Does Greta Thunberg’s Lifestyle Equal Climate Denial? One Climate Scientist Seems To Suggest So.

It’s been entertaining watching activists on Twitter arrange their circular firing squads~ctm

From Forbes

Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash

Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash

Green Tech

We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs.

The climate debate has taken a nasty turn.  It is no longer a shouting match between climate affirmers and climate deniers. Now the finger-wagging is taking place among climate affirmers on the subject of personal responsibility for combating climate change.

There are two key actors in this unfolding saga. One embraces the importance of individual responsibility while the other derides it.

Greta Thunberg, the new climate icon, does not fly. She is a vegan and subscribes to the stop-shop philosophy, which means that “you don’t buy new things, consume new things, unless you absolutely have to.” In a recent interview, Greta said, “I want to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach. So that is what I’m trying to do.”

In contrast, Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, suggests that any talk of behavioral changes and personal responsibility reflects a soft form of climate denial. Although he did not mention Greta by name, he said: “First of all, there is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions to global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour…. This approach is a softer form of denial and in many ways it is more pernicious.”

Thunberg v. Mann is now the debate to watch!

Mann’s thesis: The case against personal responsibility

Climate change is a complex problem because it involves moving away from the basic pillar of the modern industrial economy: fossil fuels. The shift requires that governments enact new climate laws and build a renewable energy infrastructure.

Because these are massive, system-wide changes, individual-level actions to become climate virtuous will not suffice. We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.

But, as per Mann’s thesis, individual-level actions delay the transition because they allow the fossil fuel industry to blame consumers for the climate crisis. The industry will claim that they are in business because people like their modern lifestyles. For example, people like driving cars: there are over a billion cars in the world today. And as the recent International Energy Agency’s report shows, consumers seem to want bigger and less fuel-efficient cars.

Contrary to the industry claim, the Mann thesis would suggest that people drive cars because governments do not invest in mass transit. People are trapped in their behaviors because of bad public policies, not personal choices.

Thunberg’s thesis: The case for personal responsibility

Climate change is a symptom of overconsumption. If we want to address the climate crisis, we need to demand policy action and change our consumption habits. This is why Greta, the climate activist, does not fly, is a vegan, and adopts a stop-shop philosophy.

But the Greta approach is sending a more profound message: policy advocacy is effective if one walks the climate talk. This is especially relevant for climate scientists who know the seriousness of the climate crisis. Across universities, there is widespread support for Climate Strikes and the Extinction Rebellion. The issue then is how have universities changed their work habits. Have they put themselves on a strict carbon diet?

In spite of federal inaction, states and cities are moving ahead on climate action. Should then universities and individuals not follow the same approach?

Full article here

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Does Greta Thunberg’s Lifestyle Equal Climate Denial? One Climate Scientist Seems To Suggest So.

  1. Climate Crisis ? What Climate Crisis ? Oh, you mean all that white frozen stuff surrounding my house ! Yea, that is a pain in the @ss ! D’OH !

    • Here in Wiltshire UK We saw the first snow in November in the 35 years I have lived here and my heating which is always set at the same temperature has also come on three weeks earlier than ever before.

  2. Of course, I reject the premise of this article. So-called “climate change” is NOT due to “overconsumption.” Living like a hermit ascetic is not going to matter to either the climate or anything else. So dufuses like these two authors are, as you noted, Charles, simply hypocrites arranging the circular firing squad.

    If only I had a time machine, so I could send Greta and all these other climate nitwits back to about the 11th century in Europe. Then they could see what kind of feudal, backward society they would be creating with their “policy solutions.”

      • Chaamjamal
        ,

        Thank you for the link to your work. You answered several questions I’ve long wondered about. Amazing work.

    • Oh, for goodness sake this is a theological debate on which is the correct stance for proper climate obeisance. This is a fundamentalist fight over orthodoxy. One can only hope its gets worse. Let them eat their own, as only they can stomach the taste.

      Get out the popcorn, and have a seat. I say let the fur fly and may no alarmist be left standing.

      • Of course Mikey “A Disgrace to the Profession” Mann is right. Individual virtue signalling is meaningless given the huge climate forces involved. Including the dramatic rise of CO2 from just under three molecules per ten thousand to just over four in 170 years. We simply have to get it down to the 350ppm described as ‘safe’ on the weather page of the Guardian. Let’s plant more trees and never never look at BPs magisterial analysis of energy production to 2035. Go, Thunberg, go go go.

        • Mike still wants the private jets, limos and expensive hotels. Will Greta condemn this in Spain? She should have arranged for sailboats for the thousands of holidayers, oops, I mean delegates.

          • Gerald,
            Exactly what I was thinking. No one knows what a farce AGW is better than Mann and he sure doesn’t intend to give up his fossil fueled lifestyle for what he knows is fake.
            Mann:
            The important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.

            Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
            “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, 
it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”
– Michael Mann (Climategate Emails)

      • Yes. And in days of yore these ascetics sat on top of columns in the desert and never washed. Today they swan round in yachts gobbling up fossil fuel derived cash. It is amazing how they have time for moralising.

    • In the last 40 years of listening to all this AGW claptrap, what’s really happened beyond business as usual except a few new industries subsidizing troughers?

      You could count on the fingers of one hand how many folks are willing to return to that 11th-century precarious existence. Really. And that includes the ones who sing this tedious tune the loudest.

      All this is just a way for “Our Betters,” the Global Elite and their upper-middling wannabes, to advertise their social superiority over We Deplorables. They’re much, much “better” people than us, see, because they believe in this trendy niche religion that makes them self-flagellate and induce dietary deficiencies.
      You can get in the “kool kids’ klub” if you emote, stress and angst about fair-trade organic cotton $200 t-shirts and are seen in trendy places eating your $60 a plate vegan swill.

      Frankly, it’s all they’ve got. They’re already sliding down the chute to the dumpster of history, they just haven’t hit the bottom hard enough to notice yet.

  3. I think Greta wins the argument. It’s no good Mann saying individual actions don’t count. If 97% of the population sort out their carbon footprint to zero, there will be no need for policy actions at all. The 3% of deniers left can pretty much do as they please with little effect. Crisis over. Time to stop flying and consuming Mickey.

    • Geoff… you are exactly right. When each person stops using fossil fuels, why drill for oil or mine coal? Every car will be parked as we all walk to wherever we wish to go. We will not purchase anything at all, ever! Paradise here we come!

      • Do you realize what could actually be DONE if anyone really believed this narrative? A few suggestions that would go orders of magnitude toward “decarbonizing” the Western economy:

        (1) Build new-generation nuclear power plants all across the country. China and India, too.
        (2) Discourage commuting. Encourage telecommuting. A screen’s a screen, right?
        (3) Stagger company workday start/end times to reduce traffic congestion.
        (4) Upgrade American railroads to resemble something from the 21st century.
        (5) Get rid of income tax and enact a value-added tax; you consume–you pay tax. Frugal? Less.
        (6) Get rid of ethanol and other farm subsidies that pay to grow crops we don’t even need.
        (7) Turn off 90% of city and suburban lighting after businesses close for the day.
        (8) Encourage early bedtimes, not “cities that never sleep.”
        (9) Moritorium on new development in known floodplains, subsiding land, high tide lines, etc.

        That’s a SHORT list. None of which would cause much pain to individuals or the economy. The fact that NONE of these obvious answers ever gets discussed tells me the whole CAGW thing isn’t even real.

        • I would add another suggestion to cities almost everywhere:

          Time the traffic lights so that traffic can flow smoothly.

        • (7) Turn off 90% of city and suburban lighting after businesses close for the day.

          Goldrider, if you ever run for a political office, that idea would sure get you the criminals vote.

    • Mann does not want us to understand what is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions to zero. When people understand that they will become much more skeptical of CAGW.

      If you want to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, you better be ready to make big sacrifices.

      • Dr. Mann is quite correct. First get our freedoms and democratic rights subserveant to some higher order.

        Greta is spoiling the surprise on our new hairshirt, misery and depravation lifestyle. Gotta keep the priorities straight!

    • And the other 3%? Oh look, they get coerced.

      And of course the coercion happens way before 97%.

      It’s as if Hayek never existed and explained how socialism always leads to authoritarianism or worse.

      • I’d like the leading lights who really “understand the Science” to lead by example. I think it would be remarkable how quickly “the Science” would mutate to a lower level of crisis if this were the case.

  4. The Dr. Frankenstein’s Monster analogy is apt here.

    Dr Mann and Libtards-R-Us created Greta. And now creature Greta rampages and mocks the Libtards for their hypocrisy. Will they follow her when she finally heads for the frozen sub-Arctic?

      • Let’s stop tilting at windmills, clearing the land for PV, save the birds, etc., and assess the viability of the Green Blight without the intrusion of sociopolitical myths, appeals to empathy, and other first-order forcings of anthropogenic climate (e.g. political, economic, scientific) distortions.

  5. Two separate thoughts:

    “And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.” This would not be true if there were a demand for EVs. If there were a pent-up demand for EVs with people waiting for charging stations, then someone would be putting in charging stations. There are several large chain gas stations (Raceway, QuikTrip, 7-11, etc.). Putting a charging station in at each location would give a chain a quick advantage for capturing sales to EV owners. The build-out of gasoline stations did not require a government effort.

    Secondly: People pretty much vote their beliefs with their wallets. There is no government ban on meat, or even a tax, but for various reasons, there are now large numbers of people opting for reduced meat diets, or going completely meatless. Many, if not most, have decided it is the right thing to do for ethical reasons, even knowing that their own actions will change virtually nothing.

    Interestingly, though, few are reducing their “carbon footprint.” This strongly indicates they do not believe it is necessary, or that the personal sacrifice is too great. Forcing them reduce their carbon through laws or government policies, will eventually terminate elected politicians’ careers.

      • Yup. Lenin had to subdue the formerly supportive youthful socialist idealists who might call him to account for his own actions before he could institute a personal despotism over the entire populace. Grass root solutions are seen to bleed away the necessity for a complete overturning of the system to answer for all identified maladies. Individual initiatives thus undermine the governing dictatorship by a few, who will not long tolerate them.

    • Has anyone thought about the physiological consequences of a meat-free diet? I have many SE & E Asian acquaintances – the ones in their 60’s and above are in general very short-legged as a consequence of a diet with minimal meat while their children and even more their grandchildren are quite long-legged and have a physiology more like a mid to northern European.
      Go back to meat-free and go back to short-legged children, and if the basics are grains, lentils etc,, then pot-bellies also and a serious need to watch themselves for deficiencies of key nutrients.

      • Gaz, you don’t seriously think veganism-promoters have a grasp of evolutionary biology and physiology/biochemistry, do you? Most MD’s are so brainwashed with their “low-fat” debunked hypothesis they’re still idiotically telling insulin-dependent diabetics to eat oatmeal! Like a drunken monkey running around with a razor and a flamethrower!

        Grains and modern, fructose-laden large fruit have only been available “foods” for the last eyeblink of human evolution; about 12,000 years. That’s not NEARLY long enough for evolutionary adaptation. What we ARE adapted perfectly to eat is meat–on which we survived the great glaciations. This is a fact and you cannae change th’ laws o’ physics, as Scotty said! If you want proof, do an N=1 experiment. Try carnivory for 3 months. The health improvements are astounding!

        I never was a believer in conspiracy theories, but when you put the CAGW crowd together with something like EAT-Lancet, you HAVE to wonder if the Club of Rome types don’t want a greatly reduced, mostly infertile and emasculated population, pharma-dependent, docile and easily led. You HAVE to wonder.

        However, Agenda 30 can only be inflicted on us if we act like sheep and let them force it. Last I looked, I didn’t elect the UN, the IPCC, EAT-Lancet or Greta Frakking Thunberg to govern the USA!

      • Could not disagree more. Vegetarian for over 70 years. Peaked a little over 6 foot. Have no heart problems, blood sugar runs 100 or a little less, over weight (married a good cook) but loosing, still able to work, (installing a metal roof on the house) have outlived several close friends, (that part is a bummer). Plenty of food with more that enough protein to keep a person healthy.

      • Nor was there any coercion to get the supermarkets to add a petrol station to their out of town centre supermarkets.

    • People who don’t have much experience of EV’s don’t seem to get two things:

      EV’s get charged mostly at home or at work. Or at malls or restaurants. Short range EV owners are a captive market, longer range EV owners will go there if it’s convenient.

      Charging stations don’t need attendants, spill containment, fire supression, separation from other businesses, constant leak monitoring, security from product theft.

      Because of all that, they are more like pay phones than gas pumps – since you can put them anywhere, why not put them right in the parking lot of the mall?

      • EV’s are practical for short distant driving. For most US cities EVs do not work.

        People who don’t have much experience of EV’s don’t seem to understand the practical implications of the EV battery problem.

        EV are paper weights that require a tow and a over night charge if their battery runs out.

        Fast charging stations are expensive and it still takes 1/2 hour to 3/4 hour to charge. Charging time and charging location is a big deal for EV owners who try to travel long distances.

        Little problems like getting stuck in traffic on a cold day for an hour can result in a EV becoming a paper weight.

        Owning a EV means constantly checking charge vs distance from and back of trip. Ensuring that the owner never forgets to charge the EV.

        • Audi’s 2019 e tron SUV has a 204 mile EPA range and starts at $74,500. Plus, it doesn’t spontaneously combust, reportedly.

          • and, for example, the 2019 Subaru Crosstrek (the normal ICE version) is a about a third of the price (from $22k to $27k) with double the range (415 miles). Other similar class all-ICE SUVs are similarly priced/ranged as the Subaru. so what was your point?

        • EV’s are practical for short distant driving. For most US cities EVs do not work.

          Actually EV’s are most ideal for US cities where driving distances are short. The problem with city EVs is that most city dwellers don’t have easy access to a place to plug in their EVs. If you have curb side parking for your 5th floor apartment, where do you plug in your EV?

          • At the train station, at work, at the mall, public parking, or maybe leave it at the store and keep using Transit, cabs, and ride-sharing if that’s available where you live, and plugin parking is not.

          • At the train station

            Your car isn’t doing you much good if you have to take the train because your car can’t be charged elsewhere.

            at work

            Not every work place has a charging station in it’s parking area.

            at the mall

            The parking areas of malls are for mall customers. Who shops at the mall for multiple
            hours, multiple days a week? And if you are leaving your car at the mall while you go elsewhere, you’re blocking actual mall customers from parking in those spaces.

            maybe leave it at the store and keep using Transit, cabs, and ride-sharing

            and again, what good is your car doing you if you have to take transit, cabs and ridesharing because you can’t charge it elsewhere? (not to mention that the store doesn’t want it’s parking areas filled with non-customers who’ve swanned off elsewhere while their cars are charging and thus preventing actual customers from parking in those spaces)

            That assumes
            1) all those place have charging stations.
            2) That those places will be convenient places to leave your car for many hours each day every day

    • How long does charging a typical electric car take? Is someone going to sit in, or leave their car at a filling station for hours? You’re not going to go in for a quick 5 minute charge.

      Seems like charging stations at work sites and apartment complexes is a better idea.

  6. Of course Mann’s view means it’s OK for the alarmists to keep pumping out CO2 themselves.
    So THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE aren’t inconvenienced (unlike the truth) by their beliefs.
    It’s called having your cake and eating it too.

    • THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE ask to, and in practice have got, a three-day weekend (with the so-called “climate strikes”), while the rest of taxpayers must go on toiling 9-5, five days a week (for them, Paul Lafargues Right to be Lazy does not apply).

      So, yes, THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE are having one cake that is bigger that the cake the others get.

  7. “Climate change is a complex problem because it involves moving away from the basic pillar of the modern industrial economy…”

    Brace, brace, brace! This is not a simulator drill! Germany is going down. The latest prosperitycidal pack of climate laws has been voted.

    With exactly that in mind: -Programmed destruction of the industrial sector.

    That’s it, we’re going down.

  8. Mann’s view will prevail, hypocrisy beats altruism, especially when that altruism is tainted by ignorance. I suspect we’ve all seen peak Greta.

  9. A climate of denial of carbon-based human, avian, etc. life deemed unworthy of life. 50 shade of early 20th century in progress.

  10. She could hold a reproductive rite for a carbon-based “burden” in order to appease the mortal gods of social progress.

  11. “Climate affirmers”, a new, woolly euphemism for “Global Warming Proponents” which is what it should be if you’re an alarmist casting around for the most neutral, non-inflammatory term for your belief.

  12. If a person chooses to live the code that their religion embraces, then as long as it harms no one else it’s their right. The problem is when a religious fanatic tries to force their ideals on others, and they always seem to have to go there.

    Belief in Man-Made Catastrophic Global Warming is a religion. It replaces the other religions that dictate “we all live in sin”. It doesn’t require facts, or accurate data, or accurate predictions – it just requires faith and obedience.

  13. They are both blind to the obvious damage they and their kind are doing to the world that they proclaim to want to save!

    There are not less mines with renewable energy, there are more! The rare earth materials alone come from massive open cut mines. There are many toxic processes to extract the materials, the use of sulfuric acid is just one. There are lakes of black sludge contaminating the areas surrounding these processing plants. Some of these plants have massive open holding tanks which will sit there until they can work out what to do with it.

    Most of the mining, processing and manufacturing comes from China (at least for the Australian market). All of these steps require the use of a significant amount of ‘fossil fuels’ for manufacture! Then the renewable energy infrastructure needs to be shipped and transported around the world to whatever destination. More fossil fuels. We all know you need massive amounts of panels or turbines to replace coal power, the thing is we’re using massive amounts of fossil fuel to mine them make them, and transport them! Go figure.

    The greenies tell us that we have to count the coal we export to China (and others) as burnt by us. Why don’t they audit the fossil fuels used in the full cycle of renewables and take responsibility for that? Not to mention the ecological damage done.

    We don’t have nuclear energy here and our coal power is closing down. Don’t listen to the lies, and I hate to say this but Australia is doing plenty to combat so called climate change. South Australia blew up at least one of their coal fire power plants just to make sure it couldn’t be recommissioned! This particular state is having problems with reliable energy (what a surprise) and manufacturing is being forced to close down. You can’t run a smelter if you’re be told to shut it down periodically due to electricity demand.

    We know about the damage to wildlife and the unreliable nature of wind turbines. We know that solar panels, which are also an unreliable source of power, cause fires. On that, a firefighter cannot directly fight a solar farm fire for risk of electrocution. They can only try to ‘contain’ a fire within a perimeter. Given that some of our solar farms are more than a thousand hectares, that is going to require a lot of firemen. I’m sure that many of you have seen the fires that are currently raging throughout NSW. They are building these solar farms very close to towns.

    In the state of Victoria solar panels are to be processed with E waste. It is considered toxic and cannot be dumped in landfill. Doesn’t this mean that a fire or hailstorm can potentially create a thousand plus hectare toxic waste dump? Cadmium, lead and other materials can leach into the soil and waterways. We don’t have a choice about where or even whether the large solar farms are built. On what level is this OK?

    Australia is about the same size as the US minus Alaska. The distances to transport electricity are enormous. Renewable energy is lost over distance and our relatively small population of just over 25 million is mostly closer to the coastal regions, much more sparce in the middle. A logical person would have said that renewable energy would never be economically or ecologically viable in Australia.

    I can’t even talk to you about recycling ‘renewable energy’, we don’t have any recycling plants here!

    I could go on but I think I’ve said enough for now.

    • Silicon solar cells are harmless if broken, last up to 50 years, and don’t use exotic rare earth minerals. Literally made out of harmless sand and clay. Even the solder is now lead free silver.

      Cadmium telluride cells are a toxic nightmare that ahould have been shut down at the early research stage. And they degrade quickly.

      Even if the recycler can identify them, they have to be treated as E-waste until they know whether they’re the equivalent of a barrel of Agent Orange, a flourescent light ballast full of PCBs, or just sand.

      • Out of curiosity, what materials are used as P and N dopants for those harmless modern mainstream Si solar cells?

      • Randy, the refining process of silicon to create solar panels produces liquid silicon tetra-chloride, and not in small amounts, mixed with water it becomes very dangerous. Tetra-chloride can be recycled to make more polysilicon but the equipment needed costs tens of millions of dollars. Some operations have just thrown away the byproduct. Add water and the silicon tetra-chloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes.

        That’s the simple silicon you talk about. The little bit of clay, and different PV panels contain different materials, contain elements such as lead, cadmium, gallium,germanium, indium and tellurium. There are others too but my point is that although they may not be rare elements they all require highly toxic methods of extraction. Sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are used to extract these materials and no not all of these materials are stable in the finished products, when damaged.

        Most of the solar panels out there in the real world do not last much more than 25 years, there are those that don’t last that long. There doesn’t seem to be much regulation or research into the safest panels available here. I’m pretty confident that the 300 hectare solar plant a couple of kilometers from where I live is of the thin film cadmium type and it’s built over two waterways.

        • Those are excellent points, and should be discussed before an unfixable mess is made by the industry.

          Along with financial reporting, the larger solar farms seem to like to keep these details quiet, and use ‘green paint’ to hide a lot of wrongdoing.

          It’s easy to see how these sorts of problems were created back in the day with PCBs, DDT, etc. “Because climate’ can’t be allowed as an excuse for actual permanent pollution of land.

  14. It is nice to see Mann getting beaten up by a young woman though. Plus nice to see Mann revealing his flagrant hypocrisy.

    I’m still trying to figure how lowering your personal ‘climate’ footprint amounts to climate dernial. I can’t even figure out what warped ‘logical’ pernicious argument he used to come up with that smear.

    • It means that efforts to reduce personal “carbon footprints” are misdirected – effort should instead be redirected to eradicate the cause of the problem – namely denialists

    • It’s a theological debate, the kind so important to the Left. It’s why the Left always massacres other parts if the Left whenever theres a revolution.

      Individual action is not state-directed, and so fails the first (and often only) criteria for many on the Left of whether it is “good”. Much of the Left seeks control, not outcomes or benefits or results. What matters is whether you get to tell people what to do.

  15. Why aren’t Government Authorities involved in this flagrant example of Child Abuse?

    A seriously emotionally damaged child is purposely being malnourished and forced to parrot extreme sentiments that her handlers don’t themselves believe, for the sole purpose of enriching “parents” who are too lazy or incapable of working to provide for her.

  16. Two nuts attempting to philosophize about an ignorant and disturbed poster child ridiculing a professional jester …

    The climate clown show is constantly renewing itself and takes another step towards the absurd with lots of new characters to feed the farce.

  17. Mann’s view is actually fascism, the subsuming of the individual into the state, for the greater good of the people. As fascusm/communism states, individual actions count for nothing and prevent the true emergence of fascism/communism.

    This is the classic battle between the more individualistic strands of the Left (anarchism, some socialism) and the totalitarianism of the extreme fascist/communist Left, in which individual actions are forbidden.

    • Why do you believe “historians” and fascism “experts” insist on their list based, checking items and counting them, as the “definition” of fascism?

      It allows them to focus on race superiority, traditional no paid work for women, discriminations, focus on traditions, on the nation, on “militarism” (whatever that is) and all the items that they can somehow connect to right wing ideology.

      Where are the fundamental doctrinal elements of Mussolini’s thinking about the place of the State, notably State controlled education?

  18. “Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, suggests that any talk of behavioral changes and personal responsibility reflects a soft form of climate denial”

    Just list what does NOT “reflect a soft form of climate denial” or a micro-denial:
    – being of a member of the UCS
    – paying the subscription to Nature Climate Change
    ?

  19. Shouldn’t the comparison be with the life style of Greta’s parents? In particular her dad. For a start, where is he? And how did he get where he is? By boat, canoo, waxen wings or what?

      • Why is a huge catamaran going for strong half wind, not going any faster than 7.7kts? Is this due to waves and currents?

      • Carl Friis-Hansen November 17, 2019 at 11:02 am
        Why is a huge catamaran going for strong half wind, not going any faster than 7.7kts.

        ____________________________________

        Because 7.7 kts is avarage speed:

        SAILING TO BONAIRE AGAIN(Memorable Sailing) – Memorable …

        Join us aboard our 2001 catamaran Catana 43 as we sail the world and … and it took us 5 days 3 hours, averaging 7.7kts

        As weather went, we had the tail end of a big low pressure system on the first day, with strong but decreasing winds and big seas. …. All of Arabella’s frames that can currently go in, are finally installed.

  20. This article quite possibly misreads Mann’s remarks as he obviously means that drawing attention towards the more radical promotion of individual behavioral changes should be seen as another [scare] tactic from the “denialists”. That by showing the impossibilities and naïvety of e.g. the goals of the extinction rebellion, the idea is put out there that current climate related policies which are being worked on are equally impossible.

    Another interpretation would seem pretty bonkers, even for Mann.

    • Convincing people to only consume electric energy when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing is not “bonkers”?

      Convincing people to get their nutriments from bugs instead of meat isn’t “bonkers”?

      Generalizing power feeding for trucks via overhead wire isn’t “bonkers”?

    • Mann doesn’t want individuals to do anything because there is nothing in it for him. If the government makes stupid policies they will keep funding him and keep his lifestyle very comfortable.

  21. A discussion between Mann and St Greta the CO2 seeing special one, attempting to resolve climate needs, would be like listening to two ignorant drunks, attempting to articulate the merit of quantum mechanics, without allowing them to reference Tiddles, Shrodingers cat. fun to witness but completely pointless 🙂

  22. What we are witnessing is the splintering of a religion into two factions – orthodox and fundamentalist. Michael Mann is an orthodox changeist, and Greta is a fundamentalist changeist. Mann has been monetizing his orthodox changeist sect for years. Greta has yet to monetize her sect, as far as I know. I haven’t checked her Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media feeds. Maybe she has monetized her status as a cult leader.

    I’m waiting for suicide squads to form. It’s inevitable. Groups of fundamentalist changeists so wrought with guilt and despair over their contribution to the murder of earth goddess Gaia that they kill themselves, live, en masse.

  23. It’s interesting that Mann so clearly reveals himself as a statist here, and prefers the state force its will upon citizens rather than the citizens actually accomplishing the same ends though personal choice. Amazing insight into his politics.

    • The EU passed a law that limits vampire power to 0.3watts per device. It used to be 1 watt or greater.

      Doing this EU wide saves the output of a couple of 1GW power stations. If you had a choice of 0.3watt or 1watt standby (at lower price) which would you chose.

      We have tried to cut back on plastic usage. One example item is cling film. use 1-2 rolls per year. This is totally insignificant compared to use for shrink wrapping pallets. So who will force shrink wrap from pallets? Legislation.! Plastic carrier bags – legislation. plastic coke bottles? legislation.
      Our car does 65 mpg (uk). How do you stop idiots driving their kids to school in a 20mpg Chelsea taxi (suv). Legislation.
      Too many people have no knowledge of the damage they do to the environment by their lifestyle choice. The damage will eventually become visible to their blinkered vision. But to correct the problem will take generations. Action on pollution and co2 is needed as soon as possible not when it becomes evident that we should have done it before.

      • You are assuming that Man’s CO2 actually is causing a “climate crisis” that only BIG Government can solve.

      • Massive waste of energy,heating and lighting building to house nonfunctional government employees?
        Dear Halfrunt,have you factored in the CO2 production and wastage caused by your solution,Legislation…?
        The hot air and pollution caused by your beloved legislators is greater than leaving people alone.
        In fact,as the whole CAGW meme is a product of government, all of the costs and consequences of this mass hysteria must be blamed on legislation.
        Catastrophic manmade global warming is the creation of government,thus to prevent this “great doom” we must abandon government.
        So we can reduce unnecessary CO2 emissions immediately and markedly by shutting down the bureaus and closing their offices.
        I am good with that fire 50% today and then 50% every sixth month,until done.
        Keeping the most officious until the end, of course.

  24. LiarMann has his own particular brand of Climate Religion/Ideology, and his uber delusional, dino-sized ego doesn’t allow anything counter to that. All that lies outside of his brand is then, in his fevered imagination, a form of “climate denial”. Greta’s activist, moralising brand of Climate Faith is perhaps analagous to Calvinism, with LiarMann’s brand being more akin to the traditional Roman Catholic Church.

  25. Because these are massive, system-wide changes, individual-level actions to become climate virtuous will not suffice. We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.

    There’s Mickey’s “cause”, BIG Government.
    If there was a demand for them, the free market would provide the charging stations.
    There isn’t a demand so BIG Government must force them on us.

    But, as per Mann’s thesis, individual-level actions delay the transition because they allow the fossil fuel industry to blame consumers for the climate crisis. The industry will claim that they are in business because people like their modern lifestyles.

    And again, Mickey assumes his Hockey Stick and the rest of CAGW is the axiom of climate science.

    • Charging stations aren’t necessary if the cars are hybrid – charge themselves.

      Battery gets low, switch to gas.

      • Their goal isn’t hybrid cars and that’s not what mickey was talking about.

        “We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless.”

        • “We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless.”

          Indeed. and back in the day, you could buy Henry Ford’s automobile but without filling stations, they are quite useless. So what happened? Private businesses (Standard Oil, Gulf, etc) and *not* government built filling stations to meet the demands of all the people buying Henry Ford’s new car. And the difference between EVs now and Ford’s car then is that EVs aren’t “quite useless” without charging stations, you can still charge it up at home (or if you are lucky at work) even is no charging stations were ever built, whereas Ford’s car truly was “quite useless” without a place to fill it up with gasoline (there was no pre-existing “gasoline tap” at people’s homes for filling it with).

  26. Greta is at least consistent in her approach. Let’s hope she will start seriously embarrassing her fellow climateers by calling out Green vanity projects such as climate conferences. Could be entertaining.

  27. Why does the government need to build anything? The entire economy was built by individuals free to buy and sell to suit themselves.

    Governments buy $800 toilet seats and $500 hammers. Individuals recognize that it takes real work to earn real money, so they don’t waste money. Government spend money like lottery winners. Easy come easy go.

  28. When young people lose hope, they risk death. Nobody is a better example of tho than Greta Thunberg. She was about to starve herself to death before she started her activism and probably got therapy /medication. This could be the case for many young people who believe in global climate change. As many as 50% of young Australians believe that the world may come to an end in 15 years. As many as 3 % of youth suffer from OCD like Thunberg. Typical for these young people is that they overreact to small possibilities. Some may pull out all electrical cords to prevent fire, some wash their hands for hours to make sure they don’t get sick from contaminants on their hands.

    GT is a typical example of this. She hears about a potential risk, and starts acting like a typical OCD sufferer, by taking extreme action. She is unstoppable, just like the OCD sufferer who showers for 4 hours to get clean , 3 last hours in ice cold water, or another who put her hands in almost boiling water to get completely clean. Greta will not stop. She is driven by her OCD, and she will not stop, however many reassurances she gets that the world is not ending. She calls her Asperger syndrome a super power, and I admire her for that. This does a lot og good for many who have been labeled in the same way and may have felt that it was a deficit. Gretha profits on it in making her focus even narrower and more single minded than her OCD does, and by not understanding the reactions of others to what she is doing.
    But as a therapist for young people with her combination of problems, I feel sorry for her. Her compulsion that drives away her fears, is to be extremely active thinking she is saving the planet. Just like the hand washer thinks she is protecting herself and her family by putting in another hour of hand washing. The problem with compulsions is that they are all- consuming. They take away the possibility of doing other things. In Gretha’s case we think it is admirable that she just goes on and on telling about her extreme fears, but for those familiar with OCD, she is exhausting herself and just barely keeping a lid on the anxiety. She is probably numbed a bit by the standard medication for OCD, SSRI. These drugs will delay her puberty, and may make her not be able to have sexual feelings. The media profits on this. She is 16, but looks like a little fragile girl. This makes her message stronger. It is coming from a child! She seems more intelligent since she looks like a 12 year old.

    • It makes sense, now I better understand her bitterness and immature behavior at the UN some time ago. One cannot avoid feeling bad about all the hard criticism we apply to her, where the hard criticism should me directed towards the parents for not acting responsibly and journalists for never ever fail not to do real journalistic investigation and politicians for listening to activists like Mann while ignoring 31,000 scientists.
      Sadly I think propaganda through the youth is a well established factor, as we saw with Hitler Jugend, which on the surface served a noble purpose but was used as a persuasive political propaganda.

  29. She did go on a motorcycle ride with Arnold the Terminator. And how is she getting around from place to place by ox cart? Is she living in modern homes or hotels or in stone cottages with thatched roof.

    Greta, a child, has been sold on an agenda that will shorten her life if she lives it as in medieval times. If everyone followed her example the economy would collapse with companies dependent on sales going out of business and mass unemployment. That is a big price to pay to prevent something that is not happening.

    How many time can people buy into predictions that never happen. At some point they should get a clue or a life.

    • Let’s see how long Greta and her useful idiots last without a few other conveniences of modern life–like vaccinations, antibiotics, refrigeration, and sanitary sewers. Show us, Greta, show us!

      This is the sad case of a child being exploited for a PR circus. But what’s really disturbing are the sheer numbers of morons who think it’s real!

  30. Greta the D-Nye-er! ha ha ha ha ha ha, too funny! But she told us we have to listen to the scientists, so by her own command, now we must think so, too. I guess that will show her not to trust certain “scientists.” Maybe Greta has an out if she also agrees with me that Michael Mann is no kind of scientist, but only a “scientist” with scare quotes, or a scientivist (a cross between a climate scientist and a SJW activist), or a Climate Scientologist.

    I use pronouns she and her with respect to Greta, by assumption. I don’t know if she’s a woman or a man. If she is a he, please let us all know through your celebrity, saintly publicist, and I will stop using the wrong pronouns. And same goes for Michael Mann. Are you he or she or it? I hate to be insensitive.

    Hey, if Greta objects to Mann’s characterization of her, maybe one of these overly solicitous sailors could haul both Greta and Michael Mann out to a desert island, using wind power alone, and leave them there to duke it out, mano a mano [1] in a battle to the death? The winner could eat the body of the loser to help them survive. After a year, some other solicitous sailor could go pick up the winner, and bring her back to her parents for ongoing indoctrination. Again, apologies for the use of the pronoun her.

    [1] In Spanish mano (pronounced mahn-oh) is the word for “hand.” Hombre (pronounced ohm-bray) is the word for “man.” Ergo, the phrase mano a mano means hand to hand. In the context of combat, it means hand to hand combat, NOT man to man combat. I was NOT suggesting Mann and Thunberg should engage in a man to man battle to the death. That would have been insensitive. I don’t know if Mann is a man, or a woman. I don’t know if Greta is a man or a woman. They have not told me their preferences or their pronouns. My use of the phrase is correct, meaning hand to hand, and so was not insensitive. BTW, it is one of my pet peeves when people think mano a mano sounds cool and then use the phrase incorrectly to mean man to man. And it drives me crazy when people in the public eye DON’T properly notify us whether they are men or women or furbies, or whatever they prefer, thereby leaving us to guess. We immediately need an online database, like IMDB, for celebrities to register their preferred gender and pronouns. There is no excuse that this does not exist. I’m looking at YOU, WIKIPEDIA!

    It also drives me crazy that people think there is a feminine equivalent to El Nino. El Nino means Christ-child, aka Jesus. There simply is no La Nina. Of course, there is an “el nino” (not capitalized) which means (the boy child) and “la nina” (the girl child), but the capitalized version is reserved for Him (ie. the son of God). By the way, the abbreviation ‘ie’ means, “in other words,” whereas ‘eg’ means “for example” which is another pet peeve when people get it wrong. But I begin to digress. In Spanish, this primitive language, which forces all nouns to have one of only two possible genders, and which has failed to evolve to incorporate all of our modern wisdom, context becomes supreme. Like El Nino, the Spanish word for the Pope (El Papa) is capitalized, whereas the lower case use (la papa) means “the potato.” Imagine the difference between an Argentinian Socialist and a tuber plucked from the ground and sliced into French fries (do we still capitalize the F in French fries?) Oh, but in a sentence that begins with the phrase, Papas fritas, that would still mean fried potatoes, not fried Pope, only because the ‘p’ is capitalized in that case because it’s at the beginning of a sentence. Again, context is everything. But I digress again.

    There was never such a thing as La Nina (capitalized). There is NO female equivalent of The Christ child. Christ was born before there was a pronoun battle to the death. So we call him Him or He, and the capitalization implies the godly uniqueness of Him, never generalized, always specific. Given our current gender sensitivity battles, it is nevertheless too late to retrofit our presumed preferences onto God, as it is written in the Bible. Except now there is because climate Scientologists effed up and decided there is an opposite gender to Christ, we are stuck with La Nina, just like when they did created silly misnomers “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” which we also can’t get rid of it. Leave it to friggin climate “scientists” to mess things up without even knowing it. It’s typical of their actual level of understanding.

    Anyway, don’t BE an idiot and PROVE you’re an idiot in the same sentence, by using “mano a mano” as if it means man to man. Or by calling a woman with a penis a man (or an hombre). And to Michael Mann and Greta Thunberg, please get us your pronouns at the earliest possible point in your battle to the death, so we will know how to address you, and to remember the loser. Oh, yeah, that’s another one of my pet peeves, people who think LOOSE means lose and LOOSER means loser. Michael Mann, I’m looking at you (check out some of the ClimateGate e-mails for examples). Loose and lose are two completely different words. Wake up and stop being an idiot and get your lose/loose, loser/looser, him/her, Him/(no opposite), El Nino/(no opposite, except in climate science), mano a mano/man to man, El Papa/(no opposite) usages correct, at least they will be correct until we get our first female Pope or the second coming arrives and the Son of God has turned into the Daughter of God, or Michael Mann’s prediction that humanity will be wiped out by CAGW comes true and this will all become moot (NOT MUTE!). Ah, but what are the chances that the predictions of an idiot will actually happen? Damn close to zero.

  31. attacking a 16 year old Autistic iconoclast – not a good look.

    recommend that climate change deniers just ignore Greta.

    • Using a anxiety ridden and depressed young teen (made so by the constant doom porn pushed irresponsibly by the media, governements, CAGW scientists and education system) – Not a good look.

      Recommend that climate change “believers” get her the psychological help she needs.

      FIFY

  32. I’m just waiting for the inevitable reports that Thunberg has gone bat-bleep crazy after a few months at sea. Or better yet, that she’s gone *sane*.

    Or for somebody to show her this.

  33. In the final stage of the Cultural Revolution the various Red Guard factions were killing each other over who was the most pure follower of Mao Tse Dong Thought. They finally called in the Army.

  34. The Thunberg girl (and why is she dressed as an 8 year old?) is nothing more than an ignorant abused parrot with a smorgasbord of neurological problems. Presently, she is shirking school in a major way and is unlikely to ever develop any sort of intellect which would lead her to independent thinking and an understanding of the philosophy of science.

    Do the Swedish education authorities condone her parents’ neglect? Or has the resulting chaos of open borders immobilised Swedish order and responsibility?

    The slosh of her silly pronouncements and her avoidance of any mature questioning by responsible adults are truly appalling.

  35. First Mann creates a convenient scary temperature hockey stick using very selective wood and when a school girl gets afraid of his blade he lambasts her…

    Is she disturbing the gravy train? She is not materialistic, so yes. Much as I disagree with both, I’d side with an honest but naive girl anytime over a dishonest megalomaniac carpenter.

  36. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.

    And yet, Mikey, the national network of gasoline filling stations was not provided by the government. Private business built it. See that’s the difference between a product the people want (their demand will prompt business to supply that demand) and a product the government forces on the people (the lack of demand requires government to provide what no one was wanting in the first place).

  37. Mann is a typical lefty elitist. He doesn’t want to be called out for failing to live as if he actually believes what he’s selling because he doesn’t expect to ever have to.

    He fully believes that the governmental policies that are put into place to reduce carbon won’t have any personal impact on him…he’ll be exempted from the restrictions as one of the “elite”.

    No different than the left supporting welfare and food stamps etc while they have significantly lower rates of personal charitable giving than the right. They don’t want to have to give themselves to support their policies, they want the government to take other people’s money for it.

    I have to admire Greta for her commitment even as I recognize that she’s nothing more than a dupe – a gullible, naive child being exploited for a cause she doesn’t really even understand…but at least she walks the walk and doesn’t just talk the talk as so many on her side do.

  38. They curse all who do not worship the Great Enviromental Death Fairy. Bow down and stop questioning the Great Enviromental Death Fairy, The Great Death Fairy wants to make all things perfect. Just believe what you are told , Give up everything you have to those who worship The Great Death Fairy , Get on the train, and stop crying while they gas you. It’s for the children……… Just not your children.

  39. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government. —> And a national network of charging stations is the business of whoever benefits from Windelecs and PV.

  40. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.

    Boloney. The government had nothing to do with the brand-name gas stations which popped up universally to serve the newfangled automobiles, and a direct parallel could operate with charging stations, if State and local governments would retract their greed for power and control and encourage private enterprise in their building.

    Likewise, the necessary beefing up of transmission facilities could parallel the dozens of cellphone networks which sprang up on the success of cellphones. And if you listen to the political savants who blather about the savings from large-scale conversion to ‘renewable’ power, some of that beefing would never be necessary.

Comments are closed.