Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In an interview with the Express, a popular UK newspaper, Naomi Seibt has questioned the misanthropic goals and motives of those who find glory in the clear waters of venice, or clean air of formerly polluted cities, but ignore the tragic human cost, the Covid-19 pain, death and lockdown misery which has made all this possible.
How dare you! Anti-Greta Thunberg makes bold statement against global warming doomsters
GRETA THUNBERG’s rival Naomi Seibt has launched a stunning attack on the climate change activists who have widely shared images of the world, where pollution levels have dramatically dropped.
By CLIVE HAMMOND PUBLISHED: 21:19, Sun, May 24, 2020 | UPDATED: 21:26, Sun, May 24, 2020
On social media, photographs of places such as Venice – where its canals were once doused in litter and other substances – looking clean and clear, after locals were ordered to stay indoors as part of the coronavirus lockdown. Other places, such as in Portsmouth, UK, were also snapped looking clean as pollution from motor vehicles has rapidly declined. Many who share these pictures claim it shows exactly how pollution has affected the world and that pollution must be cut now to protect the environment.
However, speaking to Express.co.uk, Ms Seibt argues that we must look at the bigger picture before accepting the new normal life.
She said: “Of course those pictures are beautiful, but the question we ought to ask ourselves is what is our end goal?
“Do we really want to stay inside forever and not live our normal daily lives? Not use cars, or technology or travel around the world?
“People in the world are depressed right now, people are not doing very well. And just because the sea looks nice and people can see and point to nature and say ‘look we were the parasite all along’.
…
Naomi is taking a significant personal risk by continuing to speaking out on climate issues.
In Germany Naomi Seibt has been fined, and faces the threat of further legal sanctions for the crime of talking to the Heartland Institute, and the crime of publicly disagreeing with the official position of Germany’s increasingly authoritarian bureaucracy.
In a sick twist, the official motto of the German government agency which fined Naomi for wrongspeak is “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet”, which means “Committed to Freedom of Expression”.
If you want to help Naomi, go directly to her Youtube page for donation information
Update (EW): kribaez suggests a better translation of “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet” is “With freedom of expression comes responsibility”.
My family has a spare bedroom…She can seek refuge in the Free State of Texas if she needs to.
What a shame – Germany is once again falling into a type of Neo-fascism, this time based on liberalism and its desire to bend people to its will. Germany should be embarrassed by attacking her. She has every right to communicate her ideas and beliefs.
Robert,
This is not neo-fascism, this is “progressive liberalism” (aka liberonazism)
“Progressive liberalism”(aka liberonazism) originates definitive NOT FROM GERMANY.
[snip -do better, mod]
It doesn’t take the anti-semites long to crawl out from their rocks.
Although the ideas came from earlier proponents, many aspects of it did come from Germany:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
The original fascism was based on liberalism as well.
One of the greatest lies that liberals have succeeded with is to claim that Nazi’s were somehow right wing.
Liberalism is the precursor for socialism which was the precursor for the national socialists (NAZI’s).
Remember that die Angela was raised under the fanaticism of East Germany. Watch them closely.
Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet, außer wenn wir mit diesem Ausdruck nicht einverstanden sind
Committed to Freedom of Expression except when we disagree with that expression
Ausgezeichnet! Sag es auch Merkel!
Eric Worrall should read the comments on the WUWT article he cites. Despite Monckton’s bluster there is no evidence of ‘fines or legal sanctions’ against Naomi.
Some of us here have tried to find our what is going on with this legal process but Monckton just refuses to cooperate.
Don’t spread his humbug.
FoS,
The fine would be 2*1200 €, and Naomi has also been threatened to be imprisoned:
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2020/05/24/deutsche-behoerden-drohen-naomi-seibt-mit-gefaengnisstrafe-wegen-verweigerung/
Thanks for the link. A bit is now clearer – but not much.
The authorities in NRW are complaining about _hidden_ advertising in the videos. I think we can all agree that videos should not contain such promotion.
The Medienanstalt is doing what all plaintiffs do, they are firing a legal shotgun at Naomi and hoping that at least some of the pellets get her.
It seems from the article at the link that her lawyer was able to get her off for the first video, in which she explicitly mentions that she is a member of the Heartland Institute, but the authorities seem to be maintaining that because she does not explicitly mention the Heartland Institute in the second two videos she is guilty of hidden product placing. If the chronology is right then her lawyer should be able to get her off the second two.
What we are not being told is that the first sanction was almost certainly to take the videos down. Since she hasn’t done this, apparently, they are coming after her with harder methods. Every fine comes with a threat for non-compliance – that’s normal.
It is interesting to note that Seibt’s new Monckton video has a big Heartland logo in the background – a case of late learning.
This is not a free speech issue. Since Greta Thunberg is not a resident of NRW no one forces her to reveal her sponsors on her videos.
FoS,
90+% of the videos on YouTube are EXPLICIT advertising…. It would be interesting to hear from the NRW authorities: What kind of product(s) has (have) been placed in Naomi’s videos? Sorry, but I could not identify any placed “product”. You could be sure, that Naomi’s case would be also raised in Bundestag. This is clearly a free speech case. NRW authorities argument that Naomi would “agitate” against the official climate position in the official media. What would be a “free speech” issue if this case is not a free speech issue? First sanctions: Naomi was seriously ill (COVID-19), so she applied to get some more time to be compliant. You know, even tax payment could be now legally 3-6 months long delayed (shifted) in Germany due to COVID-19, so not to tolerate 1-2 weeks delay in such a petty case is very questionable. The amount of the fine is also extreme. In Germany even in case of a small traffic violation (15 € or so) the delinquent person will be notified second and third times before other legal steps.
Heartland.org is not a commercial institution, therefore I cannot see how the NRW laws about advertising can apply in this case.
I had a look at the Heartland Institute website just before reading your comment to see exactly what it is that they are selling. Admittedly I did not explore every nook and cranny of the website but I did not see anything for sale. I thought that perhaps there would be charges for some of their publications but the ones I tried to access were all available as free PDF files.
Therefore if the Heartland Institute itself is not selling anything it is obvious that the accusations of “product placement” made against Naomi Seibt are utterly bogus and the authorities are trying to silence her. If I were an academic living in Germany and I produced a Youtube video on the dangers of climate change in which I quoted authorities such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth does anyone believe Die Landesanstalt für Medien NRW would dream of prosecuting me “hidden advertising”?
Roy,
They are selling the most dangerous product in the world for fascist bureaucrats: ideas which disagree with collectivism.
Great to see you think Greenpeace, WWF. IPCC and any other climate farce drivers should not be mentioned in climate videos 🙂
Mentioning that you are member of an organization qualifies as advertising for that organization?
If that were actually the standard, every politician in Germany would be in jail.
As usual, the goal is to silence anyone you disagree with, using whatever club you can find.
Well, by your own admission what IS clearer is that Monckton’s “humbug” as you called it ISN’T. Nevertheless, rather than apologize for making assumptions you instead begin another round of whining about that which the NRW whines and further proclaim that we all should become whiners with the both of you.
I for one, could care less about advertising, hidden or not, and I suspect you’re mewling now is only in order to make some feeble attempt to justify your original pule about that which you’ve certainly been schooled, i.e., making foolish, addlepate assumptions public.
Why you didn’t learn when John Tillman first instructed you here is both revealing and wonderful comedy: https://tinyurl.com/ydf8ezp3
Easy to be a bumptious cocksure when you don’t have a name, isn’t it?
I was grateful to Hari Seldon (May 24, 2020 at 11:23 pm) for posting a link to an article that at least had some sort of facts in it.
Those facts make Monckton’s obscurantism even worse. When asked for details – by several people, not just me – he did what he always does: blustered and called us all trolls.
‘Easy to be a bumptious cocksure when you don’t have a name, isn’t it?’
Indeed it is, sycomputing.
But still unashamedly unapologetic to Monckton:
And he explained why, also that more details would be made available later – so they are. Thus, why not call you for you what you are? Especially since you haven’t made a public apology to either Monckton or those kind folks here who’ve donated to the woman’s cause? You disparaged both in your comments.
You were just an anonymous troll making trouble then, and you remain an anonymous troll now trying to justify its faceless pout against the ridicule it deserves.
I’m going to argue your name is an indication that you’re, “Full of Sch**sse,” what say you?
No name? Isn’t it Full O. Schist?
fos, are you David Appell (a paid obstructionist)?
As with all such enviro stasi bullying, the process is meant to be the punishment.
The wrst polluters blaming the people that fund their BS.
One of the comnents to the last video with LMoB mention the fact, that there is s.t. going on.
It never takes the paid troll long to show up.
I’m okay with the interview with the Express, or at least what is presented here.
Until the rest of the story is clear, waiting seems to be the best stance.
Eric,
The motto “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet” does not mean what you think it means. It means almost the opposite. Put not your faith in Google Translate.
The term “noblesse oblige” is frequently used directly in German. However, you can translate it into German as “adel verplichtet”. This does not mean “committed to nobility”; it means “nobility carries (some) obligation”.
The most appropriate translation of “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet” is something like “With freedom of expression comes responsibility”.
The government agency of which you speak is not committed to freedom of expression as you are suggesting. Instead, it is a regulator with the role of ensuring that people and organisations do not abuse freedom of expression.
Thanks kribaez, I’ve added a note to the story.
I’m afraid this is wrong. See my note further down. On this thread Krishna Ganz got it right. The ‘Der’ in the motto is all important.
Eric, I’m afraid this is wrong. See my note further down. On this thread Krishna Ganz got it right. The ‘Der’ in the motto is all important.
Thanks @erik.
I tried to explain this some days ago, but hit a brig wall.
Your proposed translation is off beam, but this is not really a criticism. Such mission statements are not really designed to ‘mean’ anything. They are just a sequence of nice words, here ‘Meinungsfreiheit’ and ‘verpflichtet’.
Literally translated the phrase means ‘to freedom of expression obliged’, i.e. ‘[We (Medienanstalt) have] a duty to [ensure] freedom of expression’.
@fos
Can’t you leave this to us who have been taught this phrase and it’s meaning in school and by our parents. 🙁
The phrase is well known, at least by the older generation, all over Germany and Scandinavia.
You clearly weren’t taught well enough.
Just to be clear: the nominative ‘die Meinungsfreiheit’ is in the dative ‘der Meinungsfreiheit’ because the verb ‘verpflichtet’ (obliged or duty-bound) requires the dative.
It is true that there is a formula in German ‘zum etwas [dative] verplichtet’ (e.g. ‘zum Gehorsam verpflichtet’). But the Medienanstalt has bent it to its own purposes and produced nonsense.
As is usual with such mission statements, they have left out all linguistic context. As far as it means anything, as Krishna has also pointed out, that would be something like ‘[We are] obliged/duty bound [to the maintenance of] freedom of expression’. Without all the phantom context the expression falls apart. Quite how, grammatically, someone can be obliged to an abstract noun such as ‘Meinungsfreiheit’ is beyond me. Perhaps you can come up with a few examples from your schools and your parents.
@fos, I will stay with the very good explanation from @kribaez, who explained it much better than I did a few days ago.
Thank you, FoS. I can’t fault your grammar.
“As is usual with such mission statements, they have left out all linguistic context. ”
This is the main problem.
The noun could be in dative case, as you suggest. But this leaves an Orwellian interpretation of the motto – an organisation dedicated to censorship describes itself as committed to freedom of expression.
The alternative explanation is that the motto is a clip from the original saying:-
“[Das Grundrecht] der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet.” The absolute right of free speech carries responsibility.
This puts the noun in dative or genitive form and the verb is intransitive as in the case of “Er verpflichtet.”
Whoever coined the motto evidently has a sense of humour, since your interpretation is perfectly valid.
Ther German grammar may be all, but without logical sense 😀
If in English I say:
I make it with you (cinema, swimming, what ever)
it’s in German “mit dir”. dat.
I make it without you (cinema, swimming, what ever)
it’s in German “ohne dich”. acc.
😀
Amazing, I know 😀
But this leaves an Orwellian interpretation of the motto – an organisation dedicated to censorship describes itself as committed to freedom of expression.
That’s know as “par for the course”.
@kribaez
Sorry, you are not right.
“Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet”- “With freedom of expression comes responsibility”
“(Wir sind..).“der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet” – “(we are) obliged to freedom of expression”
The difference is “der” or at least the complete context.
We should have insisted on English being the universal language of the EU before we left (if we have left).
@mikewaite
We didn’t need to. I read a piece in ‘Die Zeit’ in the 80s (when it was still a reputable newspaper) which told how the German government of the time was shocked to find that their own eurocrats in Brussels spoke English even amongst themselves.
” people and organisations do not abuse freedom of expression.”
ie, don’t say things that the powers-that-be don’t want to be said.
Perhaps you’re thinking “*Die* Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet”?
Hi Joe,
That would settle the matter, but the issue is a little more subtle than just the grammatical case of the definite article.
The verb verpflichten is always used in the sense of “to place an obligation [on someone] [to do something]”. For this reason, the past participle “verpflichtet” frequently appears in German legal documents and can be readily translated into “required”, “obliged” or “bound”.
The word “commit” in English, in the sense of subscribing to an idea, translates into many different forms in German. It is possible to use “verpflichten” for this purpose, but this then takes a reflexive form such as “sich zu etwas verpflichten” i.e. “to place an obligation on oneself to something “.
After the initial exchanges above, I tested some of this with my native German friends, who confirm that the primary nuance is obligation rather than subscription to a cause. However, when I pushed for surgical precision, their views diverge. It became clear that the motto is not intended to have a precise meaning. The best translation is perhaps “bound to freedom of speech”, which can mean anything you want it to mean if you think about it.
“With freedom of expression comes responsibility”
And the German bureaucrats will be the ones to decide what is responsible and what is not responsible. So Germany does not have freedom of expression. Your expression has to be approved.
Naomi should move to the U.S. She can say anything she wants here and the government can’t penalize her for it.
If you don’t have free speech, you have lost most of your freedoms already. All authoritarian/totalitarian governments go after free speech first. Free speech is poison to them and their ability to rule and control.
Let her first complete her free college education so a job in the US would be easier to find.
I think the obvious response is that it is not an “all or nothing situation” In the UK
for example over 50% of car trips are less than 2 miles in length. If people stopped driving
short distances and started walking or cycling then there would be significantly less
traffic, less pollution plus people would be a lot healthier.
For the record I am not suggesting getting rid of cars and own two myself. But reducing the
number of miles driven and increasing the use of alternative forms of transport like cycling or walking has numerous benefits and very few disadvantages.
Reminds me that the general, who stood for the building of Pentagon, insisted that there should be no lifts. He did not like fat soldiers.
Yes, this a point that is too frequently lost in this discussion. The point is that how we should manage transport in cities has nothing to do with what if anything we should do about CO2 emissions, either way.
The reason for limiting or eliminating car use in urban areas in which people are working, living, playing is how bad it is for quality of life and health. It has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. You can reject totally the AGW hysteria, but still think, on these grounds, that we should lower or eliminate car traffic in cities and make space for cycling and walking.
If someone had proposed in 1900 that we should do to our cities what we saw just before the pandemic, the fumes, the noise, the traffic deaths, they would have rejected it as a completely mad proposal. Why would anyone do that?
We need to take back the streets from cars, who are mostly driving through them to get somewhere else, and give planned space for walking, cycling, even kids playing in them.
This is not a case of, either you accept the AGW madness and ban cars, or you don’t accept it and go for unlimited car use everywhere.
The necessity is to give back the streets to those who live work and play there, and all of us stop driving through them causing noise and pollution on the way to someplace else.
The greatest single improvement we could make to our cities would be to eliminate cars from most streets. Don’t accept the AGW hysteria, and also don’t defend the indefensible. The car is not an acceptable solution to the urban mass transport problem.
Traffic in large cities is complicated and I don’t think you need to be radical about.
One of the issues I see, is that shopping for grocery is more and more directed to satellite shopping centers.
In the “good old days” there were shops in the same or a nearby apartment block, no travel needed.
Yes that’s a fact in some cities, but especially bad in the satellite housing projects. We can blame the avaricious city councils putting the local taxes on city centre shopkeepers ever higher, and putting the traffic restrictions on the delivery men and parking / congestion charges, and any excuse to milk the public of money. The city Burgomeister has his grand schemes to fund after all, and legacy named projects to protect. Of course the public householder and local resident moves away, and so also local shopkeeper, and offices and hotels etc. they arise in the place. City becomes a dead zone in the centre for peoples, and council become the silly laughing stock, and this happening all over Europe and The Western World. What use the city centre office, hotel, theatre, restaurant and supermarket when the most residents living in the satellite suburbia?
Pardon the intrusion.
What you are saying, resonates with me.
Of those that conflate congestion, pollution and climate, few understand the role played by monetary policy hence fiscal policy.
Debt based monetary systems can only be maintained by the perpetual expansion of credit markets. Hence over-production, over-consumption and the eventual depletion of savings.
Though we will never know (the road not taken), a monetary policy aimed at distribution of profit may induce a build up of savings which could translate in less waste thus less congestion.
But it’s never been tried…. so…
Every time I see someone whining about over consumption, it’s always someone PO’d that there are people out there who are permitted to have more than he has, and he wants government to do something about it.
Distribution of profits: In other words have government take money from those who have earned it, and give it to someone the speaker deems more worthy. Usually himself.
Ha!
Au contraire dear Sir.
I am for the ability of the individual to retain profit free from the depredation of a fiscal policy. Fiscal policy that falls outside the realm of the democratic process.
In our ostensible open societies, the monetary system is imposed unilaterally and arbitrarily and is managed behind closed doors by unelected individuals. It is enforced under penalty of law.
Money and credit originate from a point zero and radiate out.
Interest, on the other hand, migrates from the periphery towards the center.
Hence the asymmetry that, in time, will depredate the majority to the benefit of a minority along with the legislative and penal ramifications that entails.
One of the corollaries of this dynamic is that, eventually, “government” becomes too expensive for the underlying economy to sustain thus political power grab, societal break down, revolution and, eventually, war.
You make a couple of very good points. A friend of mine make this little documentary you may like. It also points out some legal usage of wording.
All The Plenary’s Men
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA
Thank you for that John.
What massive work of cross reference. Just brilliant.
It is difficult to explain to people the link between, on one hand, monetary, fiscal and legislative policy and, on the other hand, the real life manifestation of a monetary system that is imposed by force.
For example:
Why mandate lower interest rates in order to spur economic growth if, simultaneously, we legislate new carbon taxes because economic activity is presumably deleterious to climate?
It really amazes me how some people cite history, but not actual history.
In the early 1900’s people were worried about what they were going to do with the growing problem of horse shit all over the streets. At the time they viewed cars as saving them from a grave health problem.
The urge to control others, for their own benefit of course, is rampant in today’s society.
Izaak and Michel
Thanks for starting an excellent conversation on alternative transport in cities.
1. I agree is totally independent of co2.
2. Is worth striving for.
3. But is totally different for each city.
FYI – transport engineering factoid.
A STREET is a place you visit
A ROAD is something your travel on
‘cycling or walking has numerous benefits and very few disadvantages’
Is that why people don’t already walk or cycle? How beneficial it would be to have to take the kids shopping by walking two miles in rain, ice or snow and then walk back with bags of groceries. Or by everyone in the family being provided with bicycles for the purpose. How nice to arrive at the shops soaked through or freezing cold with the children crying to go home. How nice to have to change from your soaking wet clothes each time you return in the rain. And how beneficial would it be to walk two miles on a scorching hot day to arrive at your destination stinking in perspiration. No, the car has made a massive contribution to the World’s economic development. Without it we would all still be taking jobs within walking distance from our homes, rather than opening up opportunities for the population to work in a much greater distance from our homes. Creating cycle lanes in cities is not an answer to congestion or beneficial to the environment. They are a huge waste of money and will merely lead to increased congestion. One only has to see how relatively few cyclists use the special cycle tracks created in cities like London to appreciate what an utter waste of money their construction has been. The car should be celebrated as being the means of bettering the daily lives of everyone, whilst cycling in this day and age cannot possibly replace the car, and is considered to be very dangerous by sensible travellers on todays busy roads..
Not just that, but those kids will have to go back to the store at least once a day since the amount that they can carry that two miles is quite limited.
Can’t let people have any spare time, they might get the idea that they are in control of their lives.
‘cycling or walking has numerous benefits and very few disadvantages’
Is that why people don’t already walk or cycle?
No, the reason they don’t in most Western cities is that its too dangerous and disagreeable. You cannot safely combine trucks, cars and cycles on the same roadway. People know this, and they consequently, with the exception of young fit and reckless men in lycra, refuse to use the roads to cycle on, and will not let their kids use them either.
And they very reasonably don’t care to walk far on sidewalks which run along roads filled with cars. its noisy and fume filled, its as disagreeable as it is unhealthy.
There is no reason why the roads, which everyone pays for out of general taxation, should be exclusively reserved for those who want to drive cars on them. You would not have to close many roads to cars to have excellent cycle transport networks in almost any European city, and many US ones too.
And given the propensity of traffic to rise and fall to fit available capacity, it would not even create any more congestion.
All we have to do to perfect society is get rid of all the dirty, smelly cars that I can’t afford.
Why not leave it up to others to decide how to live their own lives?
Except it doesn’t. I am not sure what you mean by pollution but I am guessing exhaustgases. The difference between BAU and your suggestion cannot be measured because it is too small.
In fact almost everything any individual does in there own daily lives, and yes this also goes for the whole world population doesn’t really amount to anything.
See the work of Bjorn Lomborg on this theme.
Here’s the link:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-activists-empty-gestures-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-12
So Isaak, you have the extra 30 to 60 minutes for your round trip? You like carrying groceries or take-out for 2 miles? Somehow picking up ingredients for dinner from the local TESCO would take up all the time for preparing it. Not to worry, their microwavable curry kits are pretty tasty, just hope they haven’t spoiled on the walk home.
“In an interview with the Express, a popular UK newspaper, Noami Seibt”
Naomi
Thanks niceguy, fixed.
“…CLIMATE CHANGE activists who have widely shared images of the world, where POLLUTION levels have dramatically dropped.”
Two different things. Poluttion is one thing and Climate is something else. Science?
No, Stephen. Politics!
Climate Change has nothing to do with science; it’s politics all the way down.
That is exactly what it is.
Beneath a couple of articles highlighting beautiful pictures of the now-clean environment, I posted an alternative view. Since nature went back to normal in only a few weeks, it shows that mankind’s impact is practically trivial. When the lockdown is lifted and everything is back to normal, we can all worry much less about our impact on the natural world.
It is a a nice gesture by Robert of Texas to give Naomi Seibt political asylum, but I still believe there is more strength in Naomi fighting together with Christoper Monckton from within the major source of suppression. I would not like to see Naomi as a refuge in the same way as so many contemporaries now sitting in isolation in various countries.
The “small people” can generally say whatever they want, but as your popularity brings you in the limelight, you better have the correct opinions and the correct twisted facts.
The more publicity Naomi can get, the better, even if some of the publicity happens to be bad.
So speaking to Express.co.uk is surely a win.
The people who did this to Naomi probably believe they are doing good. If someone truly believes the world is about to end, trying to frighten someone, to stop them from interfering with efforts to save the world must seem entirely justifiable.
Yes, Eric, you are sadly spot on.
We need to praise all the good things that have happened in modern times, lift peoples’ spirit to enjoy all the good things and help solving genuine problems.
Well if she’d move to Texas, I guess she could be considered as a climate refugee aka climate migrant aka environmental migrant and what not.
Actually Hitler wasn’t a hypocrite, unlike the present incumbent who was a member of the East German Communist Party.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-course-widely-miss-eu-emission-targets-think-tank?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fccae62373-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_20_10_49&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-fccae62373-20167209&mc_cid=fccae62373&mc_eid=66058b016b
Small correction: The presen incumbent was an OFFICER of the East German Communist Party (SED).
More precisely: The present incumbent hold a position in the youth organisation of the East German Communist Party (SED). However, such positions in the communist youth organisations were coupled with a memberhip in the local communist party in East-Europe.
“Express, a popular UK newspaper”
I’m trying to find a link to the actual newspaper article.
Why isn’t there a link to the actual newspaper Naomi Seibt article ?
– JPP
I was totally confused when I saw (“Naomi Seibt Strikes Back at Climate Activist Misanthropy”) the title of this article and the accompanying Picture. I thought it was going to be part 2 of the Naomi Seibt videos after part one a few days ago.
But then I couldn’t find the video, so I tried to find the newspaper article… I think I did but it doesn’t read like a question and answer, but a highly edited (disjointed) version of the so called interview with Naomi…
Just sayin.
– JPP
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1286643/Greta-thunberg-latest-climate-change-news-naomi-seibt-activist-global-warming-EU-news-spt
Wasn’t complicated to find 😀
Yes I found that right away, but it wasn’t a newspaper article.
I’ll repeat what I said above:
” ….it doesn’t read like a question and answer, but a highly edited (disjointed) version of the so called interview with Naomi.…”
– JPP
“By CLIVE HAMMOND PUBLISHED: 21:19, Sun, May 24, 2020 | UPDATED: 21:26, Sun, May 24, 2020
On social media, photographs of places such as Venice – where its canals were once doused in litter and other substances – looking clean and clear, after locals were ordered to stay indoors as part of the coronavirus lockdown. Other places, such as in Portsmouth, UK, were also snapped looking clean as pollution from motor vehicles has rapidly declined.”
Portsmouth? I used to live and work there. Good heavens air pollution from vehicles isn’t too much of a problem there usually, but with the lockdown orders you are bound to see an improvement in air quality.
We should clean up the litter, the air, the Venice canals, the rivers, regardless of the effects on CO2 emissions. The sad part is it took something like the lockdowns to make people see how pleasant cities without many cars are, and how bad their effects actually are.
People need to see things. You can say all you like how much better it would be if… But in the present case we have all seen it for ourselves. Like the idiot Greens but for quite different reasons I do hope we learn the lesson and get some, preferably a lot, of streets free of cars and handed over to walking and cycling.
The harm cars do to urban environments has nothing to do with the CO2 they emit. The same volume of cars at the same speeds with CO2 collectors to eliminate their CO2 emissions would be just as bad.
Less CO2 means less litter, therefore CO2 causes more litter. It is worse than we thought.
“michel May 25, 2020 at 1:42 am”
Sounds like you never lived in a city/town that didn’t have high vehicular flows but had high air pollution. I can name towns in New Zealand that had high air pollution in winter (And take this from someone from the UK living in NZ) where my eyes would sting! Diesels are a problem, petrol/gas cars not so much.
Yes, London used to have appalling pollution from coal fires. Many UK northern towns likewise from industrial emissions – the Black Country was so called for a reason.
Agreed about diesels. One of the worst idiocies of the Green movement was to inflict diesels and particulate emissions on us in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions. Which, of course, it failed to do. Diesels get better mileage, so the result was that people just drove more for the same expense.
I stayed in Lima, Peru for 2 months 10 years ago. There were virtually no diesel vehicles. Even the buses were gasoline. But the pollution was terrible and by the end I felt a bit ill.
And there were the great traffic smogs of LA several decades ago. Again, virtually no diesel cars in those days.
Please be more cautious about attacking diesel engines.
I bet those petrol vehicles weren’t in top condition.
So now we have our own little greta?
If you have looked at Naomi Seibt’s videos of the past year, you wouldn’t have said that !
– JPP
With all due respect to Erik Worrall for past work, this isn’t however much of an “essay”, merely pointing out some story in a UK newspaper, just the latest in a series of similar coverage by that same reporter. It can’t be compared with the Monckton approach of analysis with arguments and illustrations etc., whether you agree with Monckton or not there’s at least a detailed analysis.
Clive Hammond of Britisch Express has been reporting about Fraulein Seibt for the past several months with the similar basic story, and the links to many Fraulein Thunberg articles in Express too. As usual the Great Britain’s public are leaving their remarks below these narratives, and so it goes much like in here.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1258069/eu-latest-news-coronavirus-naomi-seibt-greta-thunberg-update-brussels-spt
No. That second translation is wrong. ‘Der meinungsfreiheit verplichtet’ is shorthand for ‘An der meinungsfreiheit verplichtet’. It’s the 3rd beugung, the dativ, the indirect object. It means ‘(we are) committed to freedom of expression’.
The phrase ‘freedom of expression comes with responsibility’ translates as ‘meinungsfreiheit verplichtet’. Without the ‘der’.
German is a subtle language. There is a famous case in history of the wrong use of ‘der’ in a translation. When Kennedy gave his famous address at the Berlin wall he proclamed ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’. What he said was: ‘I am a doughnut’, locally known as a ‘Berliner’. What he should have said was ‘Ich bin Berliner’. It’s the same with Hamburger. If someone tells you ‘Ich bin Hamburger’ he or she is from Hamburg. If you are told ‘Ich bin ein Hamburger’ that person is not even German and you reach for the ketchup.
Sorry, the spell checker appears to have had the f disappear between the p and the l.
Actually makes more sense like that – source of our word “pledged’.
Thanks for this, Ed.
Consider the following.
The etymology of verpflichten translates into “for duty”, and indeed the primary nuance is about obligation rather than choice. In most circumstances, it is correctly translated into English as “to place an obligation on”. It only ever translates into “commit”, which entails an active choice, when it is used in its reflexive form:- sich verpflichten.
“Die Regierung hat sich zur Transparenz verpflichtet.” Literal translation: – The government has placed an obligation ON ITSELF to transparency. Alternative translation:- The government has COMMITTED to transparency.
“Mein Ziel ist es, mich dem Gemeinwohl zu verpflichten.” Literal translation:- My goal is to place an obligation ON MYSELF to the common good. Alternative translation:- My goal is to COMMIT to the common good.
“Der Spieler hat sich für zwei Jahre verpflichtet.” Literal translation:- The player placed on obligation on HIMSELF for two years. Alternative translation:- The player COMMITTED for two years.
Now consider these two sentences which have radically different meanings in English.
The organisation commits itself to freedom of expression.
The organisation is bound by duty to freedom of expression.
The first may be translated as:- Die Organisation sich zur [zu der] Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet.
The second is translated as:- Die Organisation ist zur [zu der] Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet.
Both require the dative case for the noun, but the first can be related to the motto “committed to freedom of expression” , while the second is related to “freedom of expression comes with obligations”.
The German version of the story has been updated. The additional text:
“Der Sachstand
Update vom 25.5.20
Naomi Seibt erhielt kürzlich einen Brief von einer Funktionärin der staatlichen Medienbehörde für Nordrhein-Westfalen, der Region, in der sie lebt. In dem Brief wurde sie darüber informiert, dass sie ohne Anhörung des mutmaßlichen Vergehens für schuldig befunden wurde, ihr Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung über das Klima auf YouTube in einer Weise auszuüben, die in dem Brief als nicht „klimafreundlich“ beschrieben wurde. Sie wurde darin aufgefordert 3 ihrer Videos zu löschen. Als zusätzliche Begründung wurde angegeben, dass sie Geld von Heartland für Ihre Meinungsverbreitung erhalten hätte, und das sei verboten.
In einem nachfolgenden Brief forderte die Behörde eine Geldstrafe von etwa 400 US-Dollar und zusätzlich Kosten und wies Naomi an, das Heartland Institute in ihren Videos nicht zu erwähnen. Der wesentliche Grund für diesen Versuch, Naomi zum Schweigen zu bringen, war, dass solche Erwähnungen eine rechtswidrige Produktplatzierung nach einem kürzlich erlassenen Gesetz der Region Nordrhein-Westfalen darstellten.
In dem Schreiben wird auch klargestellt, dass ein Video gegen das neue Gesetz verstößt, wenn es zwei Dinge gleichzeitig tut: Es befürwortet eine für die „Gau“* inakzeptable politische Position (z. B. die Opposition gegen die lähmende Energiewende in Deutschland) und im selben Video , um ein benanntes Produkt oder Unternehmen zu erwähnen, das mit dieser Position verbunden ist (wie das Heartland Institute).
Die Behörde listete dazu drei Videos von Naomi auf, die sie im obigen Sinne für rechtswidrig hielt. Tatsächlich zeigt die Liste, dass die gegen sie erhobenen Anklagen falsch sind. Die Behörde hat sie nur auf Geheiß „klimafreundlicher“ Aktivisten geschlussfolgert.”
Here are the full text including the extension:
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2020/05/24/deutsche-behoerden-drohen-naomi-seibt-mit-gefaengnisstrafe-wegen-verweigerung/
The extension shows very clearly, that Naomi’s case is a typical free speech case is. Please, don’t generalize this case. In NRW there was a socialist-green government between 2010-2017. Maybe the officer of the NRW authority responsible for Naomi’s case is a Greenie zealot from this era. Think only of the Obama moles in the Trump administration (for example the Vindman brothers).
The “officer of NRW authority” may well be a “greenie puppet”, but this case is undoubtedly brought as result of the underhanded spying operation carried out by the “Corrective” media investigators funded by The Brost Foundation and the WAZ group publications. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were revealed that these cases and officials directly took some instruction from WAZ people and “on the payroll” of Brost.
These are very powerful multi billion Euro entities, and they can’t be fought with a few thousand Patrion points from the well meaning volunteers. Someone like the Brost and its WAZ and Correctiv, can only really be challenged by some other feared rival in the NRW, such as the Great Queen Bertelsmann. Otherwise the Federal Republic itself, and indeed the whole World is endangered by these power crazed lunes of the insignificant Ruhr region.
Mr. Black,
I don’t want to destroy your illusions, but also Bertelsmann belongs to globalist team. For example, Mr. Soros (and his Open Society Foundation) is also a co-financier of the Bertelsmann Think Thank (Bertelsmann Foundation). The Bertelsmann Foundation supports very open uncontrolled mass migration, Green New Deal in Germany, etc. I have the strong feeling that Bertelsman would NOT be very keen to support Naomi.
[Sigh], you may be right about that, and the bête noir Soros when he is involved yet it’s the bad news! But still if we can encourage these two great beasts of the NRW to battle for supremacy, don’t forget ultimately they do what they do for the money principally. They can’t both win and become supreme rulers of the NRW economy, and yet I think maybe that Bertelsmann may be rather more concerned about the unity of the Federal Republic, than the WAZ of the Brost.
Still it is up to us to persuade if we can that Bertelsmann should instead join the army oif Truth and Light, and there is some prospect of a financial advantage in doing so. If not Bertelsmann then who? Should we pit State against State, and suck the whole NRW dry, and pit them against Bavaria, Thuringia, and the Saxony’s? Who is there that will challenge the awful Brost?
“…mention a product or company…”
Heartland.org is more like an institution like Schiller Institute. They are not there to sell hardware to the public.
Naomi´s own words “Und deshalb möchte ich das sehr deutlich machen: Ich bin nicht die Anti-Greta.
Denn genau das ist das Etikett, das diese Demonstranten draußen von mir erwarten, damit sie einen weiteren Sündenbock haben, den sie mit dem Rest ihrer Gegner in eine einfache Schachtel legen können.”
So, if you are pro Naomi, do not use “Anti-Greta” to describe her. It will only support those who hate her.
Probably a picky point on my part, but I think Ms. Seibt can stand on her own without being constantly compared to Greta Inc.
Greta lives in a false reality. Naomi does not. I don’t think there can be any comparison between the two other than that they are both female.
Greta doesn’t know what she is talking about. Naomi does. There is no comparison. They are polar opposites.
Being polar opposites *is* a comparison. Comparisons aren’t all about what two objects have in common, they’re also about where two objects differ. And “polar opposite” and “anti-” are pretty much saying the same thing – that one is the antithesis of the other.
Who are these people who would toss litter into the canals of Venice?
Within the human community there are a certain number of fools. Not sure how many there are at this time. It is the fools who trash the Canals of Vence.
As someone who failed German in college I truly appreciate the education of the subtlety of the language provided by its native speakers. As regards urban pollution, as one who recalls the air quality in London in the early 70’s and the stateside conditions in my hometown at that time, we have had a dramatic improvement over the course of the subsequent decades, which obviously had nothing to do with CO2.
Thanks to Ms Seibt and Lord Monckton for this video series.
What kink of people are they who would silence this girl; the same as we have here, progressive democrats. Maybe there is a different name for them in Germany but they are the same authoritarian self-centered power hungry greedy intolerant government officials leave disaster in their wake.
Olen,
In Germany the Greenies are this kind of people. Their predecessors were the hooligans in 1968. Today they call themselves as “progressive liberals” (aka liberonazis, Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, etc.)
What kink of people are they who would silence this girl; the same as we have here, progressive democrats.
Isn’t there a simpler and better way to counter this as a bogus figure?
This was from some John Cook study annalists, probably somewhere on WUWT that I saved:
“Wasn’t the scientists’ response 3146 (papers) of which they used 75 of 77 to get the 97% where the real figure is 2.4% (75 out of 3146)?”
I know Monckton had a very very long article showing that the 97% study was bogus.
– JPP
Here are: 97 Articles Refuting the Fr@udulent “97% Consensus”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
(I found this by doing a “Ctrl-F” search of my copy of “WUWT — The Battle for Science — The First Ten Years” — apparently, Anthony doesn’t want anyone to know about this 2016 anthology…. there is no link to or mention of it anywhere to be found on WUWT…. *shrug*)
Hope the lovely weather of MEH-hee-coh is treating you well. 🙂
Thanks Janice… !!!
I did a search, but it turns out on my computer in my documents under 97%, I saved the above.
Stay safe,
– Phil
– JPP
Thanks, just bookmarked ! 😀
“Greta doesn’t know what she is talking about. Naomi does. There is no comparison. They are polar opposites.”
That is how the modern society is working nowadays. The power greedy people capture the money and will try every possible means to satisfy their intention. It is a major puzzle of 21st century how a girl like Greta has been promoted and brought to the forefront to serve those evil purposes.
It’s not really that big of a puzzle, The left often push forward “spokespeople” that are “unassailable” in order to keep silent the critics of the ideas those spokespeople will spout. Any criticism of the ideas will be treated as an attack on the person. “gold star families”, children, the disabled, etc. How dare you speak against such people, you’re a big meanie at best, a *-phobe, *-ist or just plain evil at worse.
Ironic that the left only seem to have ad-hominems as a rebuttal, then.