By Václav Klaus in Euportal

Czech President Vaclav Klaus told Czech journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated. In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question. “Let us look for a real solution,” he said.

He said he would not take part in today’s lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus’s would be present. Klaus said the reason was his bilateral meetings, adding that he did not feel the need to meet Gore as one of several hundred listeners. He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.  “However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute,” Klaus said.  Read about his actual UN address here.

Read more from Klaus prior to his UN address here.

Investors Business Daily

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels. The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren’t they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today? “They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” the Post said.

But what about political hypocrisy? It’s clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence? Could be he’s feeling a little chill in the air again.  Read full story here.

By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters

Here’s an inconvenient truth our global warming obsessed media seem certain to withhold from the public: biofuels produce more greenhouse gases than oil and gasoline.

Britain’s Times reported Saturday: “Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.”

Amen. In fact, that last sentence is exactly what global warming alarmists around the world are continuing to ignore. After all, the solution to the “nuclear problem” decades ago was coal. Hypocritically, those who fear-mongered this issue enough to prevent the construction of nuclear facilities back then are pointing fingers at coal powered ones today.  Read more here.