By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Hello, children! Are you all sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.
Greta, dear, do wipe that nasty, frowning sneer off your face. If the wind blows on it, you’ll look like that for the rest of your life, and that wouldn’t be very nice, now, would it?

Once upon a time, some very naughty grown-ups made up a wicked story to frighten all you little ones with. They said it was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter. It was going to be ever so hot. Really, really hot. Yes, Alexandria, hotter even than Brad Pitt, if that’s possible.
But, you see, children, you can’t always believe what grown-ups say. Part of growing up is learning to work out when you are being told the truth and when you are not.
So today, children, I’m going to have to tell you that quite a lot of what dear old Ms Snorkel, your science teacher, has been telling you about global warming turns out not to be true. Not true at all. Dear me, no.
You see, Miss Snorkel thinks that just because someone says something dreadful is going to happen, then it’s going to happen. Just like that.
But just because someone says they think something bad is going to happen, that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. It might not happen. So you mustn’t just believe it’s going to happen. You must check what you are told. Don’t just believe it.
Miss Snorkel has told you the experts say the weather is going to get a whole lot warmer. So I’ve drawn a nice picture for you, so that you can see whether they’re right.

Observed warming (HadCRUT4: dark green cursor) due to 2.49 W m–2 net anthropogenic forcing from 1850-2011 (lower scale: IPCC 2013, figure SPM.5) scaled to 3.45 W m–2 2xCO2 forcing (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP5: upper scale: Andrews 2012). The 3.35 K CMIP5 (red cursor) and 4.05 K CMIP6 (purple cursor) midrange Charney sensitivities imply 2.4 K and 2.9 K transient warming from 1850-2011, three or four times the observed 0.75 K and almost thrice the 1 K period equilibrium warming expected from net forcing and radiative imbalance to 2011 (orange cursor). Revised projections (green) accord with observation and expectation.
Deary me, it really doesn’t look as though the experts Mrs Snorkel trusts were right about how much warmer the weather was going to be. My oh my, they seem to have overshot quite a bit, don’t they?
The very first question you should ask when grown-ups like Ms Snorkel tell you the world is going to get hotter is this. In the nicest and perfectest of all possible worlds, what would be the ideal temperature for all the cuddly creatures and pretty trees and flowers?
Has Ms Snorkel told you what that magic, ideal temperature would be? No, I didn’t think so. But look at it this way. If she hasn’t told you that, how can she know that warmer worldwide weather would be a bad thing?
Yes, Greta, dear? What about the cuddly polar bears? Won’t all that melting ice mean they have nowhere to live? Here’s another picture for you.

Lots and lots of lovely polar bears! Isn’t that nice, children?

By now, kiddiwinks, you’ll be wondering why all those experts got it so wrong. Well, here’s the thing. They made some big mistakes. Yes, Greta, I’m saying they screwed up, but we don’t use language like that in class.
There’s that face again, Greta. Just relax. Yes, of course, I’ll tell you what they got wrong.
You see, they forgot the Sun was shining. But if you look out of the window you can see for yourself that it is. Yes, I know it seems strange that they forgot the Sun was shining, but that’s exactly what they did. Silly of them, wasn’t it?
Yes, Greta, there are “feedback loops”. But that doesn’t mean the feedback loops will make the climate run away to a “tipping point”. What it does mean is that the feedbacks don’t just respond to warmer weather caused by the fact that there are greenhouse gases in the air. They have to respond to the fact that the Sun is shining. Not much choice about it.
But the experts more or less completely forgot about the feedback response to the sunshine. They made the mistake of counting it as part of the feedback response to greenhouse gases. And that made them think there would be a whole lot more warming from greenhouse gases than anyone sensible would ever expect.
How do I know? Well, here’s another picture. What it shows is that if there were 4 K global warming, which the experts now predict, the feedbacks would have to make 350 times as much more warming for each degree of greenhouse-gas warming than they did for each degree of the emission temperature that would keep the Earth warm even if there were no greenhouse gases and no feedback loops. And they can’t do that. It’s impossible.
Here’s a picture to show you how silly the experts are.

Unit-feedback-response ratios
for Charney sensitivities on [1.0,4.05] K and emission temperatures of 255.6 K (IPCC 1990) and 274 K (Lindzen 1994). The CMIP5 3.35 K and CMIP6 4.05 K midrange Charney sensitivity estimates (solid yellow) imply, per impossibile, that the unit-feedback-response ratio
is 80 or even 350.
Why are there two curves on the graph? That’s an excellent question, Nancy. The reason is that no one quite knows how big the emission temperature would be without any greenhouse gases or feedbacks.
But the trouble with the official figure of about 255 K is that the experts calculate it by imagining that the Earth is flat. Then they divide the sunshine by a kludge-factor of 4 in a clumsy attempt to adjust their sums for the fact that the Earth is round. Not very clever, are they, acting as though the Earth was flat?
But that’s not the only mistake they make when they try to calculate emission temperature. They calculate it by imagining there would be clouds in the air, just as there are today, reflecting almost a third of that lovely sunshine harmlessly straight back into space.
But clouds are made of water vapour, and water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and it is only in the air because of feedbacks. But at emission temperature there would be no water vapour in the air and no feedbacks. Oops! Aren’t the experts silly, children?
No, Greta, I’m not an expert. But Professor Richard Lindzen is. He’s the very expertest of all the experts. And here’s what he says about it:
“In considering an atmosphere without greenhouse substances (in order to get 255 K), clouds are retained for their visible reflectivity while ignored for their infrared properties. More logically, one might assume that the elimination of water would also lead to the absence of clouds, leading to a temperature of about 274 K rather than 255 K.”
If the Earth is not flat, and if the emission temperature is really 274 K and not 255 K, then the natural greenhouse effect, which the experts think is 32 K, is really only 13 K. And, since the Sun is shining even though the experts pretend it isn’t, most of that “natural greenhouse effect” is actually the feedback response to the sunshine and not to the greenhouse gases.
And that’s not all that the experts got wrong. You see, children, you can’t just spend, spend, spend without working out whether what you spend is going to make any difference. So the experts did their sums and worked out that the only way it would be worthwhile to spend any money on making global warming go away was to pretend there was a 1 in 10 chance the world would come to an end by 2100 because of global warming.
Yes, Greta, that’s what they pretended. You can look up Dietz et al. 2007 after class. That’s where they admitted they had pretended that global warming might end the world by 2100.
The truth is that there’s no chance the world will come to an end by 2100 because of global warming. After correcting all the experts’ scientific mistakes, there will only be about 1 K of global warming this century, and sea level will rise by about 4 inches, and the world will carry on spinning much as it does now, even if we do absolutely nothing at all to make global warming go away.
Well, that’s all we have time for today, children. But don’t worry, Greta: your future will be a rosy one. The world will be a little warmer, but that’s a very good thing, not a very bad thing. Now, stop worrying about the weather, go out and play, and enjoy the sunshine!
I feel sorry for Greta. She’s a cognitively damaged adolescent who’s being manipulated and abused by very wicked people.
I don’t to be honest.
While I will be one of the first to claim that children, due to lack of experience and training, are more useless than graduates and that graduates should never be left unsupervised or allowed to play with sharp objects, people also need to remember that children still have free will.
Yes, their experience base that can be used to support their decision process is so small it may as well be negative, but children are still capable of making their own decisions. If they should then be judged responsible for actions resulting from those decisions is an open question. To me responsibility for one’s actions is the benchmark of adulthood but we digress.
My point is Greta still nominally has free will. This is a path she has selected for herself and ‘How Dare You’ aside, she shows a lot of evidence that she has embraced this role.
So for me I have an irrational teenager ranting and, without actually explaining why, declaring that everything I am doing is wrong and how I must tear down my civilisation.
Sorry Nordic Thanos, but HOW DARE YOU! Ranting about an IPCC report you clearly haven’t yourself read is not proof. Telling me I am not doing enough is not a solution. As far as my free will decision goes you are threatening the way of life of myself, my family and my future. How Dare You!
Greta had my sympathy right up until she started to demand my compliance. If she decides to start discussing concerns I may change my view, but until then she can go jump.
And isn’t the Green New Deal supposed to be the climate solution they demand? The core of the GND is only supposed to cost $93 Trillion over ten years! That’s $65,000 per household each year, or $650,000 per household over ten years!
That’s the good news!
The bad news is that a broad analysis of the GND indicates a total cost of $200 Trillion over ten years, along with 75,000,000 jobs lost!!
I’m betting my job is one of ’em, and so is yours!
So with the complete de-industrialization of the US, why bother to work? There won’t be anything worthwhile to buy and no money to buy it with. There’d be no reason to get up each morning! No family to feed, no kids to raise, no job to drive… err, walk to!
Maybe that’s the end of the world AOC promises in 10 or 12 years! Her prediction does coincide with completion of the Green New Dead….err, Deal!
To survive theoretical in some distant future we all have to Lie down now and die?
I misheard Sir David Attenborough on the radio this morning when he was eulagising her, and thought he called her Greta Humbug. Um? That goes along with her being dressed like Wednesday Adams or Pippi Longstocking.
I feel the poor girl is being manipulated by adults for nefarious purposes, and should be back at school learning some science (not climate!) and maths, and be allowed to enjoy her childhood.
Although now she is of an age that used to be called the terrible teens, when behaviour is based more on emotion than rational thinking:
urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?Content types=1&ContentID=3051
This is not an addressee him but a criticism of those who abuse a child’s childhood by making her fearful and angry.
If they have something to say then it should be said by an adult.
“…thought he called her Greta Humbug. Um? That goes along with her being dressed like Wednesday Adams or Pippi Longstocking.”
I heard some very insensitive people calling her, “Scoldilocks” and I told them it wasn’t nice no matter how funny it was but they wouldn’t listen. No, they wouldn’t listen at all.
From here on out I will only refer to her as Threata Gūnberg (pronounced Goonberg). Seems more fitting.
Your comment reminds me of something a history professor said about some country – Iran? – after they had a revolution: “….and this is why graduate students should never be allowed to make policy.”
For what it’s worth, the Catholic Church considers seven years old to be the “age of reason”, where you are morally culpable for your actions.
Right, StevenP:
Greta, the twin of https://www.google.com/search?q=+Wednesday+Adams+&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&ctxr&ctxsl_trans=1&tlitetl=de&tlitetxt=%20Wednesday%20Adams%20
By the way:
Remind her of https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQQhsriFHyvS-1RyMAlexXhefVmzw%3A1570160337460&ei=0b6WXdrUG8SkwAKrkJXIBw&q=the+picture+of+dorian+gray&gs_ssp=eJzj4tDP1TcwL6gqN2AEABB3Atc&oq=the+picture&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
She is an actress, you know. Here is the link to her page on the Internet Movie Data Base:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10361418/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3
Her parents and paternal grandfather were actors/performers, too.
Here is an expanded version….
Looky Here! Child Actress Greta Thunberg!….SUCKERS!!!!!!
Greta Thunberg
Actress | Miscellaneous Crew
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10361418/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3
Greta Thunberg was born on January 3, 2003 in Sweden as Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg. She is known for her work on Ave paraíso (2019), Climate Change: The Facts (2019) and Heti Dörgés Villám Gézával (2019). See full bio »
Born: January 3, 2003 in Sweden
1 video »
https://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2610741017?playlistId=nm10361418&ref_=nm_ov_vi
Known For:
Ave paraíso
Actress
(2019)
Climate Change: The Facts
Herself – Climate Activist
(2019)
Heti Dörgés Villám Gézával
Herself
(2019)
ITV News at Ten
Miscellaneous Crew
Filmography
Jump to: Actress | Miscellaneous Crew | Self | Archive footage
Hide HideActress (1 credit)
2019 Ave paraíso (Short) (voice)
Show ShowMiscellaneous Crew (1 credit)
Show ShowSelf (17 credits)
Show ShowArchive footage (9 credits)
Related Videos
Climate Change: The Facts — David Attenborough takes a stark look at the facts surrounding climate change in today’s world, detailing the dangers we are already having to deal with and future threats, but also the possibilities for prevention and radical political, social and cultural change.
Personal Quote: [to the U.N. Global Climate Action Summit, September 2019] You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words… People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of an endless economic growth. How dare you! See more »
Trivia: Granddaughter of Olof Thunberg and daughter of Malena Ernman & Svante Thunberg.
Pull off the MASK, and…..
In the beginning I thought she was sincere, but after seeing her speech at the UN I changed my mind. She seems to be trying to work herself up into a rage and failing. A very bad performance indeed.
It’s the mission of gurus to cognitively damage you, rob you of yr precious self-possession , as per Messrs George Soros, Al Gore, Doctors Edward Bernays and Joseph G**bells, Chairman Mao and his down- the- memory -whole Cultural Revolution indoctrinating youth to dob in on their parents, and professors. – it goes wa-aay back, even to Plato, the philosopher king and his ‘noble’ because ‘necessary’ lie.
Robin has been researching the educational system in the US for many years-
http://invisibleserfscollar.com/epiphany-moment-education-as-cultural-transformation-using-heart-and-mind-manipulation/
Craig, I didn’t felt quite like you do about Greta until I read this from a mother with a child with Aspergers. Now, I feel angry that they are using and abusing this poor child. She really can’t help it.
Thread offers devastating insight into why the Left’s weaponization of Greta Thunberg is particularly egregious
http://bit.ly/2mWK86v
This is exactly what I have said about her situation numerous times.
I did not have to have a kid with the condition to know it.
In fact, it would be just as wrong for any parent to do this to any kid.
The job of raising kids , done properly, is the opposite of scaring them to death every single day.
As an aside, I am not at all sure she has any such condition.
I have watched several interviews she has done on morning shows and such, meeting people like Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others.
She appears to me to have a normal range of emotions, which of course vary hugely from one person to another to begin with.
In fact most teens would be unable to meet some famous person while on TV and keep up a bantering mood and a sly smile on their face.
After seeing her and carefully considering her micro-expressions and comparing that to authoritative descriptions of how people with various conditions on “The Spectrum” are supposed to be different, I have concluded she does not act or seem at all like what is described in the literature.
I would not be a bit surprised if she has any mental condition to the same degree she can see CO2.
CLOUDS,CLOUDS,CLOUDS.
The IPCC is very cloudy on clouds , in fact they dont worry about them .
Every day and night , clouds have more affect on our temperature than wind,sun or sea temps .
A cloudy day will be cooler , a cloudy night will be warmer .
A cloudless day will be warmer , a cloudless night will be cooler .
The temps will vary anything from 5/10c to 20/40c in different areas depending on cloud .
Einstein or Yogi bear might suggest we should look at world wide cloud coverage .
The IPCC suggests we look at all that CO2 we are emitting .
This link talks about clouds and models.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
Did you read the article at that link?
Basically;
“Other gross model simplifications include
# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics
# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.”
Yes, it talks of clouds and models but not in a good way, just underlines the fact models simply are not fit for purpose especially when we are talking about global energy and economic policy.
ttps://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
‘I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down and still somehow
It’s clouds’ illusions I recall,
I really don’t know clouds at all.’
H/t Cli-sci modellers in cloud towers.
In considering clouds. clouds, clouds, let us not forget to consider humidity, humidity, humidity.
Because you see, it is true that a cloudless day will be warmer than a cloudy one, and a cloudy night will be warmer than a cloudy one…all other things being equal.
But what we need to know very often, is how much warmer a cloudless day will be.
And to get an answer to that question, we need to know how humid the air is.
A humid day will not be as hot as a day with low humidity (I am referring to the absolute rather than relative humidity. IOW, the dew point of the air), and a humid night will not be as cool as a night with low humidity.
Generally speaking, every night the air will cool to the dew point.
And it is very important to know that this temperature will be reached well before dawn.
And it is very important to realize the significance of this basic observable fact.
What it means is that the atmosphere has plenty of extra built in cooling capacity.
If for some reason one day is hotter than the previous one, and all else is equal, it will wind up just as cool by dawn of the following day.
The atmosphere will not have any chance of runaway warming, where one warm day leads to the next day being warmer, if the dew point temperature remains the same. Put another way, if the whole atmosphere keeps the same amount of moisture in it, the temperature will not vary by much. It will not get much hotter, or cooler…all else being the same.
And if there is more moisture in the air over time, this will cause it to be less warm during the day, and less cool just prior to dawn.
IOW…a warmer world will have more humidity in the air, and the temperature will be milder.
Not as hot by day, not as cool by night.
And if there is anything that plants like, it is humid weather than is not too hot by day, and warm overnight.
The only thing plants like more than that is if there is also plenty of nutrients for the plant to use for growth, and the primary plant nutrient is CO2.
Happy plants mean more and bigger plants.
More and bigger plants mean a more robust biosphere…being that plants are at the base of the entire food chain of the biosphere (particularly if we are to use the term to mean any and all photosynthesizing organisms).
All of this is why no one has or can explain how it is that the Earth is greener, crop yields are way up and rising, in a world which is warmer and has more CO2 in the air and ocean than when it was cooler with less CO2.
It is beyond odd that anyone can suppose that although the world is greener and the base of the biosphere’s food chain is thus more robust and abundant, that this is somehow a precursor to imminent catastrophe and the end of the world.
Anyone who thinks this is misinformed or miseducated or a fool.
Anyone who says this and is not misinformed, miseducated, or a fool, is a liar.
There are no other possibilities.
Should be:
…a cloudy night will be warmer than a cloudless one…
Sorry.
One more (doh!):
“…no one has or can explain how it is some sort of a crisis that the Earth is greener…”
Thanks for this great humidity argument.
Funny question: is overnight cooling at all part of IPCC “modeling”?
If not, than AGW acolytes are also flat-earth believers 🙂
Simply Argument for children could be: without greenhouse gases weather would be like on the moon: up to +130 at day and +170 at night. Greenhouse effect works like a coat on a body, it limits the extremities and eventually moves average slightly up, which is no problem. So more CO2 means milder, livable world. Discussion is over, the truth is settled, go play around and have fun.
No. The moon has NO atmosphere, none, nothing.
Not that fast, Patrick MJD:
https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+atmosphere+composition&oq=moon+athm&aqs=chrome.
Excellent comment – much appreciated.
Thanks N.McGinley ,so humidity is a factor as well as clouds .
Both being water based , where does CO2 affect their composition .
It appears clouds and also humidity directly affect air and land or sea surface temp to a very large degree .
How does CO2 fit into the equation?
Thats what the IPCC and Greta are concerned about .
Early 20th century warming was virtually indistinguishable from late 20th century warming, and since then the temp has been mostly flat, with a couple of excursions caused by el nino ocean cycles.
There is no time scale at which increasing CO2 can be seen to lead to higher air temperatures for the planet. Simply put, the historical temperature data does not correlate with the CO2 concentration, not including the highly problematic adjustments to the original historical time series of temperature.
References for the above assertions can be found in the following links.
The first is at about 35:29 in this lecture given by Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist with a long career at MIT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so3ELA7NpVw&t=1786s
I encourage giving the whole thing a watch for anyone who has never seen it.
The second is to an article on this site, written by Professor Robert Brown of Duke University and Werner Brozek. The very long comment thread is likewise worth the time to read it again, even if you read or participated in it at the time.
The subject is the correlation, discovered by Tony Heller, between the sum of the temperature adjustments, and the CO2 concentration of the air as it has increased over time.
The correlation is near perfect, R squared of ~ .99, proving that the adjustments are made using an algorithm which is forcing the historical data to correlate with increasing CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
This third one is a recent posting from Tony Heller updating and reconfirming the troublesome finding that the tampering with historical temperature data has corrupted the time series to match increasing CO2:
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/new-video-rewriting-americas-history/
This finding made by Tony Heller is pertaining to the US records, but it can be shown rather easily that the same process has been carried out on other data sets of a global nature.
Warmistas maintain that each of the adjustments is justified and correct, but this cannot disguise the fact that when they are all added it up, it just so happens that the sum of them perfectly matches increasing CO2 in the air.
Not that those of us paying close attention over the years needed more proof, but these adjustments are the smoking gun of corruption in the climate science business.
Excellent comments on humidity, Nicholas.
That”s for sure. See what climate modeler Dr Nakamura has to say about clouds:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
“Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm.” Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.”
“Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.”
And the Alarmists want us to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to reduce CO2 based on something as flimsy as the Global Climate Models, that can’t even model clouds, the most important factor of the Earth’s climate.
It rather looks as if the wind did change and blow on Greta’s face, because that expression has been fixed on Greta Thunderbird for a very long while now. I hope that she listens to Uncle Christopher.
My impression is that she has lately and rather suddenly put on a much more nasty, angry, and downright mean looking, face.
seeing as that pic was taken with some serious lighting on her..
her pupils are suspiciously large
so what had she taken/been given prior?
I suppose I would want to see the eyes of the people sitting next to her.
Modern digital cameras can give a bright looking photo even in low light conditions.
My phone can take an excellent picture outside at night, practically in the dark, w/ no flash.
And that is just a phone.
There may be something to that, and I can see what you are referring to in the picture, but it may not be what it seems.
Besides, that does not strictly speaking have any bearing on the issues at hand.
Lot’s of people take lots of things for any number of reasons.
Speaking for myself, I want to keep my focus on the more immediately and obviously relevant issues, and try to steer clear of the strictly personal.
Which is admittedly difficult, since making it highly personal is exactly what her strategists have deliberately engineered.
27 years ago at the Rio Summit another teenage girl was used: Severn Cullis-Suzuki. She read too much from the script and was not so angry faced – it didn’t work.
They had to go for an guaranteed angry teen: Greta. That plus the mass social media available now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJJGuIZVfLM
Servern made a good and long career out of it though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Cullis-Suzuki
Too bad Greta’s ultimate source of funding is Gates and Soros, two of the more strident Globalists in the world!
True, though they made their fortunes quite differently. Gates through license fees from millions individually while Soros grabbed his through a massive currency speculation on the UK pound in trouble. They spend it differently too: Gates more in the medical field and Soros mostly political. The latter should be lawed out IMO.
“…Soros grabbed his through a massive currency speculation on the UK pound in trouble…
He also abused the Australian dollar. Several years ago it got up to US$1.04. He cashed in. It hasn’t recovered yet. Today – US$0.67.
(I know, I know – Australia has also had political problems, a Royal Commission investigating the banks, the price of iron ore dropped, and several other problems – even the Reserve Bank of Australia – but I still hold GS to blame.)
Message to children about climate change with less attitude can be read here:
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change/
When Scott Adams includes a statement to children like, “You are now smarter than most adults on the topic of climate,” he reveals a massive blind spot in his observations. I love his Dilbert cartoons because they so often reflect what is observed in the real workplace but he seems not to have sat and observed in a modern school classroom.
Being declared smart on the topic of climate, by someone who is demonstrably dumb on the topic of climate, is not such high praise, IMO.
Poor children – they were never raised in a world where nuclear weapons were going to flash-fry everyone in their sleep.
Where schools ran practice drills, as if you could ever ‘duck and cover’ from a thermo nuclear explosion.
These weren’t ‘stolen dreams’ – these were gifted nightmares.
Indeed. This is a consequence of kids being raised in a super-safe environment where they have nothing real to worry about.
So they make up fairy stories instead. Then try to make them real.
In no sane world would anyone be listening to this girl. But here we are.
To be fair, I think we should note that she did not make these stories up…she has had them pumped into her young and plastic and extremely impressionable mind day after day for her entire life.
Yep. Child abuse.
One threat at a time now. What I find so amazing is the disappointment of the world not having ended.
They are stridently gloomy about every one of their predicted catastrophes, but even more stridently angry when it is pointed out that yet another gloomy prediction has not come to pass.
What should we think about such people?
I was convinced the brown stuff would hit the fan in 1980. When Mount Saint Helens blew in 1979 I nodded to myself. But then the world didn’t end. What a drag. I had to get a Real Job. But expecting the end and avoiding work was fun while it lasted.
What is a real drag is to hit age fifty, and some of your friends have worked thirty years and are retiring with fat pensions, as you continue working.
Now I just tell people I took my pension when I was young and could enjoy it.
When I was younger I can recall several times being sure civilization was on the verge of collapse, just judging from all the crap being reported in the news.
I can also recall, BTW, at every age people talking about how weird, wacky, unusual, and out of control the weather was at some particular point in time.
Crazy hot in Summer, stupidly cold in Winter, endless rain in Spring, hot then cold then hot again, or vice versa, pretty much anytime…
But mostly just regular, which is what makes excursions from average seem odd to people who are not really paying much attention most of the time.
I think what is most likely to happen in ten or twelve years is that the vast majority of people will be somewhere between contemptuously dismissive, and actively intolerant, of doomsday cultists, just like has been the case for all of history.
a happy little debunker
Yes, my existential nightmares were that I would never make it to 20 and not even live long enough to decide not to have children; the decision had been made for me. Nuclear weapons were a demonstrated reality, not an academic theory.
When you read at 12 years old (this is 1974) that transit time for an ICBM is like 15 minutes, it tends to focus your mind.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023739924
Who is old enough to remember the “under the desk” atomic bomb drills in school?
… The way we put then it was:
“Duck under your desk, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.”
Actually, “ducking and covering” could very well save one’s life in the event of a nuclear attack. Many survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan were very close to ground zero, yet they survived because they were not directly exposed to the blast effects.
Maybe — depending on how far you were from the blast.
By the time we were ducking and covering in elementary school the Soviets had hydrogen bombs and the school was less than five miles from the White House.
I suspect most baby boomers went through a phase of being shocked that we got through all of the years after WWII with no nuclear weapons being used in anger.
Because most people I grew up with considered it to be very likely just a matter of time.
Sort of like how most people who lived through 911 and the anthrax scare were pretty dang surprised, if you asked them at a certain point in time, that all these years would go by without another major terror attack on the US.
Well done sir !
EXCELLENT article. Thank you Lord Monckton.
Every 4th grader should read it (but probably won’t!)
That above photo of Greta typifies the attitude of the liberal left…Hate…Anger…Intolerance…
I wish carbonhates would precipitate and fall to the bottom of the ocean.
LOL
I predict if they all take up the habit of travelling across oceans by sailboat, we will indeed see many of them settling to the bottom of the ocean.
Greta, some questions for you to ponder.
1. Why is Greenland called Greenland and not West Island?
2. What formed the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes?
3. What formed the Yosemite Park Valley.
4. Why were grapes grown and wine made in Roman England?
Not merely Roman England but in the time of Henry IV as well. The Vale of Gloucester was a renowned grape growing region at that time.
And how was it the Vikings lived on Greenland and were self sufficient farmers growing grain crops, for hundreds of years, prior to being frozen out and having to abandon (we should hope) the island due to it being no longer possible to live that way in that place?
It is still too cold by quite a bit to do what they did there.
> 4. Why were grapes grown and wine made in Roman England?
O, that was easy: because according for BBC, typical ancient Brits were black, and it’s obvious truth that warm climate and existence of black people are hugely correlated.
What would the temperature be if there were no greenhouse gases at all
No one would care because without H2O or CO2 the planet would be dead.
To all with a Greenhouse Gas phobia or aversion please note:
without H2O or CO2 the planet would be dead
….and then there is this….
Sign the Petition to Ban DHMO (Di-Hydrogen Monoxide) aka Hydrogen Hydroxide NOW!!!….and look how many Greenies signed the petition!!
https://youtu.be/yi3erdgVVTw
It’s also called hydrogen hydroxide as it forms a hydrogen ion and a hydroxide ion. To be clear, though, only a small amount is ionized in liquid (10E-7 M at pH=7). In the gas phase, hardly any at all. Most is HOH the molecule.
I pulled the same stunt after a climate strike in Christchurch.
I told our little high school climate protesters I was a research scientist and had found this dangerous compound in the atmosphere.
Really ramped it up, it was in our water-ways, on our fruit and vegetables after washing and in our drinking water.
You wouldn’t believe how many of them were keen to start social media campaigns, petition parliament and letter bomb local politicians to limit or ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.
Somewhat put out when I wrote out the composition of the compound. I had misled them and used science to confuse them. Tried to show them how much science had been used to mislead them already.
Sad thing was that they weren’t ready to listen because the media, their teachers and UN scientist said global warming was true and and anybody who denied it was just denying well documented ‘facts’.
Very possibly similar to the current temperature.Here’s how a greenhous free atmosphere works as a blanket:
Sunlight strikes the surface and warms it (i.e., the molecules of the surface gain kinetic energy)
The surface warms the atrmosphere near the surface (i.e., the kinetic energy of the surface molecules is transfered to the molecules in the atmosphere).
The warmer atmosphere is less dense and rises, cooling as it does so
The result is an atmosphere that is warmer near the surface than at higher altitudes.
Radiation escapes to space from the surface and from the atmosphere at all levels
The resulting surface temperature is higher than the radiative temperature of the planet.
Please Sir, may I leave the room?
Calling clouds “vapor” is poor terminology. Vapor is water in gas phase.
Clouds are visible. Vapor is invisible.
Clouds are aerosols, that is why they are visible in sunlight.
Aerosols are made of microscopic particles of water in liquid or solid phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
Certainly, clouds also contain water in vapor phase amongst the liquid phase particles
The point was that if there was no vapour in the atmosphere, there would be no condensation to form clouds. So if you go back to zero GHG then you go back to zero cloud cover.
Either way, those forms of water absorb over 90% of the IR band that CO2 has. Also, the heat retention or insulating properties of water vapor is something like 1000 times greater than CO2.
Is this greta really 16? She looks about 12 to me. Arrested development due to a syndrome? Is she a vegan with vitamin B12 deficiency?
Fetal alcohol syndrome, best guess.
I’m guessing that this girls dreams will be shattered by drugs well before the globe rises 1 degree
Perhaps it’s already happened.
This clearly is a white, imperialistic, old-age-biased narrative, permeated by toxic-masculine intolerance, retooled into propaganda, aimed at radicalizing children worldwide. ☺
Exceptional lesson, Lord Monckton!
Yet I fear that it is an attempt to teach a Parrot a new set of squaks and whistles. &, of course, parrots have Bird Brains, so it will be some time until this particular parrot learns to repetivitively bleat out the truth. Yes, quite some time!!!
But fear not, as the catastrophic drivel you are hearing will not come to pass anyway!!!
Parrots are smart birds. And they live for decades.
Bird’s brains are smaller than humans but their neurons are said to be much more closely packed together so they can get more brainpower in a smaller space.
Crows are smart, too. They have been shown to recognize individual humans.
Don’t sell the birds, or other animals, short just because they have small brains. They may have a built-in compensating mechanism 🙂
I would suggest that look on her face reflects the fact she is suffering from constipation, probably as a result of holding it in so she didn’t have to go in a bucket on the “speed yacht”!
So what about our “”Chief Scientist t”” here in Australia telling us the truth
about the gas CO2. What it does and what it does not do.
And then going on air, radio and TV and saying so. Then touring the country
and giving talks in the local town hall.
Now as he is not doing that, what does he do for his generous salary.
MJE
“Michael September 25, 2019 at 7:24 pm
Now as he is not doing that, what does he do for his generous salary.”
Waits for retirement.
It may have been discussed elsewhere, but I have to ask. How is she back to Sweden? I recall that some folks
where *flown* to The States to crew the “zero-emission” yacht back to Europe. Will she be on it?
Just curious.
I heard she is intending to travel on to South America before heading back to Sweden.
I wonder if she is taking that same yacht there?
I suppose she could drive there by electric car.
Should someone tell her that car is partly coal and nuclear powered?
I understand that she and her father are going to take the bus to S. America, giving lectures as they go, and then hitch a ride on a container ship back to Europe.
I wonder how they are going to navigate the Darien Gap as I believe it is called?
Machetes – by foot, fighting off the mosquitos….
She intends to visit Canada, then make her way to Mexico, and eventually to Argentina for COP25 in December, after which, I assume she will return to the US. Her chief means of travel will be bus and train, when possible. She refuses to fly, of course which is idiotic, but then, so is her Warmunist ideology. She won’t be returning to Sweden until next May, I believe. She hopes to be able to sail back. Failing that, I suppose a cruise ship would be another option.
Hot air balloon?
Possibly, but only if Al Gore or any of the cadre of democlowns running for president are available. Fossil-free and brain-free. Win-win!
Once upon a time in this blog, someone told about a shiny metal object sitting on a bench. As part of its processing, it had been heated up. The problem was that, being highly reflective, it was also not radiative. That meant you couldn’t feel its heat until you actually touched it and got a nasty burn. So, its measurable effective radiative temperature was just the ambient temperature reflected off it.
It seems to me that the higher a body’s albedo, the more doubt there is about its actual surface temperature.
Shiny metal does not radiate?
Is it shiny at all wavelengths?
That’s what the “emissivity” term in the Sefan-Boltzmann formula is for. Any decent IR thermometer has a setting adjustment for the emissivity of the object being measured. There are readily available references for emissivity of all sorts of materials including polished metals.🙂
As the emissivity of an object decreases and the emitted energy decreases, the signal to noise ratio gets worse when you try to measure the surface temperature with your IR thermometer.
If I point my IR thermometer at a very hot mirror, do I not end up measuring my own temperature?
I just tried the experiment on the front door mirror. With me in front of the mirror I got 73.6 F. Without me in front of the mirror, I got 70.1 F. The adjacent wall was 70.5 F. The front door, in front of the mirror, was 69.5 F.
I assume the mirror was actually the same temperature as the adjacent wall.
Ooh, I have some experimentin’ to do now!
I got me one of them laser thermometers, and just bought me a new multimeter that also has temperature probes, which I shall see if it can be used to cross check temp of surfaces (I think it is intending for liquids, but I will get back on that).
I can do shiny cookie sheets before and after the oven, aluminum foil, and all manner of other shiny stuff.
I got gazillions of mirrors too.
I apologize to your wife.
1:15 am
*knock* *knock* *knock*
Nicholas: “Hey, commieBob, are you using your couch tonight?”
commieBob: “What the…?!?”
It is certainly true that the uncertainty of IR temperature measurements increases as the emissivity decreases. That’s because the assumed emissivity uncertainty becomes a larger relative to the actual emissivity. Note, however, that a typical mirror is glass with silver on the back. Since your IR thermometer measures in long wave IR (8-12 microns) the glass appears opaque to the instrument. The normal e for glass is about 0.80 to 0.86 .
Doh!
Good point. I repeated the experiment with a relatively clean and relatively flat piece of stainless steel out in the garage. With me in front of the stainless, I got a range of temperatures around 75 F. Without me in front of the stainless, the temperatures were around 55 F.
Without me in front of the stainless, the temperatures were quite close, certainly within 1 F.
With me in front of the stainless, it mattered a lot how I pointed the sensor. I got one temperature as low as 70 F.
Anyway … the original point was that, if you’re trying to measure the temperature of a shiny object with an IR thermometer, you could end up just measuring the temperature of whatever was reflecting from the object.
I would say the first rule in instrumentation is to make sure you’re actually measuring what you think you’re measuring. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
Separating out reflected energy from emitted energy would seem to be a difficult exercise depending on the material.
This was sort of what I was alluding to when I wondered if shiny metal is shiny at all wavelengths.
We can readily perceive which objects are highly reflective of visible light, but can we assume that what is highly reflective of visible is also highly reflective in other wavelengths?
IDK, but I am curious.
It occurs to me that some things that look unreflective to our eye may be reflective of some other wavelength, like IR.
Certainly. The reason we see objects as colored is that they don’t reflect all visible wavelengths equally. For instance, green tree leaves and grass absorb all visible wavelengths except green, which they reflect.
In infrared photography, living leaves and grass are very reflective. Dead plant material isn’t. link
Without looking at those charts for review, I think no material has emissivity equal to zero.
Stephen Hawking told me even black holes radiate (although I am not sure he ever knew exactly what he was talking about).
Big Tim’s Little Monster will sort it out…
https://www.amazon.in/Prince-Precaution-Tims-little-monster-ebook/dp/B07DBZXH1X
Why is a tiny and uncertain chance of climate catastrophe a call to immediate action, and a tiny though proven imminent chance of climate-destroying asteroid or comet impact cause to do nothing at all? Not even front military options across countries. though the space age is 50 years now and the message written in the K-T boundary decoded since 1980?
Why is it we recognize the presence of gambler’s fallacy for infinitesimal odds right away, and yet we do not discern it in people who claim impactors are “nothing you need to worry about” based on just statistics or time elapsed? If there is imminence of a dino-killer class, does that not create a divide-by-infinity result with complete extinction that makes parents’ eyes grow wider? These brushoffs include the ever popular “People will die, but chances are it will be someone else.”
If a city killer lands in the ocean it will drown all the cities around it. Here is an example of a letter I am sending around to people who wish they hadn’t gotten it.
“The very first question you should ask when grown-ups like Ms Snorkel tell you the world is going to get hotter is” – Can you show us the CORRECT PREDICTIONS?
Here Greta, give this URL to your “science” teacher and classmates. Watch it and memorize those 3 steps. Nowhere in there will you find the words “believer, denier, consensus, majority or 97%”.
TTYL
Sorry Greta dear, I forgot the URL, my bad:
The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman
This is always good to post … even children can probably understand this … !!!
– JPP
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, I’d be more interested in your suit against U.C. Merced. How’s that going?