Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and survivor of communism, has a penchant for deflating the pretensions of politicians, due at least in part to his past experiences with politics gone wild. In his view, Freedom, not climate, is at risk.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

There's nothing new in this. Others have said as much and more. If it has special value it is that these things are being said by someone who is especially sensitive to the predations of overwheening government.

He has a very good point. Whether you agree with those he goes on to cite, such as MIT professor Richard Lindzen, that “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”, or not, the threats to liberal democracy and human freedom arising from reaction to climate concerns, are an even greater concern.

An example of the very thing Klaus objects to comes as a response to his commentary: Rational thought at risk – not freedom, from Climate Feedback by Olive Heffernan:

Klaus fails to even attempt to challenge any specifics of the scientific literature on climate change, but instead writes climate science off as ‘propoganda’, making his Comment absurd.

No, it is not absurd. As he said "The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced." Klaus's issue is politics, the hijacking of climate science and policy by vocal true believers. His point is valid and important whether you find the scientific consensus about the extent and causes of climate change compelling or not. The policies prescribed by believers are not even remotely scientific, they are pure politics and a sort of religion, or at least ideology.

I share his concerns and his distaste for the type of policies being promoted by the faithful. But more importantly, I reject those policies because they won't actually achieve any climate change related objectives. We would sacrifice our freedoms, and not even get relief or some sort of climate security. All we would get would be government on steroids, squandering an ever greater portion of our resources while producing nothing of value, not even good governance.

But, as Olive might say, I am not qualified to have an opinion. I have a right to an opinion, but a duty not to express it unless it agrees with the party line. This, more than anything, is the greatest threat the world faces.