NYT: “How the Climate Kids Are Short-Circuiting Right-Wing Media”

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, 2019

The 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.

Advertisements

199 thoughts on “NYT: “How the Climate Kids Are Short-Circuiting Right-Wing Media”

  1. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • “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.

      • 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 ………

      • 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.

    • 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.

  2. 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

          • 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

    • 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    • 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.

  5. 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 ……

  6. 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 @$$ 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.

  7. Brits over 40 might remember Violet Elizabeth Bott.

    “I’ll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I’m thick”

      • 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

  8. 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

      • 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.

      • “…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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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

  9. 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

    • 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?

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    • 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!

  13. 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”?

  14. 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.

  15. 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….

  16. “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!

  17. ‘While the levers for climate progress proposed by solutions like a Green New Deal’

    Solutions? Wut?

    ‘The broader movement’s desire an inhabitable earth for all is far from partisan.’

    If you don’t support the children – they are our future – you are for an uninhabitable earth.

    ‘The stakes, as the movement sees it, are too high to focus attention on the trolls.’

    He doesn’t know what ‘troll’ means.

    ‘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.’

    See what he did there? Their age is relevant*, but secondary. The right attacks her ideas. Warzel wants you to believe that the only complaint is their age.

    *Their age explains their childishness.

  18. To the extent that 16 year-old Greta Thunberg is forcing AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Prince Charles and other prominent CAGW mouthpieces to ride in the back of the bus, that is a good thing.

    • One can understand a young fool – wisdom usually comes from years of life experience. However an old fool is far worse – they have learnt nothing despite looking at the world for many years and are incapable of educating a young impressionable fool.

  19. I read that shortly after Greta sued 5 countries for “carbon crimes”, many world leaders turned against Greta.

    • Only countries where her abusers has a financial interest (ok, i know, it isn’t abuse it it’s done by leftists).

      How does it ends? Gret awill be driven insto suicide, than all online critics will be blamed.

  20. [Greta had] a public meltdown. And of course the politicians applauded it – perversely, they love nothing more than being told how awful they are by a petrified, disorientated girl.

    Who did this to Greta? Who turned a bright and curious 16-year-old schoolgirl into a prophet of horror, into a young woman who admits to feeling terror and who believes the Earth is on fire? Adults did. The green-infused educational, political and cultural elites did. The people who have been feeding kids a narrative of eco-fear for years did this. Their secular Armageddonism, their wilful exaggeration of every problem mankind faces, their marshalling of the politics of fear to try to force people to change their allegedly wicked, eco-harmful behaviour – all of this has convinced many young people that the future is dark, mankind is doomed, and there is no point even going to school, far less planning one’s life, because we will all be dead soon. They did this to Greta, and to others, and it is unforgivable.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/24/save-greta/

  21. “Greta Thunberg is only the spearhead of a growing movement that, let me assure you, will soon sweep the world, because “THE DANGER IS REAL.” And true to her spirit, they will brook no compromise. . .

    As the situation becomes increasingly desperate in the eyes of radicalized reformers, the danger of extreme actions, including bouts of terrorism, becomes increasingly more likely. With fire in their eyes and teeth filed razor sharp, cadres of organizations like Extinction Rebellion will soon constitute a veritable army of thought police, a quasi gestapo of right-minded inquisitors ready to stop at nothing until all “deniers” are silenced, and the oil, coal and gas industries, not to mention the plastic industry – and let’s not forget all those burping cows – are shut down for good. And their actions will be justified. Because, according to “the science,” half measures will not be sufficient. . .

    After years of puzzling over this extremely perplexing issue I’ve gradually come to the realization that we are on the cusp of a period of world history unlike any other. Indeed, we are entering an era of mind-bending uncanniness fueled by a toxic mix of sheer hysteria and helplessness. Impossible demands will be made that will universally be regarded as necessary, a double-bind worthy of a Derrida essay or a Zen koan. To be blunt, we will be expected to destroy our world in order to save it.” From “Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss.”
    Available via Amazon.com

    • Watching the news clips of all the kids at the protests, I noticed how many of these children just said: Do Something! Anything! As if charging a tax is going to change the weather. If I were DJT, I would say OK, we are going to really do something, and we are going to really develop 5th generation nuclear energy along with hardening the grid both in capacity and in resilience. That would really be doing something, and which is probably what we really need to do anyway at some point in the future. The older and wiser skeptics need to not only seize the narrative, but also the agenda.

  22. “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”

    So ? It is the truth…..The liberal left can’t seem to handle reality….

  23. The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg

    How is it possible for you to be so easily tricked by something so simple as a story, because you are tricked? Well, it all comes down to one core thing and that is emotional investment. The more emotionally invested you are in anything in your life, the less critical and the less objectively observant you become.” — David JP Phillips, We Don’t Have Time board of directors, “The Magical Science of Storytelling”

    Tagged in Rentzhog’s “lonely girl” tweet were five twitter accounts: Greta Thunberg, Zero Hour (youth movement), Jamie Margolin (the teenage founder of Zero Hour), Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and the People’s Climate Strike twitter account (in the identical font and aesthetics as 350.org). [These groups will be touched upon briefly later in this series.]

    Rentzhog is the founder of Laika (a prominent Swedish communications consultancy firm providing services to the financial industry, recently acquired by FundByMe). He was appointed as chair of the think tank Global Utmaning (Global Challenge in English) on May 24, 2018, and serves on the board of FundedByMe. Rentzhog is a member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders, where he is part of the European Climate Policy Task Force. He received his training in March 2017 by former US Vice President Al Gore in Denver, USA, and again in June 2018, in Berlin.

    Founded in 2006, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project is a partner of We Don’t Have Time.

    http://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

    • Fretslider – that link goes to very interesting and rather scary stuff. In my working life as a professional academic (I know…) I have worked around some of the literature which blames multinational companies for most of the world’s ills. It’s a complex subject, and there is a lot of left-wing silliness and misinformation, but there is no denying that multinational companies are major players in the world economy, and that the outcomes of that economy are not always satisfactory for all – multinationals are an easy target for the expression of the dissatisfaction du jour. In the last couple of decades I have begun to ask whether we might treat the big NGOs (WWF, Greenpeace, UN***, and the like) with similar suspicion. My interest in this was broadly to encourage students (and colleagues) to re-evaluate any negative opinions they might have of profit-making companies, in the light of the power and ruthlessness of the NGOs, and to stop giving those NGOs a kind of moral free-ride into hearts and minds. The link that you provide gives another line on this, one that I had not seen so clearly expressed before – that is, that the NGOs are just another expression of the wicked multinationals of the military industrial complex, and that really sophisticated left-wingers can hate them as well. Mostly bollocks, but interesting none the less. Thank you for the pointer.

      • “multinational companies are major players in the world economy, and that the outcomes of that economy are not always satisfactory for all”

        Why would they be? Why should they be?

  24. Had her and a bunch of kids in ‘Kids are Coming’ sweatshirts performing at the AFL Grand Final which has become a platform for leftist elites nowadays when all we want is the contest.(sadly there was only one quarter of it this year). The most telling thing about the gyrating kids if you could call young adolescents that was they largely had fat sedentary bums and looked as well nourished as the team leader-
    https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/news/musicnews/the-kids-are-coming-is-tones-and-i-at-most-confident/11465216
    Not exactly your under-consumptionists leading the charge by the looks.

  25. Greta Thunberg has no education in any of the physics required to understand climate variables; she can have no knowledge of climate change other than what she’s acquired from popular media and agenda-driven personal handlers. I’d bet she has no familiarity with the Laws of Thermodynamics, or anything else required for that understanding. She will have never seen or understood the mathematics of a climate simulator (I no longer call them ‘models’) and has no realization that Mann appended an apple onto the end of a crooked string of oranges (which he fraudulently straightened into a shaft by eliminating the MWP and the LIA) and then claimed ‘See, the end of the stick is RED!’ She will have never plotted a GISS temperature record, and (like David Suzuki) doesn’t know what it (or HADCRUT) is.

    If she was of average intelligence (there is a high probability that she is not and is incapable of ever understanding the requirements stated above) her opinion of climate change would be worth no more than one 7.6 billionth of world opinion on the subject; it would take special education for her to have more than average value to her opinion, and the simple fact that she thinks her opinion is valuable without that knowledge is a testament to a lack of sufficient intelligence to realize her own limitations. In other words, allowing for less-than-average intelligence, sadly the practical relevance of her opinion on the subject approaches, and possibly equals, zero.

    And yet she is the present darling of (many of) the world’s leaders, UN, and MSM. My view is that the irrelevance of her opinion serves as a definition of the modern-day relevance of the UN as it makes time to give her audience. The same goes for media, and our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Those who admire her define themselves as being of inferior intelligence and self-identify as required to ‘look up’ to her. This is one of the strangest cultural phenomena that has happened in my lifetime.

    Donald Trump appears to have treated her commensurately with her relevance to the topic; he ignored her.

    • From indb: “Personal Quote: What’s the point in educating ourselves and learning the facts when the people in power refuse to listen, to be educated and pay attention to the facts?”
      Yes Greta dear, everybody hopes to be educated by the uneducated. Do you?

  26. Look on the bright side.

    For decades ruling elites of EU, USA, Australia, Japan, … have been scaring the majority of people that doomsday is comming – all just to increase taxes and channel subsidies, etc. into the pockets of their supporters. Obviously, they have not achieved even a bit of what they pontificated about, namely, reduce emissions of CO2.

    Now comes this mentally challenged hysterical kid (wih all the help from shortsighted politicians and media) and screams panic, “You have not done anything to prevent anthropogenic global warming!”. And the elites cannot say “That’s OK, we haven’t reduced emissions of CO2 because there is no need, AGW was just an excuse!” So how do they dodge this one?

    Assuming that IPCC predictions were correct – even some more rational warmists realise that there is nothing to be done: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending.

  27. By the time we reach her supposed end of the world time, she will already likely be dead of suicide. She has mental problems and this is just going to make them worse.
    Way to go parents!

  28. Somehow, I just can’t see a future where the young, “save the planet,” movement will have an impact on anything other than the core agitators (screwing up their own future by not bothering to prepare themselves for it).

    As soon as the lesser-involved youth realize what they would have to give up, they will quickly conclude that adaptation might be preferable to prevention. And over time, when they realize no significant adaptation has been needed, they’ll forget about it completely.

  29. Eric Worral,

    You say of comments by Charlie Warzel,
    “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.”

    I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

    But, of course, I speak as a climate skeptic who is a left-wing socialist of the traditional British kind.

    Richard

    • Correct. They let SOME conservative people speak and OMG THEY ARE WORSE THAN HITLER!

      The Left wants NO OPPOSITION. They want no debate. They represent orthodoxy; all others have no right or reason to speak.

  30. Dear Greta,

    You believe to hold universal knowledge and enough of it to steer the world’s destiny. Fair enough. Let’s just assume you’re the main character a cognitive miracle that unravels in front of our eyes.

    Yes Greta Dear, you dictate the destiny of billions of people. Presumably you’re a genius.

    We have an interesting offer. What about starting small, in the realm of 150 persons?

    Here’s the deal. We will walk away and let your best ideological supporters board a nice white fully serviceable plane.

    Compared with how you empower yourself to steer billions, it should be a piece of cake to take your exhaled peers to the next bright future conference.

    It’s real easy. Talk a bit, or in your case, argue/yell over the radio, push a few buttons, move some levers. Let your pet unicorns do what they do best.

    Afterwards, I guarantee you, it’ll be a far better world.

  31. After relaying that police was thankful to demonstrators for abiding with peaceful demonstration… -when media, police and establishment supports a bunch of teens led by some fabricated icon piper, should this count as a “demonstration” or as propaganda?
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-climate-strike-kids-1.5300850
    Well the CBC continues the Greta-mania. Nicole Mortillaro, writes: “Climate lessons from the classroom spill into the streets”.
    Indeed, if this is what is taught in the classroom, there is legitimate worries about the level of teaching in Canadian schools!

    ‘I’m here to fight for my future, for the future my grandchildren,’ says Adlyn Gilbert, 13…
    At first, Gilbert seems quiet. Unassuming. That is, until she starts belting out her chant as the climate strike march begins in the streets.
    The contrast in her demeanour is startling.
    “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Fossil fuels have got to go!”

    Illuminating.

    Gilbert says her knowledge about climate change comes from school and her many teachers. What she’s learning in the classroom frightens her. In particular, she’s concerned about floods — not just in cities, but around the world.
    “There are a lot of places in the world that will definitely be gone if we stay at this rate,” she says. “There are so many places that will be off the map soon. That’s really scary.”
    Many of the children in the streets do not know the details of the science, but they are convinced that they’re heading into a different world than the one that exists today.
    Zoe Keary-Matzner was one of the speakers at the rally ahead of the march. After a fiery speech, she, like Gilbert, seems quiet and reserved.
    “I’m scared about my future,” she says. “But I’m mainly scared about ecosystem destruction and the destruction of the environment.”

    No reasoning, just pure fear: is that what teachers teach in Canadian classrooms?
    Mortillaro adds another coat:

    Along the march route, not far from Gilbert, 9-year-old Ella Tomczak grasps a handmade sign reading “How dare you?” It’s a nod to global climate activist Greta Thunberg’s recent speech at the United Nations. Tomczak and her classmates, Noa Nicholishen and Lucas Garson, are marching because they want to “save the planet.” They say they get most of their information from their parents.
    “If you don’t do something about the climate, everyone would die, and there would be nothing left,” she says.

    No doubt, their knowledge contributed to Resplandy’s withdrawal by Nature…
    And Mortillaro to conclude in pure abdication of any journalistic standards:

    And she has words for those who criticize this generation’s call to action.
    “They’re underestimating children,” Gilbert says. “As far as our opinions and how much we might know and understand.”

    We do not underestimate children and how much they might or not know at 9. Taking example on how the climate issue is handled and trusting journalistic accounts of it, we suggest that our Health Ministry shall bypass health care providers to relieve our Province’s 91,000 waiting list for surgeries, and ask next doors 16 y old to perform all cardiac procedures, tumor removals and brain surgeries. And that should include treatments to CBC journalists and politicians alike.
    Let’s see who will volunteer first…

  32. ”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”

    Funny how far left extremists and their supportives idiots toss any moderate leftist or centrist into the right wing / alt-right group when they don’t chant the right song.

    • watched your link; was very impressed! Took issue with just one very small part; that where he tries to give Greta’s family the benefit of the doubt, because:

      “…Arrhenius [Greta’s great great uncle?] involved himself in the eugenics movement by joining the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, a group focused on researching and promoting the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). This society was formed in 1909 in an attempt to popularize eugenics and encourage policy changes to promote eugenics (Bjorkman & Widmalm, 2010).
      Arrhenius was not only a member; he was on the board for the society (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). The society gave lectures and handed out pro-eugenic pamphlets to the public, but because it was illegal for them to discuss any method of birth control, the group was thought to have limited influence overall (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005)…”

      “…the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans…”

      http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/531b4346132156674b0001ed

      And the whole picture of the Climate Change religion would not be complete without the masses chanting to a Virgin priestess:

    • Someone left this comment: Great they picked a girl that scares me more then actual climate change. I can almost see a t-shirt with that on it. /sarc

      The producer of that video is right: she’s a pawn in this mess and she’s being used, and when she’s no longer useful, she’ll disappear from public view completely.

      This just becomes more and more disgusting.

    • Indeed! I’ve reposted it on the Corbett Report but with a caveat:

      corbettreport.com/mother-nature-demands-child-sacrifice-propagandawatch/ :

      “…the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans…”

      “…Arrhenius [Greta’s great great uncle?] involved himself in the eugenics movement by joining the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, a group focused on researching and promoting the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). This society was formed in 1909 in an attempt to popularize eugenics and encourage policy changes to promote eugenics (Bjorkman & Widmalm, 2010).
      Arrhenius was not only a member; he was on the board for the society (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). The society gave lectures and handed out pro-eugenic pamphlets to the public, but because it was illegal for them to discuss any method of birth control, the group was thought to have limited influence overall (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005)…”

      “…the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans…”

      http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/531b4346132156674b0001ed

      As I recall he was also on the board designating the Nobel prize winners…might explain why Greta is currently a nominee?

      And the whole picture of the Climate Change religion would not be complete without the masses chanting to a Virgin priestess:

      • In the interest of exactitude (if not pertinence) I’d just add the following:

        Well, it turns out Greta is only a distant relative of Svante Arrhenius who I alleged, that in addition to eugenics, had been very active in choosing Nobel prize laureates. And though this has nothing to do with why Greta’s been nominated (the whyfors being pretty obvious I think), the encyclopedia britannica would seem to confirm Arrhenius’ Nobel prize activities:

        “…Arrhenius was a member of the Nobel Committee for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences from 1901 to 1927, and he had a decisive influence on the awarding of Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry during most of that period. He also participated in drawing up the statutes of the Nobel Foundation (1900).

        https://www.britannica.com/biography/Svante-Arrhenius

    • II watched that video all the way through. I do not remember the Suzuki girl from 1992, probably because I was too busy earning a living and it received no notice in local papers or on local TV. But her prediction was that the world would end in 12 years, and yet, here we are, 27 years later, without much in the way of change except for better emissions controls on vehicles, and more efficient energy production. So why hasn’t the world ended yet, Suzuki? WHY? And what happened to her, anyway?

      This is exactly the same thing, exploiting some kid who is afflicted with something she can’t help, taking advantage of that in her to drive a false message that is supposed to strike fear into people, and it does NOT DO THAT. And what’s Greta’s goalpost? 12 years, again? Okay, I’ll still be around by then so I expect to see maybe more snow in my area in the winter, more rain, and probably a few hot days in July, just like this year, but that’s about it. In 2031, I expect things to be pretty much the same as they are now.

      This just becomes more and more appalling as it goes on. And those “elites”??? They’re about as elite as a bowl of Mississippi mud, which, frankly, is FAR more useful than any of them.

      So in 12 years, maybe I can put together a class action suit of some kind, to punish them for lying their behinds off about this whole business, and costing tax payers a lot more than those bozos are worth.

      There’s another aspect to this, which I find very, very disturbing, and it is that this is the start of a death cult in a nascent stage. Follow me, don’t be afraid, and don’t talk to the man behind the curtain, just go straight ahead and WHAM!!!

      I appreciate the fact that the people who put WUWT together are willing to provide access to this material. Without knowing about it. we’re doomed.

      • N.B.: the video I refer to is the “10 Reasons Greta is a Fraud’ video. I”ve copied that link to post it elsewhere and spread the word.

        Whatever did happen to the Suzuki girl, anyway?

    • An excellent video that pulls a great many political, economic and social threads together. As some have been yelling for years, the global warming scam is just one woven into a very large tapestry of deceit.

      Thanks for the link.

  33. I’ve had great fun at the the uni these days playing short video clips for my ESL students: 2 minutes of Greta’s “How Dare You” rant and then two minutes of Nurse Nayirah’s testimony. Then we compare them. They have more than just the braid in common.

  34. Post says: “…who does nothing to build bipartisan support for climate action.”

    Why should there be any action with regard to climate let alone bipartisan?

  35. I thought Sweden was remarkable for its industry.
    You know the SKFs, the Volvo trucks, the SAAB-Scania complex, high quality engineering expertise, most of it fuelled by fossil fuels or for applications using it, and what made Sweden pretty damn wealthy.

    It also has a sizeable part of the country up above the arctic circle…nice and cold up there..including some bits of Baltic sea in winter which requires clearing of sea ice to permit navigation allowing amongst other things trade with neighbouring Finland and lots of import/export.

    And Greta wants to de-industrialise SWEDEN??
    The girl is not mentally ill, or depressive, she’s demonstrably insane!

  36. What “right wing” media?
    Name a channel.
    Do they mean any channel that sometimes provides “unapproved” information?
    Grrrrreta is just a misguided teenager with a mental disorder angry about what her Green$ parents (She was home schooled.) told should be angry about.
    MiniAOC has done more for the world than Grrrrreta has. (And she’s about 8 years younger.)

  37. New York Times currently has the credibility of sks or desmog.
    Most rational people will just label NYT’s claims as more fake news.

    Keep in mind that Greta rode a super expensive sailboat made with tons of carbon fiber; even the lines and sails were made from petrochemicals.
    And all they achieved during the recent protests is to motivate 4 million people; and that is using NYT’s and climate activists’ inflated protestor estimates.

  38. “According to New York Times, the Greta effect is bypassing climate skeptics and reaching everyone who matters.”
    “The kids aren’t just all right they’re scrambling the brains of their political enemies.”

    It appears to me that the ones with the ‘scrambled brains’ are those who listen and actually believe this BS! The only thing that scrambles my brains is the thought that ADULTS are listening to this drivel and thinking these ignorant kids know what they are talking about! It’s nothing more than indoctrination, propaganda and LIES, all rolled up together! Sort of like, the blind leading the blind! The kids have been well trained and tutored in the CC agenda!

  39. There is nothing right wing about climate scepticism. It is only considered so by the extreme left as anyone who disagrees with them is right wing. It is just a mish mash of words and political perceptions. Nowt to do with science.

    • Actual science is long gone in the Political Science narrative.
      The “Ozone Hole” didn’t stick against the wall. For now, this has. (Though I think for more than they’d like to admit, it’s already hit the floor.)

  40. Did St Greta go to school long enough to learn what happened to Joan of Arc? 😀

    The ‘breathy’ delivery of St Greta to the UN is purest propaganda tactic – it is straight from Acting 101 on how to sound emotional. i.e. a deliberate technique put on by an ACTOR. She gets a fail though because when you use it in virtually every utterance it comes across as fake.

    And she gets a fail (as do the other 15 puppets cuing countries) on whether she actually believes or even understand her cause. The press conference, the day after her UN performance, she, and the other 15, are literally unable to answer the most simple of questions – what is the message you would like to give?
    https://youtu.be/RGf-SBar_r4?t=1280

  41. This article is basically The Conservative Advantage manifest.

    Without actually offering any proof, our little NYT author has projected his desired result into the article – “Greta has gotten results! The Bad and Old people are scared!”

    Well, Charlie, you keep believing that and in the mean time the grown up world will continue to observe the pragmatic truth that no one actually cares what ‘youth’ thinks.

    You see, Charlie, the problem with Youth is that they age, and as they age their needs in life change. Here’s a quick question – Who hates 18 year olds? Answer? 19 year olds. Youth lack the experience to handle life and bliss through their late teens believing their own propaganda. They then hit the real world (usually about the time Mummy and Daddy stop supporting them 24/7 and they start to need to pay their own bills) and start to resent younger people via the embarrassment of hindsight.

    Don’t believe? Wonder why parties like The Greens, who constantly push Youth Issues and poll very favorably with first time voters have not significantly improved their vote? Because Youth Issues only appeal to YOUTH. The moment you stop being youth you actively don’t want those pimple faced children getting something you have to pay for with your tax.

    Greta, in Charlie’s own denying words, is a failure. Charlie tells us that Greta has managed to by pass the Right Wing Media, which would be great if it wasn’t for the fact that Greta doesn’t have to impress the Left. The Left already want to destroy the planet in the name of Gaia, they don’t need Greta to tell them they have 12 years to live.

    Greta needed to convince the Right and she needed to convince the adults. She has failed.

  42. Stephen of Cloyes. Age 12 in 1212. Led a large contingent of children from across Europe on a crusade to rescue Jerusalem from the Saracens. Received plaudits and support from the adults of his day. All the children were killed or sold into slavery when they arrived in the Middle East.

    Nongqawuse Age 15 in 1856. Announced that the British would be expelled from her Xhosa homeland and that the Spirits would provide riches and all the necessities of a comfortable life if the tribe would destroy all their crops and kill all their cattle (on which they depended). Received plaudits and support from the adults of her day. This was done, and the Xhosa collapsed as a nation – many people dying of starvation.

    Greta Thunberg Age 16 in 2019. Announced that the world was on the brink of collapse due to human activity interfering with natural processes on the planet. The only way to avoid this would be to destroy all the energy generation machines and complex agriculture and logistic processes (on which the civilisation depended). Received plaudits and support from the adults of her day…….

  43. At the ripe old age of 47, I guess I am very feeble. Nice ageism there, NYT!
    I’m not actually right wing either, I’m moderate-libertarian, although the lefties think that is the same as being a super hard-core right-wing Evangelical these days. Right wing people are nicer to me than left wingers.

    At any rate the article seems to admit without directly saying it that Greta is a failure because she is only preaching to her own already converted choir, and no one outside of that group is moved by her tantrums.

  44. Yet another piece of Greta glorification by the CBC:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-greta-thunberg-s-autism-helps-give-her-a-singular-focus-1.5301634

    Greta Thunberg has met with world leaders, had an audience with the pope and made an impassioned plea to the United Nations. She’s done it all in the public eye, facing down trolls and sounding off against politicians, an impressive feat for any teenager. (…) She calls her autism her “superpower.” She has a clear message: she succeeds not in spite of her disability, but because of it. (…) “For those of us who are on the spectrum, almost everything is black or white,” she said at a TEDx Talk in Stockholm in November 2018. To Thunberg, climate change is a black and white issue: It’s bad and it needs to be stopped now.

    The two journalists, Ioanna Roumeliotis (senior reporter) and Melissa Mancini (junior) do not embarrass themselves with mundane questions such as how a 16 y old could have been propelled to ultra-secured Davos to the Pope and the UN in about one year without enormous establishment support, or how a math, physics, earth science high school education allows a 16 y old to differentiate good and bad science. No! Such logical questions belong to trolls, to unbelievers, since we are in the realm of cult.
    Indeed, Greta’s autism is “superpower” and her chance is to see “almost everything [as] black and white”, which is concerning when facing the subtleties of real science, not the caricature presented by medias such as the CBC.

    It’s a voice that’s refreshing for Anne Borden King and her Baxter, 9, who are both autistic. They travelled from Toronto to Montreal on Friday to march in the country’s largest climate strike. (…) People with autism are often literal thinkers and it’s the simplicity and purity of Thunberg’s message that is resonating so widely, because it doesn’t waver. That appeals to everyone, especially younger people who tend to see the world in less nuanced ways.

    The article does not indicate if these autistic Torontonians walked, biked or swam, let alone drove, took the train or flew for their day trip to Montreal… As long as they identify with Greta, who cares?
    Indeed, no need to try unearthing conspiracy theories here, one just needs to read the admirers’ prose to understand, that it is precisely because of her condition that this Greta character has been carefully groomed and chosen for this worldwide PR job.
    One can think of many historical figures fitting the “simplicity and purity of message” description, many of them whose influence on youth and not so young brought misery to the world. But not for CBC journalists, hagiographers of the Greta gospel, for whom eyes and reason wide shut is the sine qua non condition to successful careers.

  45. The lunatics got let out of the asylum, and they are taking a gr(e) a (t) shot at trying to run the previously previously industrials into the mental institution.

    Fact is,- their propaganda even works in previously ultra sensible, ultra pragmatic Scotland, a country that had a big hand in pushing through the industrial revolution that made us all wealthier and live twice as long.
    It may not last much longer.

    Why? a salutary reminder could be on its way.
    Eg.
    “Seven ill years, During this period, starvation probably killed 5–15 per cent of the Scottish population, but in areas like Aberdeenshire death rates reached 25 per cent.” (The 1690s marked the lowest point of the Little Ice Age-+The massive eruptions of volcanoes at Hekla in Iceland 1693).
    “These problems were not confined to Scotland; the years 1695-97 saw catastrophic famine in present-day Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway and Sweden plus an estimated two million deaths in France and Northern Italy.”

    There’s nothing quite like famine, freezing cold & failed harvests to make people come to their senses.
    We are literally ONE big eruption & or one big solar Carrington event away from flushing this stupid cult down the toilet.

  46. I hope the book sales help wipe away the climate pout .
    Hope she shares the cash with the folks that got her .
    Certainly make the ka ching dreams come true.

    Lovely Greta Climate made .
    Give us a pout and fly a jet away .
    Missing school isn’t cool and
    with a posse over shoulder
    couldn’t get any colder
    Write your book and wipe those tears away .

  47. “the youth climate movement appears wholly unmoved.”

    Faint hopes.

    The “youth movement” came to a full stop, only ol’ and the rich’uns of “extinction rebellion” still on guard;

    The “youth movementers” can’t risk to have troubles their live days long at border controls because of Entries in criminal records – after all they have some 50 to 70 years before them with heavy agendas for hectic flying to dates around the planet.

Comments are closed.