Greta Takes a Side

In the brewing Green Civil War, Ms. Thunberg has decided to jump in and fight.

Here is Greta’s Facebook post

https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/1184558945245257

Background from RealClear Energy

Like many contemporary social movements—#metoo, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s March—the environmental lobby has tended to create an atmosphere of unanimity. In its struggle to win public and elite opinion, it has frequently evoked “science” as something settled and immutable, warning that those who dissent are either self-serving or seriously deranged.

Yet in recent months, there has been growing criticism about the current green orthodoxy, including from people long associated with environmental causes. This has been most widely seen in the strange case of the Michael Moore–produced Planet of Humans, which exposes the rapacious profit-seeking and gratuitous environmental damage caused by the renewable energy industry.

http://www.thegwpf.com/joel-kotkin-the-green-civil-war/

And subsequently the conflict has increased with Shellenberger and more. .

I mean, who could have guessed Ms. Thunberg would jump in?

98 thoughts on “Greta Takes a Side

  1. Well, some progress. We are no longer the problem. Next thing they come up with is that we are part of the solution.

    • Ed,

      Far too optimistic, I’m afraid. What she is clearly saying is that we have been rendered irrelevant and no longer merit her attention. She’s not yet finished with the liquidation process for us kulaks, but she needs to move on to the more urgent business of purging the Politburo of Trotskyites.

      I imagine that she’s still in favor of putting us up against the wall, as the default option.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7789463/Greta-Thunberg-arrives-Turin-Italy-star-turn-huge-climate-change-demonstration.html

      • Curious aside – I had to use duckduckgo.com to get a link that was not to an article about how Grrrrrrrrreta “apologized” for “misspeaking”.

        Which prompts the question…
        Why do I still use Google?

        • If you don’t mind your info being scattered to advertisers far and wide Google does turn up more hits. They may be highly biased or pushed up the list by design. Duck Duck Go usually just puts out an unbiased list so you may have to go further down the list to find what you are looking for.

          I’ve been using DDG a lot and it really seems to live up to its unbiased promise. I haven’t detected any excess or weird ads like you get from Google. It seems to plaster your pages with useless ads.

  2. And why should anyone listen to this teenage princess who has no basic understanding of science or economics, either!

    Just more hot air from a snowflake whose relevance is rapidly vanishing so she wants to get attention! Colour me unimpressed!

    • At least she’s consistent. The true believers who actually give a damn are noticing that renewable energy won’t perform as advertised.

      The two obvious alternatives are to reduce the human population to about a million people or to embrace nuclear. Otherwise, there’s no way to meaningfully reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

      It’s good to see a critical mass of CAGW believers coming to realize the bogusness of renewable energy. Nobody has mentioned James Hansen lately but I think it may have started with him.

      • “ It’s good to see a critical mass of CAGW believers coming to realize the bogusness of renewable energy.”

        I am not seeing it CommieBob. I hope you are right.

        • It is hard to assist people who are deaf and blind to comprehend the physical reality of something. Clean Air Ontario has circulated a call for the billions being spent on new natural gas power plants to be turned instead to promote more wind turbine investment.

          They will only succeed in this if the public doesn’t realise that there is only one reason those plants were built in the first place: to provide backup and grid stability for the wind turbines popping up around my region (SW Ontario). When one is as disconnected from reality as they must be (were they not shilling for Big Wind which in part funds them) the insanity is never perceived. Their proposal relies on public ignorance.

          They demand wind be promoted as a major energy supplier, and demand that the supplementary power system requirements that demand places on the provider, be de-funded.
          That is madness, mad in the sense of failing all tests of logic.

          Backup, they say, should be provided in central Quebec: generate power in SW Ontario and send it twice a day to central Quebec to pumped-storage schemes. Instead they could pump Lake Ontario back up to Lake Erie if that is the need. If reversing Niagara Falls a few times a day seems silly to you, why would doing it in Quebec make more sense?

          You cannot fix stupid but you an make it stand in the corner while the adults work on the problem.

          • Crispin,
            You’re the one who is deaf and blind to reality. Right now the crony capitalists are leaving half the money on the table by tolerating the use of natural gas to back up windmills. All they’re asking is that they get ALL the money.

      • commieBob,

        Co-worker says we only need to wipe out 2 billion people to save the planet, not reduce population all the way down to 1 million. Surprisingly he does support nuclear so maybe that’s why he suggest we only off 2 billion people.

        • Darrin, is he planning to go first? 🙂 (to my surprise there is actually a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, although I suppose I shouldn’t be *that* surprised)

    • Even though there is no sensible reason there are many who will listen and be swayed by her, because the debate is emotion based and not rational.

      • Richard
        In the good old days a PhD was required to make wrong wild guesses about the future climate.

        Socialists have now promoted a high school drop out from Sweden to be their favorite perfesser, replacing AL “the climate blimp” Gore.

        While Gore did not have a Ph.D., he did invent the internet, which is close enough.

        My climate science blog featured the charming soft-spoken Greta “thundering* Thunberg as the 2019 Climate Buffoon of the Year — our highest honor.

        • Poor misunderstood Greta.
          I fear you are wrong about her.
          Yes…’ Tis true.
          She is not a High School dropout.
          Near as I can tell…she dropped out clear back in Middle School.

  3. It can’t have been easy for a used and abused child to go from global fame to total obscurity in a matter of weeks.

    She still can’t seem to make herself relevant.

    We know she didn’t write that post, daddy probably did.

    • Obscure? She just met with the leader of the European Union, Ms. Thunberg is still the favoured mascot of the green elite.

        • I think Henning is referring to the EUSSR, successor state to the Soviet Union.

          Or is it Hitler’s dream of German domination of Europe brought to fruition?

          Or is it both in one big beautiful dystopia of DDR-led Eurosocialism?

      • You haven’t met the test for relevance.

        The EU is nothing to do with us anymore.

        Nice try, though.

      • Plus she is sitting on the CNN blue ribbon panel on white fragility and the case for slavery reparations.

    • She is sorta, kinda right though in a perverse way. The trillions of coin flushed down the swirler of human prosperity is to those most elite of people who talk about getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere when they’re all net “carbon” positive. That could be fixed though with any number of solutions that would get this comment binned ……

  4. 3 gorges dam is an example of poor engineering , or climate disaster??
    NYC could be the same ,building where climate disaster can strike, vs business
    opportunities…

  5. They don’t know what factors drove historic climate change and at the same time they are so sure of the future climate change? How is that possible? Because it’s policy based?

  6. I’m still waiting for an actual study that links CO2 to heating atmospheres… we don’t even have that yet.

    Think about that… the basic claim is *still* just an anecdotal correlation and correlations are not causation.

    There has been NO science what so ever.

    This was all originally pinned on the lies the CIA/USAF told about the inaccuracy of thermally targeted weapons systems in the latter part of the Vietnam war to keep Russia and China from working on developing them.

    • “I’m still waiting for an actual study that links CO2 to heating atmospheres… we don’t even have that yet.”

      And yet WUWT is teeming with lukewarmers.

      • leitmotif:

        As a self-described “lukewarmer”, let me describe what this term means to me and perhaps some others:

        1. The general climate of the Earth has been warming moderately during the last 2 to 3 centuries, after cooling into the Little Ice Age from the preceding Medieval Warm Period during over the 400 or so years beginning in about 1300 AD.
        2. During the warming out of the Little Ice Age there appears to have been an oscillation of lesser warming and cooling on a roughly 60-year cycle. Ocean currents/cycles may be behind this oscillation
        3. There was warming from roughly 1970 to 2000, after 30 years of mild cooling from about 1940 to 1970. Mild cooling, yes, but enough to draw out the apocalyptic hysterics into decrying the “coming ice age”.
        4. CO2 has been rising some since the 1800’s. The CO2 rise accelerated a little after 1950. Worldwide industrialization and urbanization accelerated over the same time period.
        5. CO2 absorbs strongly in parts of the IR spectrum. It also re-emits energy in the same spectrum, more or less. More CO2 in the atmosphere might lengthen the dwell time of heat energy in the atmosphere, increasing the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere for a given amount of energy (mostly solar) entering the whole Earth’s planetary system (ie., the oceans, land, and atmosphere.
        6. Best case estimate for effect of doubling of CO2 is only about 1 degree C (“best case” from the Warmers point of view.
        7. The Warmers therefore assigned a positive feedback from secondary effects on the H2O cycle to get extra heating. They initially ignored the cooling effects of cloud cover and the heat sink buffering effect of the oceans in their models.
        8. Dozens of models created in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s thereby foolishly predicted Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” that dramatic and accelerating warming would occur in the next 2 or 3 decades. By 2020, disaster should have occurred.
        9. That warming did not occur.
        10. Now we are down to to competing hypotheses:
        1. The apocalyptic warming is still coming, just delayed, perhaps by the heat sink effects of the oceans or some other unknown.
        2. Or, CO2’s effects are small compared to the heat energy dynamics of the Earth as a whole, and perhaps are greatly moderated by one or more negative feedbacks which tend to keep the the temperature of the Earth as a whole stable. In this case, as CO2 rises, there would be a diminishing effect of each doubling.

        I am persuaded that the second hypothesis is more likely correct given the behavior of the Earth over the last decades, even centuries and eons. I believe the long term trend of moderate warming since the 1700’s will continue until it stops. At present climate change on this scale is neither explained nor understood. CO2 may have a weak warming effect or none at all. The science on this is emphatically not settled and it is silly to proclaim otherwise. Science is skepticism in action. Beliefs belong in the religious realm.

        Thus, I am a “lukewarmer”…..the bounds by reality seem to me to limit the possibilities to either little or no warming by rising CO2. And, actually, a lukewarm future is the best of all possible futures.

        • That isn’t a lukewarmer stance, but rather the Climate Realist stance. In other words, CO2 is not a problem, and in fact, due to its greening effect, is a benefit. We need more, not less of it.

        • Thanks kwinterkorn – a great summary of the position I have come to as a genuinely interested and engaged non-scientist!

        • World has only been warming out of the depths of the LIA in the 1690s. Call it about 325 years.

          But the LIA didn’t end until the mid-19th century, although its coldest interval was the Mauander Minimum of c. 1645-1715.

          • Technically the Earth is still in an iceage, we’re just enjoying an inter-glacial that is near it’s end based on historical cycles.

        • kwinterkorn July 26, 2020 at 9:46 am

          5. CO2 absorbs strongly in parts of the IR spectrum.”

          Mostly at about 15microns and is largely saturated at the current concentration. Adding more is simply not going to do much.

        • Kwinterkorn,
          Nice summary, but you left out a few things from the review of alarmist notions, notably the dreaded “tipping points” that for years we were all forced to endure baseless and unsupported yet strangely glib and self-assured trepidatious admonitions of.

          Hard to gin up portents of imminent doom without plenty of them thar trepidation admonitions.
          Spectres of unpredictable yet ineluctable horrors and terrors, which we could be certain of, yet never elucidate or quantify.

        • Excellent kinterkorn!
          I don’t find a thing where I would quibble.

          I would only add this with respect to my own views—

          Those who refuse on principle to admit any possibility that CO2 has any warming effect are choosing unnecessarily difficult ground to defend. They are going into battle choosing the most difficult terrain, when high ground is available.

          It is not enough to be right. We must be seen to be right in order to prevail.

          Our “radicals” are vastly underestimating the importance of convincing voters that our position is reasonable. Right now it is reasonable to say what kwinterkorn said. Basically that we don’t have certainty, but evidence points to something between no effect and a beneficial effect. To be effective in convincing others, it is tactically prudent to acknowledge that the effect of CO2 could even be mildly harmful in some cases, because again, we honestly do not know for sure. This is prudence and intellectual modesty, not dishonesty.

          Taking such a position may cause us to accept minor changes such as using more nuclear and less coal. I don’t believe that coal use needs to be curtailed and do not think that current-generation nuclear should be used when coal or natural gas is cheaper. But given two sub-optimal choices, where overpriced nuclear is option A, and the Green Raw Deal is option B, I am wildly enthusiastic about wasting a bit of coin on nuclear.

          Being right on the science is important, but winning elections to control policy is paramount. The science frankly would not matter that much to me if the economic stakes were not so high for my children.

        • That is indeed a great summary, thanks kwinterkorn. Myself I would only add in point 5 that CO2 indeed absorbs IR, but so does water vapour, and there’s a lot more water vapour than CO2 🙂

    • Prjindigo July 26, 2020 at 2:44 am

      I’m still waiting for an actual study that links CO2 to heating atmospheres… we don’t even have that yet.”

      I am still waiting to see the study that shows a CO2 driven warming atmosphere is warming the oceans AND making them more acidic!

      • You would think that if ocean acidification is real, which it really isn’t, (the word/concept was invented in 2003 for propaganda purposes for CAGW) that during an ice age, the atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the global ocean from about 280 ppmv (perhaps a lot higher briefly) to 180 ppmv, for a really long time, like up to nearly 100,000 years. Plus the global ocean is a lot more colder, and much more ice cover over the northern and southern oceans, including a very low albedo from all the ice covering a lot of land surface in both hemispheres, mostly the northern hemisphere. Although there is also a lot of new land from lower ocean levels globally everywhere., but the good Earth is suffering in a CO2 drought, whereby there is barely enough CO2 to keep basic C3 and C4 plants alive.

        If ocean acidification is a real problem from the oceans absorbing CO2, then this should have already been a major problem for oceanic life the last 2.6 million years since the start of the Quaternary Ice Age. It hasn’t been a problem for 2.6 million years, so why would it be a problem now? When I ask this question to serious academics with knowledge of geographic processes, I just get a blank stare and they say they have a meeting to get to.

        • Once you know that the term ocean acidification really means ocean alkalinity variation then you can take the whole problem out of the worry bucket.

          • Exactly. Whenever people mention a pH change form 8.2 to 8.1 (Which is an estimate) is “acid” I ask them to show that on the pH scale. Even when you show them a pH of 7 is where the acid scale starts. Rainwater for instance has a pH of between 5.5 – 4.5 typically.

        • Earthling2,
          Hey, s’up?
          Yo…what happened to Earthling1?
          Just a heads up…I is gonna stealz the phrase “A lot more colder”, and just wanted to let you know.
          Also wanted to let you know in case you had not heard…re that whole thing with “very low albedo”?
          Kudos to you…not many guys wanna bring that up…but, um…Sildenafil citrate is off patent now, and is only like 30 cents a pill at Costco with a free goodrx coupon dealio…
          At least that is what a friend told me, how the heck would I know…?

          But hey, keep up the good work, keep fighting the good fight, and keep on keeping on with keeping the fsith.
          One other thing: I know those guys you are talking sbout, and I am pretty sure they ain’t got no stinkin’ meetin’s to get to!
          It was never about the weather or the temperature at all.
          It’s all about the Benjamin’s.
          And the minute any of them forgets that and starts getting scientific instead of all sciency, a big nice man with a gentle voice will take them by the elbow and walk them straight to the front door, and if they are not careful at that point, a big swift kick will then land them right in the breadline at a soup kitchen.
          So they all think, and have every reason to believe, it can be gravy trains and party boats at the low low cost of their every shred of integrity, or tell their story walkin’.
          History is rarely kind to grifters and frauds who do a lot of damage.
          Now if only we could find a woke mob to be unkind to them…

      • Patrick, yes indeed.
        Of course , there remain a few proven counters hidden by the CAGW hard sell:
        The Ideal Gas Laws and Maxwell’s Kinetics of Gases paper show how individual gas specie are subsumed physically in any atmosphere so it acts as a unit, energy-wise. His Statistical Mechanics describe how. This also led to Einstein’s 1917 Quantum Paper.
        Gases must immediately transfer received Photons by their very construction but kinetic contact usually moves energy on first anyway. Quantum Oscillators are not receptive of weaker or equal strength photons. They also have no surfaces to emit from. But the real killer lies in how gas expansion and uplift, multiplied by water vapour Latent Heat Transfer, really does the donkey work.
        So all else is just a waste of time and money as marxists seek yet more hooks to ensnare humanity……. Brett Keane, NZ, a Photonics centre of effort.

    • I found a cross-correlation diagram between CO2 and global T in a Murry Salby presentation :

      https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=1433

      It will be very difficult to even assume that a CO2 concentration increase may induce a global temperature increase, since if anything, data show rather a negative correlation between CO2 variation and T variation (left side of the cross-correlation diagram).

    • “I’m still waiting for an actual study that links CO2 to heating atmospheres…”

      Oh, heck, I got that beat. ..
      I am still waiting for any shred of a rationale for thinking that warming is anything but a Godsend in our ice-age-having and halfway-frozen-solid planet that used to be verdant from pole to pole?
      You know, the one that had a lush savannah where the Sahara Desert now sits, way back all of 8000 years ago when the planet was the warmest it has been in the last 200,000+ years?

      Still waiting for anyone to offer any reason whatsoever for thinking we are imperiled by slightly less frigidly frozen polar wastelands covering huge swaths of our planet?

      Still wondering which part of “the science” made a large segment of the human population suffer through the worst ever case of soap-opera-style amnesia, which caused everyone effected to forget that the entire biosphere is 100% built up from, and completely reliant upon, the tenuous trace of CO2 in our atmosphere, and instead have come to hallucinate, to which you allude and ponder, that this tiny but crucially important component is actually a vile poison that somehow also exerts complete control over the temperature of an entire planet, even though it has clearly never done any such thing in the long and well elucidated history of the Earth?

      And still waiting for any tiny clue as to how or why it has been presupposed that a tiny alteration in temperature of any sort could even possibly threaten harm to a world full of living things that routinely thrive all the while through daily changes in temperature ten to twenty times as large, and annual variations over two full orders of magnitude larger, than the tiny changes that the doomsday catastrophists are certain will sterilize our entire world?

      Alas, though I have pleaded for many a weary mile and many a lonely night, to be gifted with the benighted wisdom of our climate-science betters, that I might find satiety or solace for my as-yet unquenched thirst for a glimmer of reason in this madness, my every exhortations in this regard has yet and still gone altogether unheeded.

  7. Anyone who wishes to take advice from a mentally challenged, educationally challenged, spoilt child is entitled to do so , however it says more about her supporters than her!

  8. It’s a religion, you know. If you aren’t part of the New Religion, worshiping their gods/goddesses/whatEVERS, then you are an apostate and must be thrown into the Outer Darkness.

    The Outer Darkness is where people are allowed to think for themselves and have varying opinions. Unlike the Inner Circles of Hell, Groupthink is not a requirement, and in fact, is not welcome. In the Outer Darkness, people watch old videos of George Carlin and read real books that they can hold in their hands, and do not consume soy-based foods which are loaded with estrogens.

    In the Inner Circles of Hell, Groupthink IS a requirement, books are only on handHelld devices and must be approved by The Committee, and the Denizens of the Inner Circles eat soy-based foods and drink soy lattays, which are all loaded with estrogens, and the Male Personages end up with breast cancer and go through menopause.

    I could go on, but you get the drift. It’s a New Religion, since none of those quacks go to church, never did, and have nothing to believe in, eergo, they worship false gods.

    • I work in hedge fund industry. The most successful hedge fund ever is firm called Renaissance Technologies. One of their secrets to success is NOT to hire people from other funds or finance industry. They hire from many scientific fields instead like biology, physics etc. by hiring this way they get people that do not have the same standard financial ideas. They want to have different ideas from many fields, as that is what drives performance. Groupthink is exactly what they don’t want. Variance or risk of a group of investments is reduced by adding together uncorrelated methods of making money.

    • Hi Sara!

      People who don’t believe God (of Abraham) don’t believe in nothing, they believe in everything and absolutely anything.

      • I think they do not so much have beliefs, but rather instead have their daily emailed memos of the victim-with-standing preferred, narrative-screened, and focus-group-tested, mantra du jour.

        Actual core beliefs have been excised, and notions of the very concept repudiated and reviled.

        They had to be, of course, because those (and only those) who believe in nothing, will fall for anything.

  9. The activists within the UN IPCC need to save their meal ticket and are using Greta as their proxy.

    Greta being bound by limitations of Asperger Syndrome can’t tell the difference between virtue signalling and truth so she assumes everybody is lying to her and not taking her “crisis” seriously. Greta can’t see that most people know there is no climate crisis, subconsciously they are reacting to an emotional narrative and by agreeing with that social consensus they are rewarded. If they were to actually take out fossil fuels in the timescales that Greta demands their standard of living would drop so fast that the consensus would destroy itself.

  10. About three weeks ago Greta was dragged into a two minute slot on the BBC’s flagship Today programme. I thought Justin sounded a bit embarrassed as he signed her off. Now, how was that set up? Some girly producer had a conscience that having puffed this waif for so long, the Beeb was now neglecting her and she would’ve faded into obscurity. So to try and keep the flame alight and continue the lefty narrative – get her on. Pathetic.

  11. Honestly, they’re trying to pose as oppressed victims? Us “deniers” have been shunned by them and cancelled by them for years. All because we won’t be duped by faulty computer programs, Chicken Little, or dystopian fortune tellers.
    The left is hooked on the drug of the day … Delusialis.

  12. The record of natural variability clearly shows that current warming aligns closely with the well documented previous warming phases of this interglacial cycles. I have spent some time checking this for myself using the actual GISP2 data set. I have also narrated created a Power Point of the process as a narrated and unnarrated slide set, in case anyone is interested in presenting the actual observations of temperatures since proxy records began, and their direct numerical analysis.

    Perhaps someone should tell Greta, certainly the people should be told. No need to be scared of natural change or expensively respond to a false premise that isn’t real, of CO2 causing the natural change. Climate change is entirely natural, as far as we can measure, since records began.

    In particular recent records are consistent with natural rates of change and this has been the case for the 40 years since the idea of CO2 as the main cause of observed change was wrongly claimed as a fact it is clearly not on the climate change record.

    First are two key slides that present a marked up Excel plot of the actual GISP2 series from the Aller et al source data I am working on to extract its Fourier frequencies, when I can find help with the maths tools (HELP!):

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtup42u1errc0ua/GISP2%20REality%20%281%29.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp8zqtvs1fz7ulz/GISP2%20REality%20%282%7D.jpg?dl=0

    2. Then the presentation of the observed reality in the context of whether change is natural or unusual and extreme, as measured. In 11 slides:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5y6xaju4tuk6eo9/GISP2%20REality%20%284%29.pptx?dl=0

    3. Or the same slides presented in half an hour in fully narrated form. I plan to translate this to a video for You Tube,but again the tools are a little beyond me currently. But I now have the content to video. If anyone can help, great. I realise the quality is poor, even with my Plantronics head set the PC put hiss in (the Mac PPT narration was clean BUT bloody PPT just wouldn’t record voice slide by slide as needed for editing.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/615phmcrq0js7as/GISP2%20REality%20%284%29%20Narrated.pptx?dl=0

    I would be most interested in any comments. In particular this is a straightforward way to provide a quantified answer to the question “how much of observed change is unnatural?”

    I suggest the hard evidence of observations is that an AGW effect is undetectable within the dominant natural change observed over thousands of years of many interglacial cycles, always changing.

    CAVEAT LECTOR: Contains only pure facts and physics. No models were abused in the preparation of this paper. Temperatures can go down as well as up. Author is an engineer, CEng, CPhys so has no beliefs, only probabilities. Whateverworks.

    • Brian R Catt
      July 26, 2020 at 6:27 am

      Thanks Brian. I downloaded no. 3 but couldn’t see how to get the narration to run but interesting nonetheless.

      I have a similar PowerPoint presentation that I give from time to time but it contains between 85 and 100 slides depending on the audience. I’ve arranged my graphs so that time always runs the same way…oldest always on the left, today always on the right as lots of people are not as familiar or comfortable with graphs as we scientific types tend to be. However, a graph is worth 1000 words I believe!

    • “In particular recent records are consistent with natural rates of change and this has been the case for the 40 years since the idea of CO2 as the main cause of observed change was wrongly claimed as a fact it is clearly not on the climate change record.”

      And must have been at least twice that long since the fortuitous invention of the comma!

      No but seriously, dozens if not hundreds of us have been waiting here for years on end for someone to, as you say you yourself have done, spend some time checking on that very thing!

      Okay, serious for real this time, no lyin’…
      You are gonna make an awful climate scientist.

  13. For True Believers like Greta and her ilk, those who not only don’t Believe, but who argue against her Belief System may as well not exist. They think that the “answer” to the conundrum that we do, in fact exist is to try to pretend that we exist on the fringes, not unlike flat-earthers, and in a small minority. Therefore, with the wave of her educationally-challenged, deluded hand she dismisses us, along with the science showing that they are not just wrong, but massively, delusionally, and tragically wrong. This is just one of their tactics for dealing with massive cases of cognitive dissonance among their ranks. It is both convenient, and necessary.

  14. It feels like most ppl misunderstand what the Greta Lobby PR team meant by that tweet.

    A little background. Radicals split ppl in 2 groups, them vs the good ppl, and their mission is to destroy those against them. When successful, they are not done. They split their winning side in 2: The most radical against the not-enough radicals and destroy the weak side. Rinse and repeat. You will notice this same strategy with every radical ideology and religion.

    Knowing that, tweet above means the deniers have lost and become insignificant opposition, now is time to turn against the climate change believers who are not radical enough. Aka Michael Moore, Shellenberger, whoever says something reasonable scientifically next…

    • You’re right Rag. Sorry I posted the same thought 20 mins after you, hadn’t read this far down yet. Props to you.

  15. Hmmm!
    So you are all still scared of this teenager who is NOT mentally challenged (i’m sure she could recite “person woman man camera tv” after 10 minutes – no problem. Possibly after a few months!).

    I wonder whether Anti-greta has contribute her earned finances to your cause?
    Real Greta seems to have given away €1000,000, 000 to causes she supports.

    “LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg is using her prize money from an award known as the alternative Nobel to help set up a non-profit organisation in her name “to promote ecological and social sustainability”.
    Thunberg, 17, who won the Right Livelihood Award in December, will use the 1 million Swedish crown ($100,000) prize to establish the Greta Thunberg Foundation in Sweden.”
    Climate activist Greta Thunberg plans to donate a 1 million euro ($1.14 million) prize to organizations focused on the environment and climate change.
    “The 17 year old Swede was named winner of the inaugural Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity on Monday. In a video, she described herself as being “incredibly honored and extremely grateful … this means a lot to me and I hope that it will help me do more good in the world.”
    This is not the first time she has donated prize money to organizations and causes she supports. In April, after winning the Human Act Award, she said she would donate the $100,000 prize money to UNICEF. The Human Act Award matched Thunberg’s donation with a further $100,000.”

    Perhaps you should be running scared!

    • GH: Nothing that you say here compares with or counteracts the civilised, rational comment given by John Culhane at 4.09 above , to take just one such example.

    • Really ghalfrunt? A billion euros? And she gave it all away? Wow. What a saint!

      Or was it a 100,000 € “prize” “awarded” to her on the (secret) condition that she would make a big show of donating it to generate publicity and prove that she’s not in this for filthy lucre? Wonder why they didn’t make it a million? Maybe that would be stretching credulity just a bit too far?

    • “…i’m sure she could recite “person woman man camera tv” after 10 minutes…”

      You know what would have been funny?
      If Trump has said to the guy giving him that test, “Man, bear, pig”!
      You know, as a kind of testing the tester thing?

  16. The Progressive Supremacist Mob in on the march and has made their decree clear enough.
    They know best, they are in charge, do as they say.
    Participate or be ruined.
    This lady explains them quite well.
    https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-origins/era-7-the-great-convergence-and-divergence-1880-ce-to-the-future/72-interwar-betaa/v/what-is-fascism-world-history-project-beta
    They are the army of the Woke Progressive Fascists.

    Everything for the Woke
    Nothing outside the Woke
    Noting against the Woke
    And from a Paxton definition she mentions is my slight adaptation to the Progressive Movement.

    “Progressive Fascism is defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed woke militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

    The culture war rages…………….
    Wokeness = The New Fascism
    AKA Progressive Supremacy
    Authoritarian totalitarianism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

    Progressive Fascism is the most explosive and damaging political phenomenon since the fascism of Italy and Germany last century.
    Woke zealots use all of the same tactics.
    Today’s Progressives are pushing to turn their New Age Fascism into a system of government.
    Most notably is their glorification of aggression that lies at the heart of their fascism.
    But many other tell tale signs of Progressive Fascism are everywhere.

    In theory, this elevation of the Woke is supposed to pull the county together.
    In application it sacrifices Democracy while only benefiting the elites and the fascists themselves.

    We are witnessing how this modern Progressive Fascism glorifies violence, conquest and war. And disdains existing legal restrictions on their exercise.
    Total war is the only kind of war for Fascists.
    Progressive Fascists are waging total war. They cannot use normal times to solve the problem of people outside the Woke.

    As is prevalent in all fascists movements, Progressive Supremacists use symbolic imagery, staged events and propaganda. Local symbols and myths on order to increase their appeal.

    Social media reveals growing demand of Mandatory Participation.
    The punishing, silencing, exclusion or termination of all who dare object is everywhere now.
    This trajectory is at an alarming trend & Americans need to stop it.

  17. Greta appears to be so intellectually immature as to miss the climate alarmist morphing going on as we discuss this post.

    As once-notable Democrat Rahm Emanuel famously declared some time ago, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

    Solving the “climate emergency” is now being actively positioned as a mandatory part of the plans for all world economies recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic . . . not that the two are in any way related to each other.

    In the US, it’s sorta like the Green New Deal being slid under the door to the gullible public. I’m looking forward to seeing what the UN declares to the world on this developing meme.

  18. Hey Greta, I dare you. To read something actually based on science, or something not approved by your handlers. I triple dog dare you.

  19. What is really happening here is Greta is seeing her 15 minutes of fame slipping away. “Climate Catastrophe” has been upstaged by “Black Lives Matter”. BLM is sucking up all of the air in the media. and she is right, no one is thinking about Climate Change anymore. The media world has moved on, leaving her behind and mostly forgotten.

  20. There is just no pleasing young Greta. I thought degrowth was her preferred plan to save us all. Now, with devastating amounts of degrowing under way, she still want’s more? When people get what they say they want, and then they get it and they’re still not happy, it’s because they want something else. My theory is that this kid just wants widespread misery and poverty.

  21. On every issue, today’s Progressives insist there is nothing to discuss.
    Their screaming mob has no ears.

    • It’s funny how the hateful left turns on their own a little bit more than usual these days. (You can call it a symptom of the unusually higher unemployment rate) The “Portland mayor useful idiot” got devoured by the monster it nourished, and I thought it was pretty hilarious.

      Good job on your post above, it was a really great read.

      • Meh… I shoulda written “he nourished” but technically, a tool can be described as “it”, so… Not a big deal.

  22. Once again, in the interest of media accuracy, the headline should read

    “Greta’s Dad Takes a Side”

    • Mind you the green civil war is not about blips like Shellenberger. It is a raging war between the moderates in power who want to slowly approach net zero by 2050 and the “action now” radicals like Greta and AOC. Note that the latter appear to have captured Biden and all the candidates before him.

  23. Methinks she is just jealous of the violent riots (‘rowdy, mostly peaceful protests’) going on around the world that are NOT about global warming.

    Where are all the greenies showing up at federal buildings with baseball bats, power tools, and fireworks, to have a ‘conversation’ about climate?

    Deniers aren’t the problem, the problem is that they now see how guano-crazy people can get over one incoherent perceived grievance, but not about their grievance of choice.

    They realize they have been left behind, and their pet cause is no longer fashionable, which is the death knell for any pseudo-scientific religious movement.

  24. I must have read thousands of pages over the years about global warming, climate change, call it what you will, but not one has mentioned where it all started. UN Agenda 21. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is very, very, real and much of humanity are falling into its evil web without realising. CO2 is a major building block for 99% of all living beings. It is not a poison. The real poison comes from the mouths of those with little understanding of real scientific theory. I have lived long enough not to have my education sabotaged by misinformed idealists. Lord Christopher Monckton would, I’m sure, agree with me common sense should have told folk they are being hoodwinked.

    Lord Frazer Irwin

  25. Can’t wait to see Naomi Seibt’s next Climate Video. I understand that Lord Monckton has been under the weather/ill.
    (Have you all subscribed to Naomi’s channel ? – I did – it’s refreshing, compared to Greta)

    – JPP

Comments are closed.