The “anti-Greta” Thunberg debuts on Fox News with a message of hope for young people.

It is nice to see this. Unlike high-school dropout Greta Thunberg, Naomi Seibt is an accelerated student and has a background in science and psychology.  She received a degree in BA (Business Administration).

She went to St. Mauritz School and won first place in the youth competition research in physics. She graduated from high school at the age of 16 in 2017. She has now been engaged by The Heartland Institute to reach out to young people around the world.

She was a guest Thursday, February 27 on “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” on the Fox News Channel, the top-rated cable show in its time slot in the United States. She was invited on the program to talk about her work as a “climate realist” in her native Germany, where climate panic has taken hold among her generation, and the speech she will give at CPAC 2020.

Said Naomi: “I hate to see so many young people panicking about climate change” when they haven’t done their own research on the science.

“They don’t really know what they are talking about. They are so fearful about the future, and I want to give them back their hope.”

Watch some of Naomi’s other videos at her YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeYS…

And also these videos below at Heartland’s YouTube Channel:. “Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: Whom Should We Trust?” https://youtu.be/Tq4fJdjt_vM

144 thoughts on “The “anti-Greta” Thunberg debuts on Fox News with a message of hope for young people.

  1. One could ask what is the use of having the involvement of another teenager who doesn’t really know much….however, by asking yourself that question, you are forced to realize how little Greta knows.

    • Unlike most of the people shooting off their mouths about climate change, Naomi actually knows some science.

        • Naomi dosen’t as much as the world scientist that were on TV last week that were the arctic circle about the glaciers melting so fast and collapsing in the last few years

      • I didn’t realize Dana Perino had a show when I was scanning the channels on a very cold day.

        I stopped to watch and saw Naomi (for the first time)

        I was impressed with her command of English.

        I was not impressed with her command of climate science.

        The most basic ideas should be presented first, such as:

        — Our planet is always getting warmer or cooler.
        (Pause)
        — Getting warmer is much more pleasant than getting cooler.
        (Pause)
        — The temperature change over an hour, every morning, is larger than all the global warming in the past 135 years.
        (Pause)
        — Computer games have predicted double to triple the mild, pleasant warming that actually happened.
        (Pause)
        Greta Thunberg is a trained parrot who can’t manage to quote the climate scaremongers correctly — she gives parrots a bad reputation !

        Naomi needs to learn how to stop talking — make a brief statement, then pause to let it sink in ! She’s obviously intelligent, and pretty, but also a blabbermouth !

        It’s refreshing to have a young person who thinks independently, and is not scared by leftist climate scaremongering.

        I hope Naomi makes a difference
        … in the 11 years left for our planet !

      • I agree. This girl is a scholar. She isn’t accepting that a crap sandwich is reall just a chocolate bar.

      • I agree Don, the ‘use is’ in having and intelligent young person who can help other young people see that there is more than one point of view.

        • It’s the “more than one point of view” message that is important whether you are 19 like Naomi, 49 like my son still isn’t sure but was brought up to think for himself, or 79 like me who never thought this farrago “smelt right” from the beginning.

          If the political activists in the UN and the eco-activists in academia and the media hadn’t been so successful at shutting down debate this farce would have ended years ago.

          • Newminster, my 51 year old son came to the country to visit us. He is not even on the fence, though we tried to raise all four of our sons to have an open mind. He chose to raise the CC issue. We were hoping to have a ‘conversation’, but when we raised issues we had researched in depth he scoffed at us. He has not done any research that would present alternative views to his, but he said to us “So ‘all’ those scientists are wrong?”

            I know that it’s almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation with leftist thinkers. It’s really painful to have that conversation with your own son. I am feeling particularly despondent. I have sent him a few articles to help him understand where we’re coming from, so far no response.

    • One could ask what is the use of having the involvement of another teenager who doesn’t really know much…

      In the clip, she said she used to be a climate alarmist, but that this changed when she started reading and listening to other sources of knowledge. How could she have changed her mind, unless she increased how much she knew? She would have to have changed her knowledge, in order to have her current position on the matter, and so the comment about not really knowing much seems a bit unfair. She seems to know enough to make a counterargument against the CO2 madness.

      • “he would have to have changed her knowledge, in order to have her current position on the matter,”
        Change from sound bite ideology to reality?

      • It is worth recalling that there have been reputable scientists who have changed sides after actually reading some of the IPCC reports and been horrified at the rubbish that is in them. They trusted that they were genuine and their ‘colleagues’ who produced them had been truthful and probably didn’t really understand that the IPCC remit is to only look for a human signal in global warming.

        I am sure Naomi writes her own Facebook page if she has one and is capable of answering questions as opposed to just parroting off a script written by climate activists.

    • She knows enough to look at the science, and not the alarmist garbage Greta ER and Attemborough are spewing.

    • You don’t have to know a lot of “science” to discredit a lot of medical or climatic diktats.

      Debunking pseudo science doesn’t always require profound scientific insights. It does require common sense, which the school system is always trying to crush. I’m looking at you the retrogradists (so called conservatives) who keep saying how good it was in the good old days. It was not; school was already boring and dumb. School was already producing masses of pretty dumb people, although probably not as many as today.

      The silly ideas that justice and science have completely distinct processes, or the idea that criminal inquiries don’t have anything to do with the scientific process, and that generally lawyer don’t need to do or understand science, are not recent ideas and were not invented by young people.

    • maybe one should realize that a young adult who actually makes her decisions based on research and facts instead of FB posts and political sides MORE THAN LIKELY KNOWS MORE THAT THOUSANDS, INCLUDING MAYBE YOURSELF, ON CLIMATE CONTROL. If that’s not the case and you do actually know more on climate control and solutions, you should be asking yourself why YOU are not the one speaking out giving hope instead of fear. I doubt age plays a significant role when it comes to knowledge…..it’s a matter of “wanting to understand and searching out for answers through the correct means” that will take a person down the right path. This young girl has set her goals to do such and I, for one, admire her for doing so. It cannot be easy “having tomatoes thrown in your face” (a figure of speech so please do not quote me as saying this has happened : ) as you try to simply educate people to the truths that you have found.

  2. What a very articulate young lady. She seems to fully understand the youth have been brainwashed into believing climate catastrophic failure. I really do hope that those responsible for corrupting school children are sent to prison,

      • Vangel is talking about the “host” (Dana), not the “guest” (Naomi). Especially when Dana asks: “do you believe climate change is real”? That is not a very sophisticated question and indicates to me that Dana (the host) has not read up on it much herself.

          • I give Dana a pass on Climate Change ignorance … because she’s Smokin’ Hot and can form whole, coherent sentences when she talks.

            Her looks probably got her wherever she wanted to go. Not much else.
            Right or Wrong, Left or Right, … that’s living in reality.

        • Especially when Dana asks: “do you believe climate change is real”?

          This was a perfectly legit question until it was countered by the climate is always changing meme. How would you phrase the question? (and, further, should perino really care?)

          • It’s a “have you stopped beating your wife?” question, not susceptible of a yes/no answer.

            Either climate is always changing or it never changes (other than in the fundamental transition in or out of ice ages). Arctic, equatorial, or temperate climates vary within certain parameters but fairly constantly in relation to each other. A global average increase of 2° (assuming such a measure is meaningful, which even Hansen says it isn’t) is not “climate change”; it’s just warmer weather.

          • “It’s a “have you stopped beating your wife?” question, not susceptible of a yes/no answer.”

            Here’s the answer to give: “If you mean, Do I concede that global temperatures have risen and that man is partly responsible, the answer is Yes. If you mean , Do I think it poses a great threat, the answer is No.”

          • The most pertinent question is: “Do you believe the climate of the Little Ice Age (baseline of the current 2C scare) was better than today’s”?

          • This was a perfectly legit question until it was countered by the climate is always changing meme.

            NO it’s a stupid question, because it does not define what is meant by “climate change” and does implicitly pretend that climate never changed until we started “messing it up”, so the reply is a suitable response not a “meme”.

            If you want a proper answer , ask a proper question.

            The interview was a missed opportunity. It did not even give the segment enough time to find out what Steib was on about.

          • … perfectly legit question until it was countered by the climate is always changing meme

            I don’t get what’s wrong with the counter statement. Is the statement false?

            I think the best response would have been another question, “What do you mean by the phrase climate change?”

            The very question is itself a “meme” that has come to be a device for hijacking a person’s understanding of the phrase used in a proper sense to force acceptance of the hijacked definition replacing it — “human-caused climate change”. Nobody of any intelligence should be asking such a question, without specifying what is meant by the phrase, “climate change” in the context of using the phrase.

            The response, “Climate is always changing”, thus, is the simple defensive response reflexively given to counter the reflexive expectation that everybody should think it means “human-caused climate change”, which it does NOT.

        • I just heard Senator Lyndsey Graham on Fox News Channel say he thought climate change was real.

          He was being challenged about some Democrats claiming Trump and his administration don’t believe “in science”, and Graham’s retort was to say he believed in climate change.

          I guess we have a little educating to do with Lyndsey, although maybe I’m jumpting the gun, perhaps Lindsey is a Lukewarmer rather than an alarmist. Time will tell.

          • The fool shouldn’t even be conflating the science of weather with the science of virology. Did he say that gender’s real?

          • Tom Abbott – February 27, 2020 at 6:17 pm

            I just heard Senator Lyndsey Graham on Fox News Channel say he thought climate change was real.

            I guess we have a little educating to do with Lyndsey,

            Climate change is real. ….. It is as real as rain.

            It has been real ever since the earth developed a variably changing atmosphere a billion or so years ago.

            The fault lies with Tom Abbott and Lyndsey Graham, etc., etc., ….. for blurting out the phrase “climate change” without specifying what type of “climate change” they are talking about, …. anthropogenic caused or natural occurring.

            Thus, in the above twaddle, ….. Tom Abbott was referring to anthropogenic caused” climate change …… whereas Lyndsey Graham was referring to natural caused” climate change. As they say, ….. “Two horses of a different color”.

            It is dastardly, devious, dishonest and disingenuous to “badmouth” or criticize another person if one is totally ignorant of what the other person is talking about ….. or if one intentionally responds “out-of-context” to what was stated by another person.

            But most people don’t give a crap anymore, ……. the mentality is “win at all costs, no matter what”.

          • Climate Change is real, even the anthropogenic part.

            The real question is, “Is it a problem, either for humanity or the biosphere, to the degree the alarmists claim?”

            All the proposed policy actions proposed by Democrats (the GND for example, or Obama’s CPP) are more harmful than beneficial and thus fail the cost:benefit analysis. They are merely political power grabs by self-interested pols.

          • Samual wrote: “The fault lies with Tom Abbott and Lyndsey Graham, etc., etc., ….. for blurting out the phrase “climate change” without specifying what type of “climate change” they are talking about, …. anthropogenic caused or natural occurring.”

            I’m pretty consistent about specifying that I’m talking about human-caused climate change when I talk about it. I would say I am even redundant about the phrase, deliberately. In this case, I was just repeating what Senator Graham said which was “climate change”. The Senator did not include “human-caused” or “natural” in his statement.

            Samuel wrote: “Thus, in the above twaddle, ….. Tom Abbott was referring to anthropogenic caused” climate change …… whereas Lyndsey Graham was referring to natural caused” climate change. As they say, ….. “Two horses of a different color”.

            Now how do you know that Senator Graham was referring to “natural” climate change? Are you a mindreader? Senator Graham certainly did not specify that he was talking about natural climate change.

            Samuel wrote: It is dastardly, devious, dishonest and disingenuous to “badmouth” or criticize another person if one is totally ignorant of what the other person is talking about ….. or if one intentionally responds “out-of-context” to what was stated by another person.”

            Isn’t that what you are doing here? I think so. You presume too much, and then use your presumptions to trash my character. Thanks a lot.

            Keep trying and I’ll keep replying.

          • ‘Climate Change is real, even the anthropogenic part’

            You’re correct, of course, but you usually can’t get past that first concession with any of these nuts.

          • So sayith in the above did —- Joel O’Bryan and Joel Snider

            Climate Change is real, even the anthropogenic part

            The only thing that one can state as a fact of science is that …. the warming of the earth due to Interglacial climate change is real and it is still in process as we speak.

            Current science assumes there is “anthropogenic climate change” …. based solely on “fuzzy math” calculated global average near-surface air temperature increases which they attribute to human activities beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

            The major problem with the above nonsense is the fact that the proponents of AGW had to “highjack” the ongoing Interglacial climate change near-surface air temperature increases ….. and then claim those “highjacked” temperature increases were in fact human caused increases.

            Is anyone really so ignorant as to believe that the “warming” of the current Interglacial climate change SUDDENLY STOPPED …… just because humans started recording near-surface air temperatures in the early 19th Century?

            “YES”, ……. apparently so.

        • Bill I think that Dana came across as a little condescending, Naomi has attained quite a depth of knowledge around the climate change issue for one so young. Hopefully she can capture the attention of young people through increasing media attention. They are the ones we need to get through to.

        • I had the distinct feeling that Dana did not care for Naomi at all. She rushed her through her answers in a way that almost suggested she was trying to belittle her. I sensed she was not the right person asking the questions as she clearly did not have her act together with the line of questioning she asked as well as her final comment on telling Naomi that they did not have time for her reply. What Naomi must have “thought” she was there for was to explain the reasoning behind why she thought fear was a big problem in the issue of climate control. Dana asked around this and when Naomi wanted to elaborate, Dana cut her short. Sad interview but convinced me that hope is coming out and I, for one, never gave credit to all of the fear being pushed out there about a dying climate due to man’s achievements. My decision was and is not based on FB or which side I am for politically, but rather the simple trust that GOD is in control and when HE is finished with us, WE SHALL BE FINISHED and until then, there is much to do in our world FOR our planet and FOR mankind.

          • Greetings:

            Just so there is no misunderstanding, one has to appreciate the nature of the 24-hour news cycle these days.

            Regardless of the channel one happens to be watching at the moment, interviews and interviewers are given strict time limits for that particular segment. A discussion might be set up (by the producers or directors) to run for four, five, six, or even seven minutes. As the number of “guest” interviewees increases, the segment tends to be longer*, but in general, the time limit is established prior to the segment beginning.

            Both the interviewer and interviewee(s) are advised of the length of the segment, and the interviewee is given a specific signal that the host will give when the segment is due to close (e.g., Neil Cavuto will begin to say, “Allright” in a slightly dismissive manner when he needs the guest to wrap-up his/her comments). All this is discussed, repeated, and confirmed while the guest is in make-up (if appropriate) or the ‘green room’, prior to the interview beginning.

            Dana Perino may have been acting dismissive, but she was only operating within the limits established for that segment.

            Hope that helps,

            Vlad

            *This has become the main consequence of what I call the ‘short-attention-span’ generation, a.k.a. “screen zombies”, who cannot go more than a few seconds without their cell phone and some new stimulation for their chronic brain-deadness. I grew up in a time when attention spans and need to concentrate could run into an hour, or longer. This is no longer possible in modern society. Human existence in the 21st Century depends on constant and unique stimulation, changing, in too many cases, on a basis measured in just seconds; seven is the most often quoted time I’ve heard over the years. Actually having someone’s attention for up to twenty seconds is considered exceptional.

        • B d I got that it was unintentional, I think that we’ve all reread our own posts and then realised we’d read it wrong. I’ve certainly had to apologise myself more than once, and after yesterday I’m a little reticent to comment at all. I thought we had a moderator, but though I didn’t respond the comments were particularly ugly in the end.

          • I think the troll you picked up yesterday would like you to stop commenting ,that’s his game , dont let the trolls win. They only come out if your worrying their cause.

          • Thanks B d, I’ve already let it go. I’m fairly new to this, next time I’ll let go earlier. I know I’ve got a lot of support here. We all need to continue to speak out and kudos to Naomi.

      • B s Clark
        You appear to have misunderstood – I believe Vangel was referring to the host Dana Perrino, who is obviously unenlightened on climate matters. Might I add she also had an unpleasant hard icy stare, quite unwarranted when interviewing such a young inexperienced girl.

        • If you had read two post down you would of seen I apologised for my mistake, I doubt you getting my initials was a mistake, read what’s written pal ,

        • “Dana Perrino, who is obviously unenlightened on climate matters. ”

          Are you basing this on this interview, or other things hse has said?

    • Dana Perino was in the Bush administration, and Bush was ambivalent toward global warming skepticism at best. He kinda went along with it but did not advocate for alarmism But give Perino credit for featuring the informed Naomi. Actually, just this happening, even on Fox, is refreshing.

      • With regard to the sad state of affairs on the Fox News channel: watch enough FNC programs over a long enough period of time, and the revelation soon becomes obvious of just how many FNC hosts and recurring guests know so little about the skeptic side of the global warming issue. Basically, they almost never speak in detail about the faulty science and never about fatally flawed accusations of ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists,’ they just mutter about the economic cost of stopping AGW while giving a pass to environmentalist-style false premise talking points. What Dana Perino encountered today was probably the biggest pushback any FNC host has ever received against such a talking point.

        • “With regard to the sad state of affairs on the Fox News channel: watch enough FNC programs over a long enough period of time, and the revelation soon becomes obvious of just how many FNC hosts and recurring guests know so little about the skeptic side of the global warming issue. Basically, they almost never speak in detail about the faulty science and never about fatally flawed accusations of ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists,’ they just mutter about the economic cost of stopping AGW while giving a pass to environmentalist-style false premise talking points.”

          Yes, Fox News Channel hosts do this and so do all Republicans including President Trump.

          Why do they do this? Because if they challenge the human-caused climate change orthodoxy the Leftwing Media will excoriate them and call them anti-science and deniers and all sorts of names, and demand that they defend their climate change denier position. We have seen how the Leftwing Media can pile on. Would you want them piling on you and hounding you to death? Of course you wouldn’t. Nobody would want that.

          So to avoid the wrath of the Left, those on the Right, who are not experts in every aspect of climate science, (who is?)and would therefore be trashed by the Left, behave the way you describe as a defense mechanism.

          They don’t necessarily agree with the alarmist, leftwing climate change agenda, but they are not going to put themselves out on a limb when their knowledge is not sufficient for them to defend themselves adequately. And it’s not easy to get all that knowledge. I have to come to WUWT sometimes to listen to the specialists in order to get the straight scoop on some of the numerous topics covered by climate change. You can’t do that on a tv set. If you don’t have it in your head then the Left’s experts will make mince meat out of you.

          So you avoid the subject in public as much as possible.

          I think a lot of these Shrinking Violets will have to come on out into the light as we get closer to the presidential election because the Left is going to be raising the subject and the Right better have an adequate answer to pushback on the Left and inform the public.

          Calling Dr. Happer! We need your expertise. Now, Dr. Happer could take on the alarmist experts right off the top of his head, but not many people can do that.

          Here’s my suggestion to Repubicans who get stymied because they are on unfamiliar scientific ground when it comes to some aspect of climate science: Call Dr. Happer for that information. Refer the reporters who are bedeviling you to Dr. Happer.

          Congressman Matt Gaetz and Senator Lyndsey Graham both need to have a long talk with Dr. Happer. Congressman Matt Gaetz seems to think there is a CO2 problem that needs fixing, and Senator Graham appears to be leaning that way. A good talk with Dr. Happer would be a real good idea. They need to get their head right and they can do that by having Dr. Happer give them the facts of the matter, of which they are apparently unaware.

          Republicans are going to have to take a pubic stand. Is CO2 a problem, or is it not? That is the question. (Hint: It’s not)

          • “Why do they do this? Because if they challenge the human-caused climate change orthodoxy the Leftwing Media will excoriate them and call them anti-science and deniers and all sorts of names, and demand that they defend their climate change denier position.”

            This is also why much of the MSM won’t give a platform to climate contrarians: They’ll be deluged with emails from warmists with all sorts of credible-at-first-glance talking points. And threatened by a loss of readers and/or donors. E.g., The U.S. public TV network (forget its acronym) was beset by warmist protests after a friendly interview of Watts a few years ago.

          • Tom Abbott makes a good point. Happer himself will tell you Trumps advisers tell Trump to avoid the science because you will be eviscerated as anti-science.

        • You should try BBC News or ITN for a couple of weeks. Their constant pushing of T Climate Emergency at every opportunity is beyond belief.

          Saw a good comment of St Greta’s latest stunt in Bristol. Could protestors name one sea that has risen 6ft in the last 30 years. Could they explain why The Maldives are still their with double the population after 30 years. With a couple more failed predictions.

        • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the media reported facts as opposed to false opinions by uninformed / uneducated political hacks who want to sensationalize everything just to justify there position.

    • Or in what regard is Dana Perino not informed? She was a close second, behind Tony Snow, for speaking to a hostile press.

      • The mediocrity is they acted like the media was working in good faith while they did everything they could to dismember that Presidency instead of treating the media like the opposition party that they were. How many members of that media went on to jobs in the next administration? I recall that Mark Levin read each and every name and it was a long list. What in the heck do you call that besides the opposition party?

    • Well they could start by finding some with more mellifluous voices; that one had a voice like a chainsaw.
      The German lass was a lot easier to listen to.

  3. Great!!!
    I was hoping she would get some MSM attention since her appearance at the Heartland Climate Conference in Madrid Spain…
    And after the Wall Street Journal attention and CPAC 2020 I hope she gets some other MSM attention.
    She is a clear thinker with common sense and intelligent answers. . .

    JPP

  4. Naomi compares very favorably in contrast to Greta. We need to be sure that we get her in front of as many younger people as possible.

    • We have to get the youth to see Naomi as admirable and not just one of the elites.

      As far as I can tell, society needs a good dose of Jordan Peterson. As a youth he worked for the NDP (socialist party). He came to dislike the run-of-the-mill party members.

      .. who were middle class and seemed to hate the successful, but also didn’t like the poor: “They seemed resentful and bitter and peevish.”

      In college he worked for the Board of Governors and came to know the members.

      The governors were local businesspeople and Progressive Conservative appointees. He came to admire these self-made men and women who were often new immigrants.

      “They built something out of nothing and they had something to show for themselves,” he said. link

      When I was a kid, people who had made something of themselves were held in high esteem. The idea was that, if you worked hard, you too could succeed.

      As far as I can tell, we have lost that ideal. I fear that people like Naomi will be alien to the entitled, out-of-touch, little shits who populate our educational institutions. link

  5. She is a wonderful young lady and a great response to the poison that is Greta.
    However we do need to keep the message going forward that it it is very clear to any thinking person that the entire climate fraud has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 – it is about socialism in it’s nastiest form and the ensuing unaccountable control of people in every aspect of their lives.

  6. I dunno. Very young people as spokespersons, no matter how intelligent and appealing, are like those singing children on America’s Got Talent. Too much of their appeal is bound up in their ages, and not enough in their ability to sing.

    Greta’s age is just a gimmick. She’s hasn’t said anything David Suzuki has already said, but some people feel that her youth and sincerity and passion give her some kind of special authority that Dr. Suzuki lacks. Which is absurd.

    Naomi Seibt seems as if she has been deliberately recruited as an ironic anti-Greta. You got a cute, articulate teenager? So do we. It rubs me wrong.

    • There is not an equivalency to Greta or a child singer in this case:

      “Naomi Seibt is an accelerated student and has a background in science and psychology. She received a degree in BA (Business Administration).

      She went to St. Mauritz School and won first place in the youth competition research in physics…”

      She said herself in the interview that she has sought education on the science rather just take peoples’ word for it.

    • Perhaps it rubs you wrong, but having spent 34 years teaching science to young people, I know well how difficult it is for an adult to teach rebellious youth and how quickly and easily they follow the teachings of their peers.

      • The problem of schools and prisons is that the inmates functionally run the places. That feature has leaked into the general population with the advent of Facebook and Twitter, especially among the gullible and youth. Celebrities of all types prove you don’t need knowledge (or even brains) to influence people on important issues.

    • It is called fighting fire with fire. The destructive being calmed by the constructive.
      I think it is necessary to turn the propagandists weapon of mass delusion back on them. This young person Naomi Seibt is not unique, she is closer to the normal youth than Greta can ever be. She is also far more realistic than the clockwork Greta will ever be.
      We need to applaud her normality, and champion her bravery. Too few of her generation are prepared to challenge the orthodoxy, which is probably the most bizarre thing ever said, about the next generation.
      Here is what happens when a generation challenges the establishment, we get real talent, real change and evolution.
      Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxOaDeJmXk

    • Suzuki is a Hippocratic and has very little Credibility!! Greta’s and her family are as well! She’s a school dropout and come from a long family of actors and she has an agenda, like her aunt is she is trying to win that noble peace prize. Naomi on the other hand is more of an self thinker who actually understands what she is reading and is trying to get others to THINK!!

  7. She went to St. Mauritz School and won first place in the youth competition research in physics. She graduated from high school at the age of 16 in 2017.

    Now there is one sharp cookie.

    I like the term, ‘Anti-Greta’. Greta is all emotion and no fact. Naomi Seibt is well educated, for her age, in facts and the great glimmer intelligence shows in her because she can reason further given the facts she has at hand. Better yet, it seems she has the sense to question the ‘facts’ of “Climate Science” that she was exposed to growing up.

    She seems to be gifted with an extremely sensitive BS-O-meter (calibrated to 0.01 ppm of BS, no doubt).

    I am encouraged that Naomi will learn more and more and perhaps be one of the contributors to learning about real Climate Change. She may discover the triggers that put us into and pull us out of glaciations. Heck! She might even answer Willis’ question*, “Why are global temperatures so stable, varying only by a few degrees over thousands of years?”

    Best yet! She doesn’t have Greta’s “stink eye.”** She has a much more pleasant look and smile.

    *One of my faves of his, aside from the “Spot The Volcano” game. I always get that one wrong.

    **My wife’s grandmother had the stink eye. She could drop a possum from a tree at 40 paces and make any Deputy Sheriff snooping around asking questions slink away with his tail between his legs. Greta’s stink eye is pretty good but needs work. Given as many years as “Gramma” had to practice, Greta might be able to stop a racoon or two in its tracks when she’s 30 or 40 years old..

    • I heard he comment – Naomi emphasized that the human contribution is minimal, AND she immediately pointed out that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and is essential to life as we know it. What’s not to like?

    • To try to explain, contributing slightly puts her on the right extreme. Have a solid position. Causing 1.0 C of warming is nothing. Claiming it is 0.1 C instead, sets one up to be labelled as extreme. An argument that it’s only 1.0 C is easier to win than it’s 0.1 C. To win, capture the middle. Win.

  8. At this very moment at more than a few so-called mainstream news organizations, a bunch of sleazy muckrakers are constructing a dossier on Naomi Seibt with enough manufactured dirt and photo shopped images to discredit anything she might ever have to say about nearly anything.

    • The WaPo article on her lends credibility to your comment. While they stated her position, they also stated that her position was not supported by the “science” as evidenced by the peer reviewed literature and the consensus. If she starts gaining any real traction, the MSM will try to destroy her.

      • “The WaPo article on her lends credibility to your comment. While they stated her position, they also stated that her position was not supported by the “science” as evidenced by the peer reviewed literature and the consensus. If she starts gaining any real traction, the MSM will try to destroy her.”

        Vs. the consensus, she should cite:

        The surveys ten years ago by George Mason U. and five (?) years ago by von Storch.

        Donna Laframboise’s books, The Delinquent Teenager … and Into the Dustbin, which demonstrate the built-in bias of the IPCC.

        The professional incentive of climatologists to be alarmists, given that 95% of their field only came into existence because of alarm and would contract by that amount if alarm faded.

        The warmist indoctrination in post-graduate climatology; few skeptics would be awarded a degree.

        The effect of noble cause corruption, which is responsible for much biased behavior and silence in the face of it. (This should be the counter to claims of being a conspiracist.)

        The effect on the alarmist stance of the world’s scientific institutions of their practice of staffing their ad hoc statement-writing committees with volunteers, who invariably are greenies. (The disgraceful cases of how this worked out with the AGU and the APS here in America should be cited as examples.)

      • Who’s made her out to be squeaky clean griff? She’s the first to announce she’s employed for her knowledge,

        I’m right wing griff along with millions of others, something wrong with that?

        Griff who sponcers and pays Greta? Would the left alternative energy lobby have a few quid invested ?

        You know that guardian piece you reproduce at best only shows she has a opinion right, theres nothing in there that ties her to any extreme organisation ,unlike Greta who was born into extremism.

  9. Such a smart, knowledgeable, well-informed, confident and articulate lady! The world needs you to fight against silly climate alarmism. More and more people need to follow her path to destroy the major scam of the world’s history.

  10. Naomi Seibtis an intellectual giant when placed beside Greta Thunderbird. Naomi leaves Greta in her slipstream. Naomi can reason with the facts at hand and not just spout propaganda.

  11. It is fair to allow another teenage girl to counter Greta rather than an experienced PhD. And the German girl presents herself very well.

    Influencing the next generation in a positive way is important to progress and living a good life.

  12. Progress (i.e. monotonic change)? I suppose, as different people qualify it.

    She’s connecting with people in her age group, her peers, because each group tends to form a consensus with others in proximity.

  13. It has yet to be shown that Greta Thunberg can answer hostile questions off the cuff, and in fact she is obviously being shielded from any possibility that she might have to argue with anyone face-to-face in real time. In a way she is the perfect symbol of the climate catastrophe movement, whose position is that to even ask questions about the climate change narrative is to betray perfidy and ignorance. And of course, if you want to ask Greta any questions, why are you picking on that little Asperger’s girl, you big bully?

    As for how the media will handle Naomi (other than ignoring her, which will be the most probable strategy), you just watch: They’ll want to know who’s paying her bills. A question that is never asked about Greta.

  14. I’m waiting to see some podium discussion with both Naomi and Greta.
    Greta is younger, but much more ‘experienced’. She also haven’t wasted much time for government schooling and had surely focused on hard science, so it would be fair fight.
    I would also accept to allow her to take this lovely 10. tsd € chair and wear Antifa T-Shirt, so she feels comfortable on stage.

  15. I’m a big advocate for climate change, but of course I call it climate diversity – I mean, that HAS to be good, doesn’t it?

  16. 2 x CO2 = ~ 1C. Half of that increase is overlapped by WV, so ~0.5 C.

    We added ~45% more CO2, therefore about 0.25 C of the last 100 years warming is due to man, ie 30%, with most of that since 1950 of course.

    It also produces a huge increase in plant growth and makes plants more drought resistant. It is a big benefit to the planet.

    • Wonderful, then she (St. GT) is not destroying our lives here in Sweden at the moment.

      Would appreciate if GB would entertain her there for a long, long period.

      • Not in my town! Just glad I’m not at home today. They’ll get a good wetting tho – they’ll claim it’s climate change of course, to which my answer would be ‘you haven’t been to Bristol before, have you? (biggest climate change in my lifetime was when I moved to Brizzle in 1980, when it suddenly got a lot rainier!) luv from Briz . . . C

      • I’m now 10 miles away from Bristol been traveling on the M4 ,the nearer I get the more cops are parked on top of motorway bridges, motorway signs advising “there could be congestion in Bristol centre ” it’s cold and relentless rain.

  17. Thanks to Fox and Naomi Seibt, and thanks to Anthony for bringing the interview forward.
    I hope to see a Fox interview with Naomi and Greta having a sweet, understanding and valuable discussion!?*%.
    Another thing I would like to see, would be Naomi appearing on Crosstalk on RT, even though RT has become a bit afraid of countering the Climate Alarmism.

    • In our current political climate and that is exactly what alarmism is, any counter to climate alarmism is DENIAL and an affront to human pseudo intelligence aka brainwashing. This is why it is verboten to allow crosswalk debate on the topic.

  18. Just one small criticism about the title of this piece.
    I am sure Naomi, is not anti Greta, that would be placing her into the same small minded camp that Greta occupies. I am sure Naomi is far too intelligent, to sully/belittle herself with such pigeonholing. She is clearly anti false science. She is a realist.
    Let us hope she gets the publicity she deserves.
    There is no need to be anti Greta. We simply need to continue to be anti false science. Greta’s obvious ignorance and narrow minded grasp of the world will ensure she disappears from the public stage, soon enough. We don’t need to focus on Greta, per se, we need to focus on facts, she will disappear soon enough because she is ignorant and charmless.

  19. Keep an eye on her. She’s got “crazy eyes”. Maybe just bad makeup, but I’ve gotten a weird feeling everytime I’ve seen her.

  20. Naomi and Greta are unlikely to ever engage in public debate, as Naomi is informed articulate and capable of debate without a script.

  21. ‘Reading’ between lines of the TV reports from Bristol, today’s Grumpy Greta’s school children strike was a bit of a damp squib, washout or a wet flop whichever you prefer.

    • Good points by RT notice Greta is using the same line again “the world is on fire” I find that insulting being in the UK we have had 2 months of relentless rain with deaths and properties and businesses flooded out.

      • Guardian the Grumpy Greta’s supporting paper quotes 15,000, the Russian TV might be doing their bit of a customary ‘agitprop’.

      • Bristol Live put it at 20,000.
        The Grauniad claimed 25,000.
        And the Daily Mail has it at 30,000 – maybe RT quotes them.
        Don’t let Russophobia get the better of you 😁

      • I heard Greta using her “the world is on fire” line, via BBC Radio 4 news, as she was addressing a cold, rain-soaked audience in Bristol (I saw them later on TV), and as I was driving home in heavy rain, with an indicated temperature of 4 degrees C. (She sounded, frankly, quite unpleasant).

        Of course the alarmists say that the Climate models predict warmer, wetter winters. OK, I’ll grant that this winter has been wet, but I won’t concede “warm”. Not particularly. Has often felt bloody cold to me.

        And when we have a dry winter, then the alarmists say that’s also due to Climate Change, or Global Warming, or whatever they are calling it this month.

        • In another place another time I predicted increased Percipitatation in the winter months due to GSM

          I was right

  22. Has anybody been looking at The Guardian?
    There is quite a smear campaign, trying to discredit Naomi Seibt.

  23. Naomi Seibt sounds like a very effective “anti-Greta Thunberg”. She is only a few years older than Greta, so she can relate to Greta’s generation, and she herself had been a “climate alarmist”, but changed her mind after doing more research, and seems genuinely interested in true science, and increasing her own knowledge of a subject before speaking out on it. She also noted that her views were not very popular with other young people in her home town, but if she enjoys public speaking, she could be effective at changing their minds.

    Although Naomi conceded that the climate is changing, she also noted that the climate has been changing for “millions of years” (implying that humans were not responsible before they appeared on earth), and that human influence on the climate was “very slight”.

    It was difficult for her to discuss the subject completely in a four-minute interview. I wouldn’t blame Dana Perino for much during this interview, since she was a Press Secretary for former President George W. Bush, and a welcome change to the incompetent Scott McClellan. During her time as Press Secretary, the Supreme Court expressed its opinion that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant (the 2007 “endangerment finding”), although the EPA chose not to regulate under Bush, and only started regulating it under Obama.

    If Naomi Seibt will be speaking at CPAC, she will probably be given more time than she had on Fox News, and be able to express her ideas more clearly. She may be able to give CPAC attendees (mostly Republicans) more ideas on how to reach the younger generation about the “climate change” issue, without being labeled as “science deniers”.

    No one really denies that the CO2 concentration in the air is rising, and that climate can change, including due to natural causes that mankind cannot control. The real question is whether future climate changes will be disastrous (as claimed by the alarmists), or benign or even beneficial (as claimed by realists) and whether the costs of limiting human CO2 emissions outweigh the foreseeable benefits.

  24. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
    January 2020, newly revised, Neils Bohr Library

    This comment is material for Naomi, a gifted speaker. Skiers, the powder snow is deep. The Leonardo DiCaprio’s Media Matters and Goldman energy partners are wedded to the stonewall Lobbying by Sen Timothy Wirth, CEO of Ted Turner’s $1B UN Foundation, message of Climate activists Jim Hansen, John P Holdren, Ann and Paul Ehrlich’s religious necessity we reduce world population to 1.5 Billion. Jim Hansen’s falsification of GISS data represented a triumph for Sen Wirth. Here’s an infamous revealing quote from a 1989 Discovery Magazine interview. The source is Steven Schneider, a population ecology climatologist at Stanford and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. Schineder told Discovery:

    “[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place?. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have?. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

  25. I don’t understand why the MSM insists on calling he “Anti-Greta” when she’s repeatedly stated that she does not want to be called that and she does not consider herself anti-Greta in the slightest.

    Lame discreditation attempt by MSM…

  26. Yikes that Perino woman.

    German girl rejects the idea that human CO2 emissions “are destroying the planet” or are bad for the planet.

    Perino: “Are you saying that CO2 emissions don’t have ANY effect on climate?”

    German girl, suddenly alarmed: No! No!

    Perino: Okay that’s all we have time for.

    Any effect on climate is bad in Perino’s mind. Does she know anything? Has she ever even thought about this subject?

    She may be skeptical of the consensus/leftist view but it is clear she has never listened to anything else.

  27. If Naomi Seibt will be speaking at CPAC, she will probably be given more time than she had on Fox News, and be able to express her ideas more clearly. She may be able to give CPAC attendees (mostly Republicans) more ideas on how to reach the younger generation about the “climate change” issue, without being labeled as “science deniers”.

  28. It’s a symmetric answer seriously addressing histrionic pretenses. Which isn’t going to change anything because no one else sees Emperor’s clothes either, and it was already pointed out.
    “I know, we need anti-Commissars who will lecture right back at them! This is going to work!”
    Looks like the American conservatives are still themselves, all right.

  29. Naomi was ambushed by Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain. He asked her if she believed that there has been dangerous warming, she responded no. Then he lit into her because she didn’t believe that there was any warming. She responded that he had asked about catastrophic warming he said that he only asked if she believed that the earth had warmed. Bait and switch slimeball journalism.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3BVN4XcVLk

Comments are closed.