Saturday Silliness – The Davos Flame War

The word over at the Grauniad is:

Greta Thunberg: Davos leaders ignored climate activists’ demands

Activist [Greta Thunberg] says calls to break from fossil fuels have been ignored at World Economic Forum

Speaking on the final day of the World Economic Forum, the 17-year old climate campaigner said leaders were not reacting to the crisis, and were not being held accountable for their inaction.

“Before we came here we had a few demands for this WEF and of course those demands have been completely ignored, but we expected nothing less,” said Thunberg, speaking before marching through Davos with fellow climate activists.

“As long as the science is ignored, and the facts aren’t taken into account, and the situation is not treated as a crisis, then world and business leaders can of course continue to ignore the situation,” she said.

Well gosh, “…the situation is not treated as a crisis”, ya think maybe sensible people might ignore that?

Meanwhile, Josh is on the case:

In other news….

Some people are inspired by Greta, but perhaps not in the way she hopes.

121 thoughts on “Saturday Silliness – The Davos Flame War

  1. I actually feel very bad for Greta. At 16 some of us MAY have been mature, but a large majority of 16 yr olds, are impressionable, reactive, full of energy and immature.

    Her parents are setting her up for a serious mental health issue.

      • Then AOC must be 30 now. It feels like AOC has been around for at least 10 years. I guess time is relative. When you are slowing being mentally tortured to death by these ignoramus’s, time really seems to drag on. To think these dunces actually get attention is beyond me, but I think in the end this is the downfall of the movement, since the argument is now only about emotive and irrational hatred of fossil fuels, not realizing that most everything we have in our modern world is derived from hydrocarbons and the miracle of advanced societies is derived from such. And luckily now, with our increased knowledge base, we will continue to find more fossil fuels and become more efficient in using them more cleanly especially in the third world where they really could clean up basic pollution.

        And when the price becomes too high to chase fossil carbon, we can synthetically manufacture any long chain carbon compound we will ever need. We will never quit using liquid hydrocarbons…the power density is just too high to try and replace with batteries such as for jet aircraft and shipping and dozens of other applications. It will just be renewable hydrocarbons that will just be renewed in perpetuity, probably forever that we humans on alive on the good Earth. The back bone of the future economy will be based upon carbon dioxide just as it is now..we will just need a lot of electricity which shouldn’t be too big a problem given the choice between the cave and modernity. The universe has a lot of energy happening. We will figure it out.

        • “synthetically manufacture”. To do that, we need energy. A bit more, or maybe a lot more, than the energy we will get back from the synthetically manufactured long chain carbon compounds. Typically, such a process would be used to convert unsuitable energy into suitable energy. So, for example, solar energy – no use for aviation or other transport- could be used to create aviation or other transport fuel. We are going to need a lot of unsuitable energy!

          If that’s Plan A, then Plan B would be to try to have enough suitable energy. My preference would be to try Plan B first.

          • Plan A is to carry on as is with traditional fossil fuels, but the real question people should be asking is when/where does the chart intersect when the cost of traditional FF’s cost more than it does to manufacture the exact same stuff synthetically. There will be a day in the far off future, maybe sooner than that, that it will come. The financial harm to the economy from rising FF prices will be far more damaging to the world than some hypothetical warming, which is probably 2/3 beneficial anyway. But FF’s aren’t an infinite resource on this planet and economies of scale within economics will make this transition commercially viable and we just keep using our same infrastructure. A friend of mine is an engineer and manager of a 72 Mw thermal wood waste plant burning just bark and sawdust from sawmills. He is working on converting that waste stream to syngas and running it through a CCCT turbine instead of 30-35% efficiency in a crude steam plant, and they will get 60%-65% efficiency. That is just one example of doing things differently or smarter.

            I was thinking that Gen 7 atomic/nuclear someday in the future will be make enough electricity someday that it will be way cheaper to just manufacture hydrocarbons synthetically. This will be the least of our problems, except the politics behind everything. Maybe by then humans evolve some intelligence and realize that CO2 is a blessing and not a curse or pollution. But we will always live in a hydrocarbon world for the long term foreseeable future whether it is fossil based or a manufactured base. I don’t see anything better coming down the pipeline than electricity except maybe the way we move it around. Sure you don’t get the same energy you put in that you get out making synthetics, but then if the price of synthetic oil in a 100 years is cheaper than drilling in 10,000 feet of water for oil, my bet is on synthetic oil. Most of us are already using it in our high end internal ICE engines for motor oil. This isn’t even rocket science. It is just having access to abundant cheap electricity, which wind and solar aren’t going to provide for. The sooner we adopt new generation high efficient nuclear, the sooner we get off this doomsday climate merry-go-round.

          • Molton Salt Thorium nuclear reactors can be built fail-safe without expensive systems AND they can use up our waste nuclear fuel to boot. They are scalable and can be built next to large and small cities and towns, thus negating expensive transmission. Thorium is low level nuclear, much safer to handle and is a common element in the earth’s crust.

            Silicon is the most common element on earth (25%). HydroSilicons burn at high temperatures (2000 degrees) by combining with Nitrogen. The waste products are: water, hydrogen and silicon nitride, the only noble gas which exists in solid form and is used in the manufacture of ceramics, thus paying for the fuel. http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/03/turning_sand_into_fuel_silicon.html

            (Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD

          • Heh E2, I’ve said for years that there is a lot of energy in the universe, and my long term prediction has been that man will not ultimately use all of it.
            ======================================

        • AOC is different than Greta in that AOC is a biologically mature woman. Tape her mouth shut, and you could have an interesting evening.

          Greta may be 17, but she does not appear to be biologically mature. And, her emotional age is even younger. An interesting evening with her would be putting her to bed at 7:00 and watching Netflix.

          • Yes, taping AOC’s mouth shut is absolutely ncessary! That’s proven by the fact she never preaches to the Chinese– they’re already communists!

        • Earthling2

          We know there is enough methane hydrate out there to last 1,000 years at current consumption rates.

          When economies of scale make it worthwhile and profitable to extract, we will.

          Technology is amazing. There is research going on into ‘limitless’ batteries manufactured from nuclear wastes and diamond wafers. Ideal for small, long term, low power use applications like hearing aids and pacemakers.

          It took humanity roughly 60 years to go from the Wright Brothers first powered flight to Concorde and the moon landings. That was a massive stride forward.

          When Concord began flying the computer began to emerge as the next technological frontier, but as broad a revolution as it has been, we haven’t even scratched the surface of digital technology yet, and it’s been about 50 years so far.

          • I agree HotScot…we have no idea what is coming down the pipeline in the future. There is lot of methane hydrates all over the deep ocean. Whether we can economically extract it will be an interesting future. Perhaps some of the things Nikola Tesla was working on will also come to fruition, especially regarding transmission of wireless electricity. He couldn’t have been a genius on everything else and completely out to lunch on this. Plasma is the 4th state of matter and this will also be a contender, especially in space propulsion. And perhaps other stationary power supplies or plasma batteries. We just don’t know the future, and as you say, from the Wright Brothers to walking on the moon. I remember my grandmother who was born in a covered wagon in Oklahoma India Territory in 1892 just being flabbergasted that there were men walking on the Moon in 1969. And she lived to see the modern internet and most everything we have today. The future is so bright, we just might have to wear shades.

            But something tells me that manufacturing long chain carbon molecules from CO2 and Hydrogen with electricity will be much easier in the future, if we have a limitless supply advanced nuclear energy. I think the backbone of the future economy is based upon CO2, just as it is now with everything that is life based. But CO2 will be the feedstock for much of what we manufacture now, jut as it is now an increasing feedstock for greening the good Earth and supplying abundant harvests in addition to our fertilization. We are headed for a doubling of CO2 by the end of the century or sooner whether Greta likes it not. And it is probably 2/3 beneficial. No one can prove it anyway, that the small beneficial warming it isn’t at least 50% good. It is certainly better than the Little Ice Age temps, and a 2 degree warming from those depths should be a relief and blessing to anyone with any intelligence.

            This is the big question, which is whether can dispel this notion that CO2 is ‘pollution’ and responsible for roasting the planet. We know it isn’t, but can we convince the masses that advanced nuclear is our only long term solution, and when I say long term, I mean from now to 100 to 1000 years. I am a long term optimist because in the end, I do believe Science is self correcting and the evidence will be before our very eyes. It is now, but there are ulterior forces trying to convince the masses that the science is settled and we are already heating and soon roasting, as if we are currently in Purgatory because of ‘evil’ fossil fuels. But it isn’t true, obviously. All of this is of course, just my humble opinion. Our great great grand children are going to have a ball reading these pages in 100-200 years when people try to analyze the mass delusion of CAGW climate change/disaster.

          • Earthling2

            Hello…hello… It’s one of the masses here. You already have many of us on board. That’s why we come to this site, we are relying on you very clever people to get the truth out there! But unless you are retired then you are taking a risk, I get that. Maybe you should try to find out how many retired scientists there are on this site, invite likeminded retired scientists outside the site that you know, to be involved and work out a plan!

            It’s the journalists feeding the masses with nothing but BS that is steering them in the wrong direction. It’s you who have the expertise, the masses don’t have the knowledge that you do in regard to facts.

            Australia has two major newspapers willing to print the skeptic point of view, the Telegraph and the Australian. Sky News (television) here in Australia has a number of excellent journalists who promote skepticism and encourage speakers to come on the show. Unfortunately Sky is mostly available in the regions and not the cities. Andrew Bolt is one our best known skeptic journalists and he is affiliated with Fox as well.

            The readership of the Telegraph has been growing and I believe that is because people are desperate to get a different point of view.

            I don’t have the technical knowledge to refute the science, I can only point out the more absurd things that people say. Though having said that I have done alot of research and have periodically sent articles to people. I’ve also lost most of my friends in an effort to disprove the CACA rhetoric.

            There must be some skeptic journalists and media in other parts or the world too. There are plenty of the masses who will back you up. Maybe we could have our own conferences in different parts of the world, though that’s proven to be tricky. Television and newsprint is likely the safest way to go.

            There is no sarc tag here.

    • Greta’s parents are guilty of abuse–it is reported that her dad writes her tweets!

      On the other hand, I haven’t laughed so hard in quite a while when I saw her picture on that yellow car!

      Somebody should get an award for best climate meme ever!!

      • I would like to know for certain who does write her tweets especially since we now know that her father and a UN climate activist write her Facebook page. I would be surprised if it was her given that she is just a front for a well-funded PR campaign.

      • yeah, that’s a work of art ! Shame they did not get all the hot air from the exhaust pipes coming out of her mouth.

    • Not true.

      You don’t have to mature to know that wind is not blowing all the time. It’s a brainwashing that allows many adult to dismiss these issues. They weren’t born brainwashed. Many issues that are dismissed in the MSM are obvious and clear and not hard to see for children. But children want to “mature” (imitate adults) hence they become dumb.

      Children have some common sense; that has nothing to do with “mature” which is 99% made up BS anyway. “Mature” is simply a way to say that children are stupid. From a crowd of “adults” (I say adult-oids like the androids of 60ties in the film with their ridiculous moves: they are caricatures of the expected thing) many of which fall of the silliest con (hello John Podesta, how is your Gmail password going?).

      Adults set up a society bent on trashing the common sense of children. The whole point of “science education” is to convince people that they need to squash their common sense to become scientifically informed and “rational”. They don’t become rational people, just “scientific studies” addicts.

      Calling every a conspiracy theory is another way society brainwashes and reprograms people.

      Like cooling the past lets one show a non existent warming, dumbing the past of the brain allows people to dismiss the fact they become dumber with time. (If you go on Twitter you should see that most people can hardly make the simplest arguments that should be clear and obvious to children.)

      Becoming very dumb is a rite of passage, period.

      Intelligent and courageous children should be refuse to take classes in fields that have patently unreliable people running them. Like refusing to bear arms but with history books and other books.

    • Don’t worry. She is an actress from a family of actors, doing her act. Actors don’t typically develop mental issues from acting.

    • Sadly she already has serious mental health issues. According to her Mother;
      She has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and obsessive compulsive disorder (clearly a single issue obsessive). When ten or eleven years old she tried to starve herself to death. She can see also see CO2 in the atmosphere.

      It was a special school from which she played truant to carry out her Friday protests. Her handlers should hang their heads in shame at her exploitation as should the politicians and activists that have deified her by giving her platforms at international conferences.

    • I’d put that in the past tense. Her parents set her up for serious mental issues a long time ago.

      What bothers me is that this kid’s entire reason for being now is wound up in this worthless climate hoax and the hoaxers who are using her. When she is of no more use to them, what then? I’m seriously afraid that she is heading for disaster, and the ones who led her to it won’t care in the slightest.

  2. As long as the science is ignored, and the facts aren’t taken into account, and the situation is not treated as a crisis

    Fixed it for ya

    • Exactly my thoughts when I hear her babbling about science. If only people did look at the science and facts, as she always suggests, then we would not need sites like this anymore.

  3. Typo : “sesnible” should be “sensible”.

    PS I like the picture of the car with here eyes being the “left turn” signals!

  4. I thought Trump’s speech, even if written by someone else and teleprompted, was a phenomenon of optimism well delivered and persuasive. Left whinging Greta at the starting post.

  5. What she hasn’t figured out yet (although her handlers know this) is that she’s telling people, who have no capabilities or intentions of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, how horrible they are. She’s just a useful idiot’s useful idiot. Or is that a useful idiot’s useful idiot’s useful idiot. I can’t keep up.

  6. Dear Greta,
    You dropped out of school to lecture us about things you haven’t studied such as science, economics, nutrition, etc.
    All the while traveling the globe on someone else’s dime.
    Why shouldn’t you be ignored?
    God Bless and “How dare you!”,
    Gunga Din

  7. Demands 😐

    This is what happens when the media hypes somebody up, they believe they are the saviour, even though greta has shown no proven science, no facts, in fact, she has spoken no science at all, all its been is repetitive screaming and evil looks…

    • The media is so stupid they don’t even know which questions to ask. Of course, they also would not have a clue as to whether any answers are lies

      • I don’t think the media are stupid and they know exactly what questions not to ask. Because if they asked them the whole corrupt charade would come tumbling down.

        • The media do not ask questions because their main purpose is to make money for the big boss (told to me by a media instructor). Secondary to that is the fact that they really know nothing about climate. but that is their fault as they can check both sides.

    • Sunny,

      “she has spoken no science at all,” she believes to better us with only talking ABOUT science.

      Her teachers must be, let’s say, “remarkable”.

  8. IMO the most significant observation that Greta has exposed is the astonishing absence of self esteem of the “leaders” of the UN, IPCC, EU, etc etc.

    Viz – a know-nothing kid stands up in front of them all, in essence tells them to their faces that they’re all losers, full of sh1t, and generally a waste of space.
    And the “leaders” all then stand up and applaud her, totally agreeing with her.
    Not one of them has the esteem to defend/justify their efforts & results to date.
    In fact, they fall over themselves to invite her to future gatherings.

    I dunno, maybe one has to be a card-carrying masochist to become a “leader” these days?
    Or flash a certificate that says you’re a eunuch.

  9. George Soros likes to find impressionable skulls full of mush and parade them around with jingoistic enthusiasm. Unfortunately, Greta is also suffering from Asberger’s Syndrome which means she has the following issues:

    1. Having difficulty with social interaction
    2. Engaging in repetitive behavior
    3. Standing firm on what they think
    4. Focusing on rules and routines

    Her form of Autism has obviously manifested itself, as indicated above, to be used and exploited by those who should be nurturing instead of abusing. Greta clearly has absolutely no idea what she blathers incessantly about. She is a useful tool to the Leftist Cause of Controlling the Masses who parade this poor girl around as an idiot savant for the Hoax of GloBull Climate Alarmism. And she does this very well as an overly programmed little puppet! She can memorize her lines without comprehending them, she can repeat them on cue like a good parrot, and as long as she is removed before questions are asked, nobody can tell that she is an empty shell of a person. Ideally, Greta should be removed from her abusive parents and placed in a proper setting where she can be treated for her Mental Condition. She has been removed from her Country’s Education System and will eventually end up in some Home for Mentally Disturbed Patients. But not before making Millions for her handlers, which unfortunately includes her abusive parents!

    • That typo-corrected line from Greta makes a lot more sense if also corrected for the missing comma. It should be written as “Before we came here we had a few demands for this, WTF.” With this correction, WTF stands for exactly what you think it stands for, beginning with “What”.

    • all kidding aside, the actual line (as reported in the news) was “Before we came here we had a few demands for this WEF and of course these demands have been completely ignored…”
      WEF = World Economic Forum.
      But I do like Gordon’s version better, as it cuts to the heart of her entitled temper tantrum rants in a “we demanded and those demands weren’t met, WTF” kind of way.

  10. I’m afraid Greta is going to be in for a lot of disappointments in the future in her efforts to get fossil fuels eliminated. It’s an impossible task, Greta. Even if you talked world and economic leaders into it (that won’t happen either), the people of the world are not going to go along. Not based on a bunch of unsubstantiated scaremongering, that’s for sure.

    Did Jane Fonda get arrested yesterday for protesting CAGW? I didn’t see anything about it. Maybe Greta and Jane can get together.

    • What? If getting the world off all fossil fuels by 2050 requires bringing one full size nuclear power plant on line EVERY DAY from now until then (per WUWT article not too long ago), then Greta Thunberg surely has deemed that possible. Heck, she may even criticize the “leaders” at the next Davos meeting for not making it five nuclear reactors a day since we are, after all, facing a “climate crisis”™.

      • I read yesterday that Rolls Royce are inv to produce small modular nuclear power plants, about 1.5 acres each. They expect to start delivering within 10 years.

        If anyone was going to do it, I’d believe Rolls Royce more than most, and also trust them more than most.

        • Trump was hinting at some technological breakthroughs at Davos the other day and he mentioned “advanced nuclear”. I wonder. . .

        • That may be, but since nuclear power scales with the volume of the radioactive core (and overall power conversion efficiency is generally less for a smaller reactor core) making many small nuclear power plants to replace one of today’s typical nuclear power plants doesn’t really make a lot of economic sense.

          Keep in mind that to protect the radioactive material from theft and each power plant from terrorist attack, each small nuclear reactor site will require pretty much all the security features of today’s full size nuclear power plants.

          For reference, today’s typical operational, commercial nuclear power plant is rated for about 1 gigawatt power output whereas the reactors used for the larger US Navy submarines and surface ships have an output of about 165 MWe. So, you would need at least 6 of the smallest size nuclear power reactors operating today to replace each typical large utility-grade nuclear reactor operating today.

      • Even that wouldn’t do it, except maybe for electricity generation. That does nothing for transport, manufacturing, etc. etc.

  11. Important news from Davos by CNN Business: “Mnuchin and Lagarde clashed in Davos over the financial risk posed by the climate crises.”

    This is the title of a 2 min. video on https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/24/business/davos-2020-climate/index.html

    Lagarde, referring to the economic literature: “out of 77.000 articles published, 60 [thousand] deal with environmental sustainability”. And: “how do you utterly account so that risk is ‘anticipated’, ‘measured’ – ‘hopefully mitigated’ and …. we are in a better shape”.

    CNN: “Mnuchin responded “Christine, I think you can have a lot of people look at this and model it,” he said. “I just don’t want to kid ourselves. I think there’s no way we can possibly model what these risks are over the next 30 years with a level of certainty.” “

    WR: Important is that in public (!) there is a clash between one group of people that is fearful but don’t know about Climate except for some ‘majority opinions’ and another group of people that are better informed and are calculating the real risks and the dangers of an extremely costly path without any sure outcome or calculable economic profit – if compared with the path of cheap and reliable energy.

    More positive news comes from Angela Merkel in Davos who according to Reuters proposes a dialogue between sceptics and believers: “Merkel urges dialogue between sceptics and believers to tackle climate change”.

    WR: The ‘Open Debate’ she is inviting to will be an important step forward. Late, but ‘better late than never’.

    Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-merkel/merkel-urges-dialogue-between-skeptics-and-believers-to-tackle-climate-change-idUSKBN1ZM1ZY?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5b6e1a9288-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_24_02_51&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-5b6e1a9288-36449997&mc_cid=5b6e1a9288&mc_eid=2bffa9916e

    • If the “purpose” of the “debate” is to “tackle” the imaginary problem, then the chips are stacked in favor of propagandizing the “climate” bullshit some more, not having a meaningful “debate.”

      A real “debate” wouldn’t be about “tackling” the non-issue of “climate change,” it would be about the lack of any need to do anything about “climate” beyond adapting to any changes that actually occur.

  12. Jesus was 30 years old before He started His mission to save the world. I would say she is slightly over ambitious.

  13. I think it’s a pathetic and scurrilous manifestation of greed and selfishness on the part of the parents of this 17YO girl to have let this nonsense go this far. I’ve seen examples of bad parenting, but they are the worst. She’s coming to the end of the trail of popularity that got her the attention she thought she wanted and when it’s gone, she will NOT matter to anyone any more. It shows in that taillight art on the yellow car and in the fact that people are starting to mock her and turn her into a cartoon.

    Whoever said it really wont end until she’s no longer a ‘phenom’ is right: she’ll be useless and her parents will have scammed a hoard of cash out of what she has been doing, and she’ll get no benefit from it. Absolutely disgusting.

  14. All Trump needs to say is, “Greta, despite what your parents claim, socialism is not a science.”

  15. We have a couple of climate catastrophists (and both hard left leaning) as a relatives, sadly.
    They have taken inspiration from Turdberg that utter ignorance should not stop you being a CC expert.

    Neither was aware of or understood how heat is actually “stored” in molecules in the atmosphere.
    Neither understood that ppm referred to “parts per million” and that one ppm was 1/10000th of 1%.
    Neither was able to deduce therefore that the other 99.96% of the atmosphere was not comprised of CO2.
    Neither knew about specific heat capacity and its importance relative to the composition (as above).
    Neither could comprehend that there was never enough CO2 available to lift the entire atmosphere 2 Kelvin.
    Neither could explain photosynthesis in any meaningful way nor could name its inputs or relevance to CO2.
    Neither was aware that the oceans have been gradually rising (~420ft+) years since the last ice age.
    Neither were aware of, or could explain the scientific method, or relevance of accuracy and precision of data.
    Neither could identify the vast and diverse scientific fields of study that “climate science” comprised.
    Neither could explain what baseload power was or its relevance to energy reliability or feasible options.
    Neither were aware nor cared that China and India emit roughly the CO2 as ALL other countries combined.
    Neither were aware nor cared that these statistics do no consider population density, industry or energy mix.
    Neither were aware that contrary to sensationalist MSM misinformation OUR emissions are trending down.
    Neither had ever done any environmental or conservation related volunteering work in their lifetime.
    Neither of them have invested in PV, changed household devices or changed their energy consumption.

    Both failed science and maths in high school and have pursued no relevant education in the 30 years since.
    Both stated emphatically that the “science” of AGW is settled, proven, and undeniably without question.
    Both claimed CO2 as being the primary cause of climate change, droughts, storms, fires and general weather.
    Both claimed the imperative to drastically reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions to avert total collapse.
    Both are members of extinction rebellion and protest at taxpayers expense upon the basis of “the science”.
    Both are highly active on social media and driving their terrorist cells into disruptive social disobedience.

    But they have no facts, no education, no knowledge, no solutions, and no idea about “the science”, frankly.

    That such imbeciles are given airtime by the MSM encourages similar imbeciles is a postmodern Dark Age.
    That instead of verifiable independent proofs, we have consensus, conjecture and opinion held up as fact.

    • Wow, that is a good summary of some folks I know. Unbelievable how set in their beliefs, yet so ignorant.

      • @Randle Dewees, that has been my experience beyond those two as well.
        This CAGW stuff is a mental illness spread by social media and it affects seemingly non-morons.
        The vast majority have no clue about real earth science yet claim science as proof.
        Their “science” though is just plagiarised dogmatic groupthink from the MSM and IPCC blather.

        Sad part is if they were frothing about plasticisation of our environments, destruction of habitats and water systems I would strongly support, rather than wish they were rounded up and set to gulags.

    • …but unilimited familial forebearance if they let you throw that list of endlessly debunked talking points in their faces.

      • ” 99.96% of the atmosphere was not comprised of CO2.”
        “ppm referred to parts per million”
        etc., etc.

        Examples of this endless bunking of which you speak please.

        • you should know by now that Loydo has no sources or examples since he just spews the regurgitation’s of the profits of doom ALGORE Mike (piltdown) Mann and others since he must follow the properly religious course his (and in his mind our) betters have given him, he is the perfect follower never questioning never thinking for himself.

      • Not really it just illustrated to the rest of the family that their fervour was simply a symptom of underlying ignorance. We had a good discussion on whether it was basic stupidity or just low levels of STEM education in the populace that was fuelling this climate hysteria.

        Besides, apart from those two, the family generally all have university level education, do a lot of volunteer environmental work and donate to wildlife preservation efforts so we all saw it as a sad waste of resources to actually do something for the environment rather than a Marxist plutocracy.

  16. leaders were not reacting to the crisis, and were not being held accountable for their inaction.

    Greta in a democracy the leaders are elected so they are always held accountable., so the correct statement would be

    leaders were not reacting to the crisis, because the voters don’t care

    .

    • “leaders were not reacting to the crisis, because most voters are younger than the “crisis” and still nothing has happened!”

      (…and some of us are getting pretty old!)

  17. Time magazine declared that Greta’s claims are scientifically correct, that out of the mouths of children comes truth, and that she shouldn’t be picked on—IIRC.

  18. Greta: As long as the science is ignored

    The science is not ignored since the censors suppressing the science have been down.

    This girl is in for a huge let down when she is no longer of use and when she is 18 and treated as an adult. Worse the ones who have brought her to this will not be there for her when she needs them. Only a prediction not the words of a prophet.

  19. http://www.GretaInc.com

    “Greta Thunberg’s meteoric rise to fame did not happen by accident.

    Her canonization as a climate saint was coordinated and executed by a cabal of left-wing eco-elites — including her parents and their famous friends.

    But no-one has bothered to dig deep into Greta’s background… Until now.”

  20. “As long as the science is ignored, and the facts aren’t taken into account, and the situation is not treated as a crisis, then world and business leaders can of course continue to ignore the situation,”
    Perhaps Greta should aim to to acquire a proper scientific mindset, and start to think more critically?

  21. “As long as the science is ignored, and the facts aren’t taken into account, and the situation is not treated as a crisis, then world and business leaders can of course continue to ignore the situation,” [Greta Thunberg] said.

    Science is based on measurements and data, which have been ignored (or covered up) by the global-warming scaremongers, who also have not taken into account facts that don’t support their opinion. The situation is not treated as a crisis basically because it isn’t one.

    Having a little extra CO2 in the air makes plants grow faster and increases crop yields, which is beneficial. Sea-level rise is so slow it would take about 500 years to reach Greta’s height (assuming she’s 5 feet tall). More people die from cold weather than hot weather, so a warmer climate would also be beneficial. These are scientific facts–where’s the crisis?

    Why is a high school dropout telling college-educated world leaders what to do? She needs to get a science degree before lecturing us about what “science” says!

      • “CAGW is a religion, not science!” There might be some disagreement on technical definitions, but what you say is basically true. Not so long ago, everything that did not have a human to blame was God’s punishment, or the Devil’s doing. No proof available, no proof needed. But fewer people believe in God anymore. That does not mean they all became scientists, it just means they believe in other things. Without proof. Superstition, old wives’ tales, and internet memes. Now everything is CO2’s fault, no further questions. The “scientists” have decreed. CAGW may not be a religion but it is dogma.

Comments are closed.