce a new source of friction.

14 comments:

  1. Wonderful!
    For a pittance, the EU can neutralize the Czech dissent.
    Unless of course the Czech leadership is smart enough to staff the new entity with researchers that do independent science, rather than political hack work, presuming that that many exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I expect the Euro will be dead before this dastardly plan can be executed ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. it's certainly very disturbing. The problem is there are a lot of intelligent people who believe in AGW. Because they don't have a scientific background they simply accept the fact AGW is a reality because they hear it over and over again in the media. When I was young I remember, so often, english people saying...how was it a nation like the germans could en masse subjugate themselves to the will of the nazis. Now somewhat older, I appreciate how easy it is to fool all of the people all of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Exactly, Kevin! It has always been a mystery for me why e.g. almost all Germans bought into Hitler's ideas and plans, among other things.

    I am no longer puzzled today.

    The expectation that people couldn't be manipulated in similar ways probably boiled down to a rigid education system. We have heard many things at school - and they were mostly right, I guess, and presented as obvious. No schoolkid could efficiently oppose the teacher, anyway.

    So by seeing the consensus in the classroom, we may have incorrectly concluded that almost no one could possibly think (or fail to think) differently.

    But people can manipulated just like sheep - and formal signs of intelligence don't seem to make any difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Watching the EU is like watching the little boy trying to plug 100 holes in the dike. The narrative falling apart.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps the very resourceful and resilient Czech scientists will find some surprising truths in their research ;-) that CO2 and AGW is not a problem! Yes it is a concern, but maybe it is also an oppportunity.

    Verity Jones

    ReplyDelete
  7. The CzechGlobe is nothing about question "AGW yes or not" or about responsibility for it. The main task of CzechGlobe is "adaptation" to changing climate. So I really do not understand why somebody is thinking about alarmists/skeptics in junction with CzechGlobe. It is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Mr Radim,

    your strange comment may result from your ignorance about the word "skeptic".

    A "climate skeptic" is someone who realizes that the problems posed by the changing climate are essentially zero, regardless of their origin, so if someone pays CZK 650 million for the research of these problems, from any perspective, he is simply throwing CZK 650 million into the toilet - in the best case.

    I can't believe you really believe that this has nothing to do with the "skeptic vs alarmist" issue. There will clearly be 150 people who can only be adopted to this corrupt team if they agree that there is a problem of global warming, and after they get their money, they will become vocal advocates of the idea that there is a problem of global warming. You know, CZK 650 million is a lot of money to buy someone.

    Your claim that this has nothing to do with the skeptic-alarmist divide will only make sense once you show me that something like 1/2 of the participants of the project openly realize that there is nothing such as a climate change "problem".

    Best wishes
    Lubos

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, Mr Radim, if you wanted to write that this group of biologists in Brno won't be professionally equipped to determine whether the climate change takes place and how much may be contributed by X and Y, I completely agree.

    But that's the case of most of the IPCC, too. A majority of the IPCC is composed of various folks from adjacent disciplines who have no physical expertise to predict the behavior of the atmosphere.

    They're hired to amplify various conclusions prepared by a much smaller group of their colleagues - they are hired to invent "what if" scenarios. They begin with a (bogus) "what if" assumption and they invent a "maybe" conclusion, which is taken by another layer of this pseudoscientific community as their "what if" assumption.

    Most of the CAGW business isn't about the climate science. It's a multi-layered scheme to invent preposterous speculations and spread fear. That's exactly what's so wrong about this whole business. If they got the money for judging whether some climate change worth talking about will occur, while not being bound by any predetermined conclusions, it could be OK. In fact, I think that in the Czech context, the majority conclusion would be "No".

    But this is a "what if" working group constrained by pre-existing and incorrect assumptions about an "extreme global warming" and similar quasi-religious rubbish. Biologists who have absolutely no credentials to talk about the climate will be saying lots of "derived" conclusions about global warming that will be used as a scientific support for the assumption of their work, too.

    That's how it has always worked. The consensus is being made by tons of totally stupid people similar to Alexander Ač who may - perhaps - study the beetles in the sunny meadows, or whatever was Ač's thesis. But because these folks are being linked to "climate change", their idiotic and activist opinions about the topic of climate change are being elevated above those of the average people which is totally unacceptable because they actually know much less than the average people about the actual climate dynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is CzechGlobe the group of people getting that grant?
    I've just found out that Alexander Ac, one of worst climate alarmist on slovak newspaper sme.sk is now part of CzechGlobe ("Centrum výskumu globálnej zmeny" !!!)
    So there you can see just the tipe of people who will get tha EU money :/
    btw the link to his latest "science" articles
    http://komentare.sme.sk/c/5682316/ad-a-co-ak-sa-neotepluje-8-12.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Martin, well, I suppose that all Czechoslovak alarmists will be a part of the CzechGlobe project. There are not too many of them. I am sure that Ač will happily add a billion of dollars to increase his footprint from 2.4 hectars to a few thousand squared miles.

    Alexander Ač is known to the TRF community and I know him in person, too. He e.g. moderated my public debate against another Slovak alarmist, Prof Milan Lapin.

    Our last correspondence with AA was about a guest post written by him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is some of the most side-splittingly amusing nonsense I've ever read on this topic. I must visit your planet or dimension or wherever it is you live more often for a good laugh. Eurosceptics and climiate change sceptics swimming together in ever decreasing circles. I especially enjoyed the comparison of Nazis to climate change scientists on the same page as an EUUSSR symbol. What is it going to be guys - Nazis or Soviets? Sorry to disillusion you, but you can't have it both, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Andrew, when one looks at the details, the EUSSR is governed neither by the Nazis nor Soviets - it's a new form of a non-democratic establishment.

    However, if you don't understand what the Nazis and the Soviets had in common, and what the EU structures try to imitate in many current situations, then it's very very sad - you have no idea what democracy (and its absence) means.

    It has been wisely said that the main difference between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin had 5-year plans while Hitler had 4-year plans. Also, Stalin has killed a somewhat higher number of people.

    Learn how to spell "climate".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks for the correction, Lubos. I trust you'll permit me to return the courtesy, although I don't wish to take up too much space here on English grammar because Lord knows I could.
    You're quite correct, of course, that Nazis and the Soviets under Stalin had some features in common, not least their penchant for dealing permanently with their opponents. But then it's quite easy to find similarities between any two seemingly opposing subjects, such as, for example, a climate change sceptic and Tommaso Caccini. But to make comparisons between the EU and the Soviet system is laughable, as are Professor Klaus's comments along similar lines. You've clearly become inculcated by the culture wars being waged in the USA and elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon world (re: your very lazy and slavish repetition of the conspiracy script followed by the right-wing in the USA and directed toward the "socialist" President Obama) and it's a real pity to see them filtering through to the Czech Republic.
    As for understanding democracy, I can think of better examples than the USA where wholesale gerrymandering takes place regularly in congressional districts and where presidential candidates with a majority of the common vote are deprived of office, or the Czech Republic where out-and-out corruption by politicians remains the order of the day. In case you were wondering, being a Czech dissident doesn't necessarily require one to continue to reject any statement made by the establishment or the mainstream. Those days are long gone, and at 37, you're way too young to be part of that culture. In a true democracy, the majority tends to hold sway, and in the case of climate science the vast and overwhelming majority of the scientific community around the entire world and not just in Europe happens to think that we may be cooking up some danger to ourselves. Probably worth taking account of, huh?

    ReplyDelete