Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to New York Times, the Greta effect is bypassing climate skeptics and reaching everyone who matters.
How the Climate Kids Are Short-Circuiting Right-Wing Media
Young people like Greta Thunberg are participating in the culture wars while also managing to float above the fray.
By Charlie Warzel
Mr. Warzel is an Opinion writer at large.
Sept. 26, 2019The kids aren’t just all right they’re scrambling the brains of their political enemies.
…Ms. Thunberg has been the primary target of this vitriol. On Saturday, the pro-Trump media figure Dinesh D’Souza likened Ms. Thunberg to models in Nazi propaganda. Videos of her speeches have been edited to replace her voice with Adolf Hitler’s. On Fox News on Monday evening, the Daily Wire pundit Michael Knowles called Ms. Thunberg who is open about being on the autism spectrum “a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents.” (Fox News issued an apology and called the comment disgraceful.)
…
She does not allow her message that the youth of the world have been betrayed by past generations’ inaction on climate change to be co-opted by fawning lawmakers, and she dismisses their praise for her as a tragic role reversal that forces her to be the adult in a room of well-dressed children. And she seems keenly aware that her rivals’ critiques are merely efforts to divert her attention. It seems they will cross every possible line to avert the focus, since they are so desperate not to talk about the climate and ecological crisis, she wrote of her haters on Twitter on Wednesday.
The usual tactics of the right-wing media break down in the face of this type of resolve. While outrage campaigns intended to work the refs and appeal to fears of appearing partisan may work with lawmakers or companies in Silicon Valley, the youth climate movement appears wholly unmoved. While the levers for climate progress proposed by solutions like a Green New Deal are undoubtedly political, the broader movement’s desire an inhabitable earth for all is far from partisan. The stakes, as the movement sees it, are too high to focus attention on the trolls. And the pressure, from conservative pundits and Breitbart contributors, doesn’t just get dismissed, it goes unnoticed.…
In other words, it’s not that the right can’t attack the climate kids because of their age. Rather, it’s that because of their age, the right’s attacks feel especially feeble.
Read more (paywalled): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/climate-change-greta-thunberg.html
The factor Charlie is ignoring is the Greta effect only works on people who already believe climate change is a problem. I doubt Charlie has met anyone in his personal circle who doesn’t believe Greta is a new Joan of Arc. Perhaps he thinks criticism of Greta and climate skepticism is a right wing fabrication, unrepresentative of society as a whole.
In my opinion Greta is a polarizing figure, who does nothing to build bipartisan support for climate action. She energises believers, but horrifies skeptics, who are reminded of society’s failure to protect a vulnerable child every time she appears on the media.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Give it time. Greta will undoubtedly skulk back into her cave when her 8 or so years to climate armageddon goalpost is reached and then shifted. Shame she doesn’t know about all the other goalposts that were shifted in generations past. It might change her tune to see how she’s been used.
An OCD suffering adolescent is the perfect figurehead for climate alarmism. The whole cult is a juvenile, obsessive compulsive disorder.
She may like to claim it gives her “superpowers” but it is generally recognised as giving narrow imbalance obsession with detail. Not a blue print for long term planning of the future of the planet.
Please arrange the letters alphabetically when referring to Obsessive Compulsives.
Lol.. Sorry.. 😉
She won’t, she’s part of a cult. Being part of the cult is more important than facing up to the failed predictions
Leon Festinger described them beautifully.
With any luck she’ll eventually wake from her stupidity and scowl at the UN again, this time using facts instead of fairy tales penned by her handlers. But I suspect you’re right Sparko. She may not have the moral fortitude to shake her handlers and go for the truth, instead continue to be the highest paid activist for lies.
She, like her ilk, are uneducated brain washed pawns manipulated by their handlers, parents, speech writers. They will unfortunately choose to remain sheep to be led.
Greta Thunberg should take lessons from this 11 year old lad.
Is This Young Boy The Future of Religion?
Horrifying.
I’m afraid that time is not enough. In a normal situation, one might expect this. But for Greta, who suffers from Aspergers, it may be very hard to break out of her fear-ridden inner prison. That’s the tragedy; her goalposts, I fear, are cemented to the ground. And even if she did understand that she has been used, what is the worst alternative? To live on in her illusions, or to awake up to a very painful realisation? Alas, I don’t see any good alternative for her.
Relax, Greta will be fine. She’s gotten a test of power, and is swiftly becoming addicted to it. She’s being manipulated by her parents and handlers (even saw rumours that Soros is involved now), and will be a centre of attention until her story falls apart in shambles. What then?
She’ll still be the centre of attention. She’ll write a book about her experiences, how she, at 16, through grit got millions to follow her and spoke at the United Nations. She’ll be sought after as a motivational speaker. She’ll make more money than you and I ever dreamed of.
Greta the Gloomy will be become Greta the Discredited, but she’ll still wind up being Greta the Rich.
With luck, she may even follow in the footsteps of David Hogg .
Please don’t link to the grauniad without a health warning.
“It seems they will cross every possible line to avert the focus, since they are so desperate not to talk about the climate and ecological crisis – ” Thunberg.
No one here is desperate to NOT talk about the climate and any eco crisis. She does not give a reference for that statement, which is false and shows how narrow is her view of the world at large.
I am concerned – deeply concerned – that she is rapidly growing a cult of people who will follow her, willy-nilly, and do whatever she says, including ending it all because they are convince that they are all living in a world with no hope. If that’s the direction she’s heading, it is NOT a good thing.
You can point at her and make snarky remarks, but this is how cults form and how they destroy the people who follow them.
Jonestown comes to mind.
Lemmings running off of a cliff also comes to mind.
Wasn’t that a Disney fantasy?
No they don’t.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
PI, lemmings are considerably smarter than this.
I fear for that child’s soul. I fear that her parents have already damaged her beyond repair. She will probably never be out from under their care until very late in life.
If that reporter or columnist thinks that children or teenagers across western societies will not see this for what is, than that reporter is very daft.
To quote Friedrich Nietzsche, “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”
Greta, unfortunately, has not been given an alternative to the abyss.
Like most liberals, she’s been trained to believe that talking involves her giving a lecture and everyone else listening attentively.
She will travel the world and receive every award and cash handout possible. Her virtue will absolve her soul of all infractions. She will become an evangelist for the green CO2 cult.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Sara above is correct too. Gretta may yet cause the deaths of her congregation at some point in the future, and everyone will look back and say “how did they let this happen?”.
The one thing all Left have in common… Everyone must heed my words and change, but not me, I don’t have to live up to my own standards.
MarkW
“Like most liberals, she’s been trained to believe that talking involves her giving a lecture and everyone else listening attentively”
Yes when she is properly stage managed but when caught off guard this is what happens;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwLt_5t73g
More people should watch this video as her “superpower” appears to have has deserted her.
Personally i feel sorry for her, i hope she discovers boys and drops all this nonsense but somehow i bet ………
Oh God! I tried to watch that, but it was so cringe-worthy that I had to stop.
A bit like Kamala Harris and her responses to any question on what she would do: ‘well have to think about that.
Sara..you are RIGHT to be deeply concerned. The fact of the matter is that the cult has already formed as evidenced by those in the audience that cheered and applauded and hooted throughout in agreement.
Exactly, and I am NOT happy about that at all. However, I am realistic about such things. If someone is truly obsessed with something that you feel is harmful, and won’t listen to reason, there is not much you can do, beyond hoping they’ll snap out of it before it’s too late. And if they do wise up, just be glad they did so. No recriminations, no ‘told you so’, just ‘glad you’re back’.
I hope it never goes that far.
The only people who still read the NYT are bubble-dwellers in the Acela Corridor who balm their perpetual cortisol over Trump with affirmations of their fantasy narratives. A preponderance of them ingest SSRI’s, heavily.
To those of us in the Real world, the Times is now lumped with the Grauniad, CNN and Rachel Madcow as unreliable sources with entertainment value only. News? Fuggedaboutit! I know very few people who actually go to work each day who could even tell you who Greta Thunberg is. It may surprise the chattering class, but the majority of the population are rapidly tuning out “The Media.” Tons of diet wonks on YouTube now have bigger followings now than cable “news.” Let alone The Flailing NYT.
Yes, I mentioned Greta Thunberg in the office where I work and no one knew who she was.
Nonsense, the goalposts will shift that’s all.
I had a nightmare, and perhaps I should not discuss it, where I was forced to attend a three hour lecture on climate change by Ms. “Thunderberg”, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren … and there was a $ 25 fee to leave the auditorium before the lecture was over. I was going to pay it, but I forgot my wallet.
😂
Rich Green- With a name like yours you should be wealthy as Al Gore. (Sorry your dream story was hilarious! Cudos!
The MONEY behind the Dumberg
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/gretas-soros-connections/#more-41518
Policy of any sort should not be predicated on the thoughts of ignorant children
Hope springs eternal.
I don’t know why I continue to be amazed at people who are so insulated from contrary opinions and viewpoints different from their own. If you ask this writer to summarize the main points in the mainstream skeptics’ position you would get nonsense.
Steve O,
I don’t like opinions: I much prefer facts.
Every “mainstream skeptic” knows the important facts of climate change are these.
1.
Climate has always changed and will always change everywhere on Earth.
2.
Humans are known to alter local climates (e.g. cities are warmer than their surrounding areas).
3.
Global climate varies; it always has and it always will change.
4.
There is no evidence that human activities have had, are having, or will have any discernible affect on global climate change; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada.
5.
Simply, there is no evidence for or against the existence of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) global warming (AGW). (The only evidence we have is that recent climate variations are within the range of climate variations that have happened in the past.)
6.
The fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. (Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.)
7.
Since the Bronze Age all sensible government’s have prepared for times of bad climate when in times of good climate. (That tried and tested policy is sensible because people will merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.)
8.
Governments need to prepare for possible climate changes whether those changes have an anthropogenic or a natural cause. (Simply,
(a) the cause of the changes has little implication for appropriate policies needed to cope with the climate changes that can be anticipated,
(b) the climate changes that can be anticipated include all the changes that have occurred in the past: not only the changes predicted by promoters of AGW.
(c) preparing for only the changes predicted by promoters of AGW has very high risk, and
(d) preparing for changes suggested by scaremongers has immense costs.)
Please say if there is anything else you want to know.
Richard
Richard
Glad to see you have reappeared recently, so hope your health has improved.
That is a truly excellent 8 point list which I find impossible to improve on.
As regards 8) we have been living in a relatively benign weather regime, but to prepare for the weather of the future we need look to the weather of the past.
tonyb
tonyb,
Thanks for your greeting.
My health deteriorates intermittently and the time of the inevitable end is not known. Importantly, my pain relief is effective but inhibits thought and, therefore, I am a shadow of what I once was.
So, I ‘soldier on’and I am trying to do some things despite the difficulties. I am ‘testing’ my ability to engage here and some other places because – despite my difficulties which include embarrassment at making mistakes – it seems better to try to do things (if only badly) than to merely wait.
Richard
Richard
You continue to make more sense than many of the commenters on many blogs, who seem more concerned of the emotions and the politics than the science, or the consequences of what many ask for-in effect a return to much lower living standards because of their belief renewables will bail them out. An over reliance on the constancy of the weather gods is not a good plan.
Keep posting, as obviously your capabilities are still great. I wish you well with your health regime
tonyb
Hi Richard,
I would also like to add my best wishes, and just say thanks for the inspiration over the years. You haven’t lost any of it. I look forward to many more comments by you, for a long time to come.
Eamon.
Richard S Courtney
September 28, 2019 at 9:41 am
————————————-
6.
The fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. (Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.)
————————————–
Sorry Richard,
But while your above statement can be considered as fairly factual in almost all
considered lines of interpretation, it definitely does not qualify as such in the means of science and scientific method.
For the statement above to be considered as a validated fact in accordance of
science, the said hypothesis must have being subjected or at the very least to have being considered as subjected to the Null hypothesis and/or falsification.
Otherwise that fact has no much bearing in science.
Thank you Richard.
cheers
Oh, wow,
Can’t believe this,
Instant publication of the comment… wow.
cheers
Friends,
As an attempt to assist understanding, I write this addition to my response to whiten.
The scientific Null Hypothesis says,
When the behaviour of a system is not observed to have changed then it has to be assumed the behaviour of the system has not changed.
This fundamental principle is why, for example,
* the existence of a deity (or deities) is not determinable by scientific evaluation
* science assumes the laws of physics are the same at all times and places
* only repeatable phenomena are capable of being subjected to scientific investigation.
Richard
whiten,
The Null Hypothesis in the scientific method differs from the null hypothesis in statistics. It seems you may be confusing the two.
The Null Hypothesis is a basis of the scientific method and it derives from the principle of parsimony (sometimes called ‘Occam’s Razor’). It is the basis of all experimentation, observation, deduction and inference: it says this
When the behaviour of a system is not observed to have changed then it has to be assumed the behaviour of the system has not changed.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is an empirical challenge.
Something may exist but be too small for its effects to be observed. In such a case the only valid scientific assumption is that it has no effect.
Simply, when something has no detectable affect then for all practical purposes it does not exist so it is assumed to not exist.
For example, urban areas are warmer than their surrounding regions. This is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The total effect of UHI on average global temperature could be estimated by
(a) measuring the areas of the Earth’s surface that are urbanised and
(b) measuring the magnitude of UHI in each of these regions then
(c) totalling those warmings and areas before
(d) determining the total contribution to global temperature of UHI effect as a proportion of the total of the Earth’s surface area.
Clearly, there are good reasons to suppose UHI exists. Indeed, its magnitude can be estimated. Furthermore, most weather temperature measurements adopted for use to determine global temperature are made in urbanised areas and, therefore, UHI significantly affects determinations of global temperature.
However, temperature variations (both global and local) are so great that the effect of UHI on actual global temperature is too small for it to be detected.
There is also good reason to suppose that postulated anthropogenic global warming (AGW) may exist but it is too small for it to have detectable effects.
All recent climate effects are within the range of similar climate effects earlier in the Holocene. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that there are no observable effects that require an explanation other than the climate system has not altered.
As I said, all of that summarises to
The fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. (Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.)
Richard
Richard S Courtney
September 30, 2019 at 7:37 am
Richard S Courtney
September 30, 2019 at 7:48 am
—————————–
Richard,
You missing the point.
It does not matter, what your take or my take, or explanation, or out of this world justification given… in consideration of Null hypothesis and/or falsification “test”.
Scientific method is very very simple.
No Null hypothesis and/or falsification applied in the consideration of a given hypothesis, no chance for any kind of evidence to be considered as factual, either as circumstantial or conclusive, one way or another, in the court of science.
As outside this, it will remain always in 50/50 chance, no better than a wild guess. (as you actually seem to have pointed out already)
So what matters really is whether or not the said hypothesis has being or not subjected to such a basic required test.
There is no way to consider that there is or not any evidence, valid or not, that either support or not a given hypothesis outside the means of this simple “test” of nullification and/or falsification, as per consideration of the scientific method, regardless what my take, your take or anyone others take on the consideration of the meaning and the actual details of such as test.
No test no result, to be considered as factual valid evidence, either pro or against… still at the best the case of 50/50 chance to consider.
Without considering the test there, is no way to scientifically even determine if there really happens to be or not any evidence to address, in the theme or the main theme of a given hypothesis.
No any chance of a proper connection between the said hypothesis and reality to be considered scientifically as per merit of evidence there, as non such evidence has proper valid value.
The hypothesis remains still nullified.
Again no matter what is or not the actual meaning of Null hypothesis in detail…in it’s main basic point it means that in the absence of falsification being applied, the hypothesis still remains non valid and nullified if the application of null hypothesis also absent… regardless of any justification or intricate and complex explanation there attempted.
A lot of noise and talk, but no actual walk, the actual basic walking as required by the basic scientific method, in this regard.
Yes, it is that simple.
Thanks Richard, appreciated, very much so.
Hope I am not being more confusing and noisy here… 🙂
cheers
whiten,
Your posts are being clear and not “confusing”.
However, in those posts you are confusing the null hypothesis of statistics as being the Null Hypothesis of the scientific method, for example, when you say,
“Scientific method is very very simple.
No Null hypothesis and/or falsification applied in the consideration of a given hypothesis, no chance for any kind of evidence to be considered as factual, either as circumstantial or conclusive, one way or another, in the court of science.”
No. you are mistaken.
Obviously, I was not adequately clear when I wrote,
“The Null Hypothesis in the scientific method differs from the null hypothesis in statistics. It seems you may be confusing the two.”
So, I will expand on that.
The scientific method is a way to seek the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by finding information that refutes existing understanding(s) and amending, replacing or rejecting the understanding in light of such found information.
The information (i.e. evidence) may or may not be statistical.
And, of course, consensus plays no part in the scientific method
Incidentally, for completeness, I add that
pseudoscience is a method which decides existing understanding(s) is true and seeks anything which bolsters the understanding while ignoring or rejecting anything which contradicts the understanding. (Consensus is important to pseudoscience.)
In a statistical test a null hypothesis is chosen and data is tested to determine if the data supports the chosen hypothesis and if it does with what confidence.
Statistics is one of many tools that may be used when conducting the scientific method by seeking information. But is it is not a necessary tool in many circumstances and it is often not used (for example of a profoundly important scientific paper that includes no statistics, see “On The Origin of Species”, Darwin C, (1859) ).
In the scientific method there is only one Null Hypothesis; viz.
When the behaviour of a system is not observed to have changed then it has to be assumed the behaviour of the system has not changed.
So, as I explained, I stated an item of scientific information and derived a scientific conclusion when I wrote,
“All recent climate effects are within the range of similar climate effects earlier in the Holocene. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that there are no observable effects that require an explanation other than the climate system has not altered.”
I hope this additional detail resolves the matter.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
September 30, 2019 at 7:37 am
———————————-
Thank you for your effort with this conversation of ours, Richard.
Definitely we do significantly diverge when it comes to the consideration of the evidence and its value in the case of hypothesis,
or theorems or theories, as per validation of such and the claims there
propagated.
Where and when I clearly claim that there is no way to consider any evidence or it’s value as supportive or not in the validity or validation of a hypothesis outside the clause of application of falsification, which in most of the cases also requires the application of Null hypothesis too to follow and engage… as the means to a best achievable result given the circumstances.
And you claim the contrary.
Where the falsification and Null hypothesis application in case of AGW and the evidence there do not matter.
Your position is satisfied on concluding in this case outside the means of falsification and it’s application.
Richard, this statement of yours;
“The fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. (Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.)”
happens to be in itself void, a void word, a void argument, like in the case for example of:
“Nullius verba”…… which in consideration of this argument means:
Void word(s), or void concept(s), or void argument,
Where the word(s), the concept(s), or the argument happens to be contradicting, paradoxical, illogical and meaningless in it’s own stand… regardless of it’s eloquence or well representative formulation.
And not as same as:
“Nullius in verba”….. which in consideration of this argument means:
Void in the word(s), or void in the concept(s), or void in the argument.
Where the word(s), the concept(s) or the argument actually have sense, rationale, logic and meaning but still have no much value in the consideration of given condition because of the lack of substantial support from factual valid evidence, as required by the circumstance.
All proper hypothesis, or theorems or theories and the respective main
associated claims, in their initial condition stand as “Nullius in verba”, and for as long as not subjected to Null hypothesis and/or falsification,
still the condition remains the same, a 50/50… no more no less.
AGW, as a hypothesis, officially happens to be proper, but still stands and remains as in it’s initial condition of “Nullius in verba”, a 50/50 chance…
no better than a guess… after so long a time.
Any consensus in science outside the means of scientific method, like in the case of falsification, happens to be “Nullius verba”,
completely meaningless and void in it’s substance.
Sorry if sounding like “lecturing”, but just trying to express my understanding and my thinking.
Again thank you, Richard, for your effort and caring with this conversation… appreciated.
cheers
whiten,
I need clarification.
You assert that I use “void words”. I need to know which of my words you think are “void” and why for me to to be able to understand what you are trying to say.
You say,
“Void word(s), or void concept(s), or void argument,
Where the word(s), the concept(s), or the argument happens to be contradicting, paradoxical, illogical and meaningless in it’s own stand… regardless of it’s eloquence or well representative formulation.”
All my words are have clear dictionary meanings.
You do not say which of my “concept(s), or the argument happens to be contradicting, paradoxical, illogical and meaningless”. I don’t think any are, so please explain.
I am starting to doubt the purpose of your posts.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
October 2, 2019 at 1:08 am
———————————-
Hi, Richard.
In consideration of your last reply to me, let me address it backwards.
Yes Richard, is all within your right to doubt the purpose of my posts, or not, or doubt my motivation or intention within the means of our conversation.
But for what it could be worth, I think, that it happens to very clearly addressed and explained from the very first opening statement of mine towards and in regard of this argued issue.
Let me refresh it:
===================
“Sorry Richard’
But while your above statement can be considered as fairly factual in almost all
considered lines of interpretation, it definitely does not qualify as such in the means of science and scientific method.”
=======================================
Whether you consider that as honest or not, it clearly states that the motivation and intention there only addressing the point and the given argument solely and specifically in;
“the means of science and scientific method.”
No, prejudice or a judgmental position taken,
strictly weighting the argument in the line of a very specific part of the scientific method,
the Null hypothesis…
Now as for the rest of your last reply.
I think, it is pretty clearly stated quit a few times in my comments,
that it is not about words that have or not clear dictionary meanings.
But actually it is about the void words, or void argument… as stated.
I think, that that too was quite clearly addressed,
but just let give it another try.
You will recall, that I did clearly state that I do recognize, realize and accept as proper the proposition of the AGW standing at a 50/50 chance, as clearly that being clearly also the main base of your statement too.
But where we diverge is, where you claim and try to explain that it being so due to the lack and the absence of the evidence, completely ignoring the point and the merit of Null hypothesis.
And where my position is, that it happens to be so because of the absence of Null hypothesis application, and the complete voidance of falsification.
It is amazing to me that still not clearly understood yet, that the only means and path for a hypothesis to be forced away from the 50/50,
either up or down, is only through the Null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis is a real thing in science, not an accessory but a real sharp effective tool.
Where the contradiction or the paradoxical clause is in your statement as put, as you clearly ask for…
The main gist, beauty, the fire, the spirit of the Null hypothesis is in it’s addressing and subjecting a hypothesis for valuation, in the very meaning of the value of evidence specifically in the very clear point of
the absence or not of any given evidence there as per the merit and requirement of the given hypothesis and it’s claim(s).
So, no value to be considered there in the absence or not of evidence, as such is not possible outside the Null hypothesis meaning and its application.
Your argument is void due to the contradiction it holds in it’s own propagation… of course as per the ambience of science.
Where you clearly state and claim absence of evidence and some arbitrary added value from it, where in the same time completely voiding, ignoring and rejecting the main tool and platform, the only tool that has to be employed and applied as for such an assessment and conclusion to be valid and proper…
Claiming a given outcome and a value from it, in the absence and voidance of the very act and process that supposes to be employed for such an outcome to be possible, is quite paradoxical, from my point of view…. void.
It is quite paradoxical to claim and consider absence of evidence in the matter of hypothesis, theorems or theories outside and beyond the Null hypothesis.
No Null hypothesis applied, no such luxury there… as else the argument is void.
Thank you again Richard.
cheers
Dont think I have ever heard her raise a single piece of science. Clever
She knows nothing about the subject, and her puppet masters know she knows nothing, so she has clear instructions not open her mouth about it. All she ever says is follow “the science”.
If she was ever to attempt a scientific point she would fall flat on her face.
This is another carefully crafted and well established word game suggesting that science is one unitary object which says only one thing, which we must accept. There is no plurality, discussion or descent in science: “the science” is beyond question.
She said she cried when they had a lesson at her school on the plight of the polar bears due to climate change!
Scary stories are meant to frighten children into accepting social norms. Stories of the “boogieman” or “struwwelpeter” abound. They have existed for centuries.
The problem is that we can quash these falsehoods about the big bad wolves with facts “-yes they will eat sheep, -no they do not shapeshift.”
Wolves do not know how to lie, but people do.
She does not need science. She can see CO2.
She does not need knowledge. She has belief.
Take a disturbed, heavily-indoctrinated child, weaponize her, stick her out in front where the battle lines are, then “complain” loudly when she gets attacked. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I am reminded of the 10/10 video. The Climate Faithful couldn’t see anything wrong with it until it was released to the public… and the public was appalled. Only then did they look critically at what they had wrought.
Even then, many couldn’t understand why anyone would object. Their echo chambers had assured them that all right thinking people would agree with them and see the world as they did.
Heck, it’s the same reason many of them still can’t accept that Trump won, or that he will again.
~¿~
The self delusion has been going on for a long time. After Nixon crushed Goldwater, a senior New York magazine editor was quoted as saying that she couldn’t understand how Nixon could have won, since nobody she knew voted for him. Had that happened a few years later, instead of being confused, she just would have blamed a Russian conspiracy that stole the election.
Nixon defeated Humphrey and crushed McGovern. Goldwater lost to Johnson.
The comments in the 10 : 10 video in the Granuid on were the funniest thing I’ve read for years. The climate cult really couldn’t understand why it wasn’t funny.
The 10:10 video: I had to look that up: 10:10 highlighted the urgency of action with claims that carbon dioxide emissions must be stabilised by 2014 (within four years) in order to avoid disaster,[4] – Wiki
That was when I still had a TV and unless you knew that crapazoid ad was coming up, you couldn’t escape it. I remember that quite well. In view of some of the more recent events that have taken place, by ecohippies (e.g., that man who set himself on fire last year in NYC’s Central Park in full view of children), it wasn’t just in poor taste. There is enough “crazy” stuff going on that this teenager with a stunted education, who has no real information but likes to be a public scold and wants to be the center of attention, can be and is being set up as a puppet by her parents. And while I don’t know what they think they’ll do with her, there is a wealth naivete involved her. She is being taken advantage of – something I find to be utterly heinous – by her own parents. She’s entitled to her opinion; we all are. But there is something very troubling about a 16-year-old teen with no education or accomplishments being given the attention and adulation that you’d give to a real scientist like Einstein or Richard Feynman.
At some point, she will no longer be useful, and what happens then? I’m just appalled by this whole thing.
Good analysis. Most people are aghast. But the extreme Left will gladly prostitute children to advance their socialist goals.
The extreme left will gladly prostitute anybody or anything to push their agenda.
– A Child with special needs
– Thousands of Raptors cut up by windmills
– Ocean life and plastic (no focus on Asia where it all comes from)
– Increased CO2 … no focus on China and India where all the growth is.
– Addiction
– False info on Polar Bears
– Weather disasters with loss of life and property
Just to name a few ……
The same type of people who thought the 10:10 video was funny and thought provoking.
funny , we don’t seem to have a heard much about 10:10 for a while, how are they getting on ? 😉
Eric Worrall: “She energises believers, but horrifies skeptics, […]”
Absolutely. Then there are those who are neither a believer nor a sceptic. Take my wife… please ;o)
She has zero interest in the ‘Climate Wars’. She’s busy getting on with her life and even though I’ve been hanging out here for years, has shown no interest of her own in the topic unless some caaaahbon tax and spend scheme is on the political agenda. Neither the alarmist nor the sceptic message is reaching her. Nothing ‘Climate’ is happening, so she is just not interested.
She saw a clip of Greta’s performance at the UN and her reaction was, “Who is this kid and who wrote that crap she is saying?”
That’s probably the first and last engagement my wife will ever have over anything Greta and if something Greta comes around again, she’ll click through it faster than she does commercials.
I think my wife is more typical of Americans than the YSM (Yellow Stream Media) would have you believe. You can only sound the Climate Klaxon for so long before people tune out the noise.
I agree with you completely. Both my wife and virtually all my friends simply pay no attention to the issue at all. They couldn’t tell you what either side argues other than it used to be called global warming and now its climate change- morphing into climate emergency. And there in lies the generational problem for the climate fanatics. The average person simply looks around and says to themselves that neither the weather nor the beaches at high tide look or feel much different from when they were younger. The longer this hysteria drags on the more likely it becomes that more and more people will feel this way. I suspect the climate fanatics know this thus the move to more extreme actions and predictions. Time is not on their side.
Thanks for the backup. Marc. I too think that there are huge numbers of people who don’t give a rat’s @ur momisugly$$ so long as they aren’t paying anything or inconvenienced.
Thanks again for the anecdotal backup to my anecdotal account, ’cause that’s what I’m seeing, too.
This will not end well for the greenies if the kids have to give up their iPhones.
Brits over 40 might remember Violet Elizabeth Bott.
“I’ll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I’m thick”
There was a wonderful commentator in the Daily Telegraph who adopted the moniker Violent Elizabeth…
I am re reading my collection of old William books as some light relief to politics and greta.
The earliest I have is 1925. They are extremely politically incorrect and William is basically a vandal, thief, misogynist and assaults people. His family were definitely upper middle class.
The stories would never be allowed these days. They are great fun unless you are pc.
The best ones are those from the 30’s and during the war.
Tonyb
In a debate you don’t use children unless you are pretty desperate that the facts don’t support your position. The use of this child and encouraging children to cut class to demonstrate in the streets is a strong indication that the global warming leaders know they are losing the argument on the merits.
I feel sorry for this little girl. She will probably win the Nobel Peace Prize and will probably be Time Magazine’s person of the year. And she is probably unaware that she is being used like a cartoon mascot, the moral equivalent of Smokey the Bear.
“In a debate you don’t use children unless you are pretty desperate that the facts don’t support your position. ”
debate is THEATRE. it is not the search for truth.
They made a huge mistake picking fat al gore. such an easy target.
Now you guys are reduced to bullying a kid, and one with a disability.
no way to win that one boys
..Mosher, defending mental child abuse….why am I not surprised ?
Sure you can win it, the same way Trump won against Greta.
To quote WOPR: “The Only Winning Move Is Not to Play.”
~¿~
What is is.
Science of course is quite different from theatre. Theatre is subjective dependent on tastes. Science is not.
CAGW the idea is the THEATRE, a man made creation.
It is a fact that CAGW is a silly dead theory, that is being used as a political weapon.
CAGW the idea is the reason why we are sitting are hard observational paradoxes that can be explained to people with a high school education with pictures that make CAGW go away.
P.S. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for less than 15% of the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is not an argument or a debate. It is a physical problem. Physical problems have a natural physical solution.
Mosh, I am collecting predictions as that is what is called for in the scientific method. I would honestly like to get yours.
Assume CO2 will continue to grow by 1-2 PPM. Over the next 20 years (2020-2040) will it be hotter, colder and by how much?
Thanks
TRM
Britain emits 1% of global CO2. Natural water vapour at 60,000 ppm is the dominant greenhouse gas . The effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration, with the first 100 ppm having the most impact .
Theresa May -late and unlamented UK Prime Minister- committed £1 trillion to facilitate actions in cutting UK emissions to zero by 2050. Assuming climate sensitivity to co2 is as high as is claimed, that will save 3 hundredths of a degree in 50 years, according to Nature magazine.
Tonyb
I’m aware of water vapor but my assumption about CO2 increasing is because it is claimed to be the “control knob” of the climate. China and India have said that they will continue to industrialize using coal and that is where CO2 emisssion growth is determined so my “assumption” is pretty safe IMHO.
I am looking to collect more specific predictions from both the CO2 and natural cycles sides, not the “snow will be a thing of the past” type stuff. Date ranges with +/- temp values are what I’m after.
TRM
The Nature quote is pretty much the expected amount for the 1ppm per year contribution that Britain will no longer be emitting by 2050. That assumes climate sensitivity is as per the theoretical science, which is a different thing to observation.
It is one of the reasons some want to try to diminish the significance of notably warm periods of the past, that managed to be warmer than today with much lower co2 at around 280ppm.
The records in the UK for example show we were likely up to 2 degrees warmer than today in the period 850to 1300Ad which is when the climate changed dramatically and famine ensued.
You might care to email a dozen climate scientists direct. I did this around 5/7 years ago, Many had not done the calculations and those who had admitted the reductions would be relatively trivial and not especially noticeable.
Climate scientists on the whole are pretty friendly and eager to share their knowledge as long as you approach them in the proper manner
tonyb
I contacted
CO2 has doubled in the last 20 years or so. Global warming has “paused”…
Correlation doesn’t prove causation though.
“Correlation doesn’t prove causation though.” But, a lack of correlation proves there is no causation.
brain washing and using children to push a cause…
that’s also a legitimate argument
“…Now you guys are reduced to bullying a kid, and one with a disability…”
This thread isn’t about Michael Mann.
“Alleged” disability. Is anyone else in the world besides her parents and doctor privy to her medical records..?
The trouble with Greta’s (alleged) mental disability’s is they want it both ways.
If she is a disabled child, we are mean for bringing it up, or;
If she is not disabled, we are just trolling and don’t know anything and are smearing the character of this intelligent young woman.
The reality is, if she is not disabled and they are lying for pity points, they are terrible parents, or; if she is mentally disabled and they are putting her in the extremely stressful position of globally travelling and speaking to groups of people and the public spotlight, they are terrible parents. Neither of these impinge Greta’s character herself.
Once she is about 18-19 and can get out on her own she becomes responsible for her own behavior, however.
Shack!
Strange.
Someone else of the warmist persuasion said almost exactly that: “debate is not science , it is theatre” just a few days ago (Griff?Lloydo?) and it struck me then that only someone who had not spent a lifetime in science could say that .Anyone who has had to attend monthly research project meetings and defend findings in front of the Res Director, (and a Finance Director whose instinct is to close everything down to save a few bob) knows that in some circumstances debate is important to research.
If my experience is widely shared then a PhD viva is a debate , between you and your examiner who can pose all sorts of questions to ascertain whether your research was truly original (have you looked at all the literature ), are your results valid (how did you calibrate) , do you understand the theory of your subject. Perhaps more of an inquisition than a debate, and in some countries it is a public ordeal, certainly a touch of theatre, but integral to the building of a professional scientific corps.
And the Solvay conferences of the 20s and 30s, were they not both debate (especially with Einstein tryinmg to find holes in quantum mechanics) and an important part of scientific history?
Debate may not be absolutely essential to scientific progress but it helps, eg in the “Woodstock of science” meeting about high temperature ceramic superconductors and whether it is theatrical at all or just boring is irrelevant.
I suspect that denate is also important in other fields , eg history, in order to establish truth, and I suspect that I might have Socrates on my side.
Mosher
Debate CAN be a search for truth, or it can be theater. It depends on who is partaking in the debate, the structure of the debate, and the purpose of the debate.
The purpose of lime-lighting a child with a disability, and little knowledge of science, is to deflect criticism by characterizing is as bullying. Under those circumstances it is clearly theater. It is a sad commentary on the Media and society when legitimate questions about science are purposely suppressed with theater, and social taboos, to prevent any debate that might lead to truth. Yes, it is difficult to win in the Kangaroo Court of public opinion, but to ignore the hyperbole and lies results in losing.
Steven,
I don’t think you get it. Greta has chosen to enter the affray in what has hitherto been an adult environment. Furthermore, she openly derides the adults, suggesting that it is she who is taking the mature line. So, it’s a case of Big Boy’s Games, Big Boy’s Rules. If people were to treat her with the kid gloves her tender age would normally warrant, she would be the first to complain. I certainly do not condone those who fixate upon her appearance and demeanour, but I see nothing wrong with robustly challenging what she says. Personally, I look forward to the day when she comes of age and her supporters are no longer in a position to bleat on about child-bullying every time someone calls her out for her poor grasp of the subject matter and her vacuous sloganeering. They say if it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Greta may be a duckling but she is quacking like a duck in hunting season.
Her parents the are bad actors here. Not any of us. I would be consistent in my opposition to using a child regardless of her autism. That just makes this would affair worse. However, we are not responsible for putting on world stage. We would be irresponsible and hypocrites if we did not hold her to same standards as we hold you and others of your mindset.
She is the one on the world stage; it is a tough and tumble world. It will actually make her stronger. Hopefully, it will make her question her parents, like all teenagers should and need to do to develop executive function.
Like most trolls, steve likes to pretend that disagreement is abuse.
(Except of course when he does it.)
Steven Mosher
September 28, 2019 at 7:14 am
“no way to win that one boys”
———————————-
Mosh, sorry, but got to say that I do disagree slightly with the above statement of yours. 🙂
“The boys”, already clearly have lost that one, in this given stage.
A quite easy won by Greta, in that one.
These “boys” somehow forgot that there is no honor in back-stabbing… even when consisting in the case of the worst opponent to be considered.
And as far as I can tell, there is no recompense or a win-back in such cases…
no favoritism or immunity for such an already loss…
maybe the relief of acceptance could be the only gain there…maybe.
It ain’t that bad though… as theatrical. 🙂
cheers
“no way to win that one boys”
By using Greta as they have, the AGW meme/agenda has already lost !
Steve,
A huge mistake in “picking” fat Al Gore, who was an easy target? Meaning his science was lousy?
Gore’s movie was the subject of a UK judicial decision in Dimmock v.Secretary of State for Education (2008).
Justice Burton found that without corrective material the movie was in breach of two sections of the UK Education and was propaganda not science.
This does not stop alarmists from saying the Judge was ruling on 9 “errors” not identifying 9 errors.
See the Wikipedia entry on the movie, which sets out ‘Claimants claims’, ‘ Judge’s ruling’ and ‘ ‘other science’! The other science is Gore’s claims recycled.
So the decision is turned on its head.
When mainstream scientists believe Gore’s inanities like endangered polar bears, you’ve got a post- truth world in science.
Steven Mosher September 28, 2019 at 7:14 am
Debate is not theater.
Have ever seen how a play is practiced? Everyone in the play has their part, their lines and the production is limited to them.
You are either an actor or the audience. Science is debate CAGW is theater for it is a scripted act with the actors playing their rolls. No need or notification from the audience that their drama is in reality a comedy.
BTW in all many conflicts the loosing side resorts to using children, itt is a measure of the depravity and vileness of their cause. Those who send children out to fight their battles are the sole architects of their fate.
michael
Has she ever stated a factual piece of science? Why isn’t she at home studying, as she is home schooled, why is she allowed to go around the world for free while telling “end of the world” lies.. she is on social media which in itself is a heavy carbon polluter (mobile phone, computer)…. when they grow their own food, dig a water well, and wear only cotton clothes, I mite listen to them
“Has she ever stated a factual piece of science?”
How can she ? There is none…..PERIOD !
Sunny
I read her book. Her grasp on reality is very limited, but that is true of many of the young who tend to see only certainties that matches their own emotions, which is true of many adults also, who are getting over excited.
Greta has caused the expenditure of 5 episodes of co2 emissions as crew have had to fly over from Europe to collect the boat and the former crew need to get back to their jet set lifestyle in Monaco. So this is virtue signalling, but the question remains who would want to emulate her?
Would they be prepared to give up their comfortable lifestyles for a vague promise that temperatures might be a fraction of a degree lower in 100 years if they revert to a medieval life style?
It is estimated that we need 50% more energy by 2050. Where is the base power for a 24/7 society coming from? Many believe renewable energy will come to our rescue but Renewables (and smartphones/computers) often utilise minerals requiring environmentally damaging mining, processing and shipping, with not enough in the world to meet projected demand.
Professor Mackay of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said trying to power the UK economy with weather dependent Renewable Energy was “an appalling delusion” which only takes trivial “back of the envelope” calculations to prove.
Students determined to follow the no emissions path will need to forego many modern day comforts and Journey only by bus, cycling, walking or train. No parents taxi service. No flying except in an emergency. No spring water in plastic bottles, No imported food or food out of season when there is a local alternative. Little meat, dairy or fish, no hot daily showers, an embargo on throw away fashion clothes, no cotton. Infrequent washing of clothes in tepid water and no artificial drying. Drastic reductions of energy guzzling internet and social media, with smart phones and computers rationed to one a household and kept for years and a reduction in purchases of consumer goods.
Only weekly cups of habitat destroying coffee and foregoing endless home deliveries of everything from fast food to shoes. No attendance at festivals or sporting events, especially overseas or with floodlights Minimal home heating. Expect regular power cuts. Curtail vegan foods which have achieved mythical status on their ability to save the planet. Many vegan ingredients come from all over the world, often by air and have huge carbon footprints.
In short students (and adults) believing in the ‘climate emergency’ will need to make considerable sacrifices and adopt more frugal lifestyles, not just during school years when passions and certainties burn brightest .
Those protesting at ‘inaction’ who believe parents (and governments) don’t care or are unaware of the issues might care to remember Mark Twain’s words
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
One last thing Sunny, the LAST thing they want to do is ‘wear only cotton clothes’ which are extremely environmentally damaging.
Now which sacrifices will you be signing up to? 🙂
tonyb
This silly CAGW has made everything a fight. There is an argument concerning sensible consumption vs overconsumption.
In reply to: “an embargo on throw away fashion clothes”
There was an interesting lady on the BBC who is working to reduce human over consumption. She noted that people (many men still do) use to wear out favourite clothes, patch and repair.
“Fashion” clothes is a marketing creation where clothes are only worn for a single season or for the rich a single galea outing.
We produce 100 billion fashion clothes per year, 10 billion of which are not sold to rich countries and are put in land files.
tonyb… I am giving up nothing, as people need to live and pay bills. I will keep driving my car as I love to drive. I am a vegetarian from birth, but will continue to drink milk (helps my stomach) and to eat imported fruits and veg… I will use the internet, watch tv… I fact, I will give up Nothing… The greens can do what ever they like, as I am tired of the climate talk.. I suffered horrible anxiety a few months ago, then luckily I found this site…
Sunny
I would love to see a study whereby researchers showed 100 activist schoolchildren a list such as mine and asked them which ones they had already given up and which ones they were planning to give up in the next month, permanently.
Then ask their teachers encouraging the school strikes the same questions
There is a huge lack of knowledge of the subject and even more hypocrisy
Btw I am a life long vegetarian too. Glad you have found this site.
Tonyb
Tonyb. There was a news reports on the bbc, that the 60% of the medicine in the uk comes from Europe which includes other medical supplies.. will the greens become our doctors as well?
Wheb you have a spare minute or two watch this youtube video please…
ralfellis posted this link Ten reasons why Greta is a fraud…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jpk8Ix1CCg
Its a brilliant video about ms. Co2 , I hope they link it as a new post…. Children will never give up toys, tv, xbox or there mobile phones, especially when they see many other kids using mobiles daily. being a vegetarian or vegan is easy nowadays as their are so many different types of burgers, vegan meats etc etc… But totally giving up fossil fuels products would never happen… A lot of vegan foods are from outside the uk, where I live, so many potatoes will have to do Lol.
Welcome to the club Sunny. Not just the WUWT club. A few of us here are old and grew up in the 70s getting bombarded with that era’s “fear porn”. “Limits to Growth”, “The Population Bomb”, a cold war that constantly threatened to go hot, the ice age has returned, etc, etc.
We can relate to the anxiety and depression such propaganda can cause. If anything it is worse today as social media is more powerful than anything I endured growing up.
Glad you found the open end of the box and escaped. Hopefully more, including Greta, will as well.
Don’t forget that they should wear only leather shoes made with wood pegs instead of nails, or go barefoot.
Possibly they can wear birch wood shoes if the shoes are hand made.
ATheoK
Are birch wood shoes carved with steel knives created by mining iron ore and smelting it by adding carbon to reduce the iron oxide and create carbon dioxide in the process?
What the dolts don’t get is that nobody is actually attacking Greta.
What’s being attacked are the deluded Machiavellians who believe the words of a highly-manipulated, hysterical 16-year old might have any effect on the thinking of rational, sentient adults.
What’s actually being attacked are the parents who have abused and indoctrinated a vulnerable, impressionable child. What’s actually being attacked are those same parents who have permitted their vulnerable child to be exploited by Machiavellian climate zealots and activists.
They get it John….Greta is the new “woke” messiah….the ultimate think of the children….make her look 10yo and the “face” of it…
…in a sane world it would be child abuse…so would indoctrinating them in school
The photo of the snarling Greta that came out on all the news platforms this week did poor little Greta/Joan any favors. They reveal her as the snotty, emotionally immature pouting angry teenaged girl that we all know and loath from personal experience (whether as parents, siblings, or schoolmates) .. though most grow out of that stage of immaturity and eventually become pleasant adults.
But to the True Believers, she is Joan of Arc and the savior of their little world.
Could she be a paranoid android?
In her most recent tirade, she is perilously close to the Uncanny Valley.
I think the people to ask are not the skeptics or the alarmist warmists it’s the neutrals, the people who don’t really know what to believe and don’t really care. As long as it doesn’t cost them too much money they wonder what all the fuss is about.
I think that Greta will be a disaster for the warmists because the neutrals won’t see a modern day messiah just a scared little strange girl who has serious issues and major anxiety levels. If she is now the guru who is to be listened to then maybe their is something really off with this climate change theory. If an hysterical school girl is now their most potent weapon there can’t be much scientific evidence to back their position.This is a wake up call that tells you that the warmists have almost run out of ideas and their bottom of the barrel idea is that if they can scare the bejeezas out of their kids they may get through to the neutral adults. I think that the neutrals will resent this and think that when combined with the desperate actions of extinction rebellion that these people are nuts.
I’m reminded of the various trolls who frequently proclaim that unless one has multiple degrees in “climate science” one is to be ignored on this subject.
All of them are telling us to listen to this girl, despite her lack of degrees. Heck, she hasn’t even graduated from high school yet.
Yes,
• James Hansen: astronomer / physicist
• Michael Mann: physicist / geologist
• John Cook: physicist & cartoonist
• Joe Romn: physicist
• John Holdren: plasma physicist
• Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physicist
• Dana Nuccitelli: physicist in spe or not
• Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
• Eric Steig: geologist
• Bill McKibben: environmental studies
• Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
• Paul Nurse: geneticist
• Rajendra Pachauri: economist / industrial engineer
• David Suzuki: zoologist / geneticist
• Al Gore: divinity major
None of this is believe or not to believe. None of this requires belief.
The planet warms, the planet cools, the climate may or may not change during these cycles; the weather may or may not visit the extreme of a warming or cooling trend without the overall climate changing. Not belief.
It is not semantics; the alarmists have choosen their words carefully, I suggest we do the same. Please be more precise, discipline and rigorously use more robust scientific and engineering language.
“How dare you?” is being recognized as a farce and is being ridiculed all over. The farce is backfiring.
And if writers at the NYT had brains, maybe they’d get scrambled every once in awhile.
We stand outside of your framings and laugh at you.
https://twitter.com/CarpeDonktum/status/1176258897188966403
Omigosh! That one is going to be remade a zillion times with all sorts of messages. It’s the next “Hitler in the Bunker” clip to play with.
Great find, icisil. Thanks!
Hilariously, only like 36% of people in her home country of Sweden believe that climate change is mostly/solely caused by Mankind https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/18/yougov-poll-only-36-of-usa-believe-humans-are-mainly-responsible-for-climate-change/
The mistake being made in countering arguments by child props of the climate change movement or any other political movement is not using the simple truth. The “facts” put into these children’s heads are just wrong. We readers of WUWT know this. The facts need to be published elsewhere, by posts on blogs, letters to the editor of newspapers (yes, people still read them) and news interviews. How many times does the Wall Street Journal or Fox News, both conservative in outlook, let slide the claims increasing storms, rising seas inundating the land, or other catastrophes? There’s rarely any pushback.
It’s very easy to lampoon some of these children, particularly the snarling speech given by Greta Thunberg. But using ridicule as opposed to facts won’t sway the opinion of the general population (Oh, those vicious people bullying that poor child!). Instead we must state that someone has taught the young lady a bunch of malarkey.
I continue to be discouraged (and blame) those “legitimate” scientists who, even though they believe that increased CO2 is net harmful, do not come out and refute the “Climate Emergency” fears.
I recently read a headline that stated 51% of today’s youth believe the earth will be “uninhabitable” in their lifetimes.
To my knowledge, there is no science behind such claims; the IPPC Report that is referenced in support did NOT say we have only 12 years until a disaster (as AOC claims repeatedly), only a vague, unsupported contention that we only have a dozen years to “do something” about an alleged catastrophe some un-named decades or centuries in the future.
At worst, specific areas that have been historically impacted by floods, hurricanes etc or island that lie only 6 feet above sea level will be impacted more frequently; but the lives of these snowflakes will go on uninterrupted. (If you are really worried, move to Ontario Canada or the NY Adirondacks where you will never have to worry about floods, and your growing season will be more benign.)
On the other hand I will guarantee that if the developed nations ever followed completely through with the “climate” proposals of the GND, the youth will certainly find the world “uninhabitable” (at least to their standards.)
The academic “partners in crime”, the psychology professors add fuel to the fire with their reports of mental health damage to the youth of the world.
Those scientists may have listened to Steven Schneider and decided to paint scary scenarios or hide their uncertainty, but isn’t there a point where “enough is enough”?
Saying so doesn’t make it so
I recently heard she was 16 years old…I had thought she was about 13-14…..and a nasty little turd throwing tantrums like “those” children you see screeching in shops while their useless parents die of embarrassment.
I wouldn’t hire her as a babysitter, she looks like a psychopath to me, actually I wouldn’t hire her to walk the dogs, or pick up my mail, let alone drool over anything she is likely to tell me or demand of me as the feebly minded NWO kameraden do. So no, she doesn’t impress me as a conservative or in any way confuse or cause me consternation other than wondering just how deranged the loony left have become. I will not be changing my vote for that particular lunatic thank you very much.
Even in Sweden the organized labour have been critizising Greta on one of the state television channels for the religous overtones of “her” campaign (not that anyone believes it is her campaign). They are also not amused about her talk about dismantling almost all conventional industry. My view is that her travels and the organizing of the various events are (maybe without her knowledge) paid for by influential and rich organizations in spite of her extreme leftist views (she recently appeared in an AFA T-shirt. AFA is a violent extreme leftist organization also close to her mother´s views. You could call Greta the high priestess of the modern day flagellants (medieval term for the hoards wandering around the countryside flogging themselves in atonement and preparation for the end of the world).
Claes Lindskog. If she did wear a AFA T shirt, then it shows either, her true colours, or she really is a uneducated puppet… when france didn’t let her speak in paris a month or so ago, people should have realised what she really is….
“The moral equivalent of Smokey the Bear.”
At least Smokey was instrumental in helping to lower U.S. wildfires! St. Greta is ignorantly working to destroy life on Earth by starving the biosphere of it’s vital food: CO2!! If the whole world embarked on an emergency program to build as many coal, gas and nuclear power plants as possible, then started using all excess power to produce CO2 we might be able to see some man-made warming. But natural processes will continue to remove this necessary “staff of life” from the oceans and atmosphere until the biosphere begins to die unless an intelligent life form reverses the process. Kudos to the Swedish Death Metal!