Why did the EU invite Greta Thunberg and not Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus?

From CLINTEL

Press release by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL)

Essay “Undue Climate Haste”

21 April 2021

Optimum economic outturn is seen at 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100
Mortality due to extreme weather decreased spectacularly

Why did the EU invite the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak in Brussels instead of the Nobel Prize winning climate economist William Nordhaus? That question is answered in an essay entitled Undue Climate Haste, which the CLINTEL Foundation is publishing today. The essay concludes: “The main message of this essay is that we are in no hurry and that panic is unwarranted. Climate change always deserves our attention, but the idea that we need to turn our energy supply upside down right now appears to be driven by emotion rather than reason.”

The EU has decided it wants to achieve net zero carbon emission by 2050. If they succeed, Europe will become the first ‘climate neutral’ continent. The media have mainly welcomed this ambition. Politicians claim that there will be many benefits of this policy: they say it will make the economy stronger and create jobs. But are these claims justified, by a cost-benefit analysis for example?

They are not, states the essay Undue Climate Haste. Remarkably the Nobel Prize (2018) winning climate economist William Nordhaus showed in his Nobel lecture in Stockholm that the ‘economic optimum’ for climate policy is to allow 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100. Economically, it is better to accept a certain amount of climate damage and to limit the cost of mitigation than the other way round: ambitious goals such as staying below 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees are extremely costly.

Unfeasible
The climate goals of the EU are not only very costly, they are unachievable in practice. A simple calculation shows that in order to reach net zero emissions in 2050, the EU will have to deploy a new nuclear power station every week, from now until 2050. In total, 1650 new nuclear power stations would be needed. Yet today, 60 years after the first nuclear power plan went into production, there are only 450 such plants across the world.

The EU has a strong preference for ‘renewable’ energy sources, such as wind and solar, instead of nuclear. Achieving net zero with wind would require 450 new 2.5-MW turbines to be installed every two days until 2050; 82,000 windmills a year! Where would you place them all?

Unnecessary
The last part of the essay explains the EU’s haste towards its climate goal is totally unnecessary. Almost all important parameters indicate that climate change is a manageable phenomenon. We now have the technology and the wealth to cope.

The number of victims of extreme weather has decreased over the past century by more than 95%. Damage from such phenomena, corrected for the growth of the economy, has also declined slightly. Sea-level is rising, but very slowly and, moreover, no acceleration is apparent in long tide-gauge records.

Meanwhile there are strong indications that climate models, on which climate policy is largely based, are ‘oversensitive’, i.e. the real climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models say it is. This means less future warming, and that CO2 reductions needed to stay below the 2 degrees target do not need to be so aggressive. Even if emissions stay above the 2020 level for the rest of the century, the 2-degree target remains in sight. Unfortunately, the climate science community rarely tells policymakers about these relatively new insights, preferring to discuss scenarios based on climate models.

The essay Undue Climate Haste was commissioned by the ECR Group of the European Parliament in Brussels.

You can read the essay here.

CLINTEL Foundation
The Climate Intelligence foundation (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. CLINTEL’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.

For more information contact Marcel Crok, marcel.crok@clintel.org
Website:               https://clintel.org

4.9 34 votes
Article Rating
155 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Because the EU can use her more effectively to achieve its authoritarian ends than him.
The truth being irrelevant.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 22, 2021 2:30 pm

The truth is not just irrelevant, it gets in the way of the agenda.

mikee
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 22, 2021 7:17 pm

Because the intelligence level for this gathering was barely equivalent to room temperature.

Rick
Reply to  mikee
April 23, 2021 11:18 am

John Kerry taking umbrage with that.

dk_
April 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Emotion, not science, makes politics.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  dk_
April 22, 2021 3:28 pm

And the most powerful human emotion is fear. They know exactly what they are doing.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 23, 2021 4:19 am

Young children have an irrational fear of the dark.

Adult alarmists have an irrational fear of the climate in 2050 or 2100.

Scientist and politicians who support them are either irrational or simply exploiting their fears.

Sara
Reply to  dk_
April 22, 2021 6:30 pm

Spot on!

But is it unfortunate that none of them, and nothing she says, can induce fear in me the way running out of vanilla ice cream can? Or finding that I have only enough popcorn to make one more batch of it and that means another trip to the store? (The horror!!)

Will they become emotionally distraught if I send them copies of the photos I shot this morning of snow on my front steps and yard? One would hope so, you know, because it spoils their agenda.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sara
April 22, 2021 10:38 pm

Oh, I thought you girlies were terrified of “Nofizzaphobia!” You know, the morbid fear of running out of Prosecco, especially in the Summer!!!!! ;-))

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 4:10 am

wonder what a prosecco “spider” would taste like?
lol

Gerry, England
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 9:48 am

Did you know that Prosecco is like manuka honey – more of it is consumed than is actually made. Nothing like a bit of fakery so bit like climate change.

John the Econ
April 22, 2021 2:10 pm

I still remember a time when adults educated the children, and not the other way around.

Except, Greta Thunberg isn’t educating anybody. The people she’s supposedly lecturing already agree with her. They are just using her as a prop to justify an agenda they are already 100% in agreement with.

Could anyone imagine a 16-year-old libertarian activist being allowed to lecture heads of state about the perils of open borders, socialism or how free markets are the real solution to poverty? Of course not. Why? Because those leaders are 100% against those ideas and would never tolerate any discussion to the contrary. So what other reason is there to entertain Greta?

Never mind the fact that the science behind socialism is far more settled that the science behind “climate change” ever will be.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  John the Econ
April 22, 2021 2:55 pm

Extreme political movements hiding behind images of girls in pigtails. No thanks, I think we’ve seen this movie a couple of times before. If I recall, it didn’t end well for most folks.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 23, 2021 6:52 am

Yes, and ole Joe wants to spend $10 billion to create a whole cadre of people like Greta and turn them into a Climate Change Brigade.

I don’t know what such a group would do. Perhaps harrass politicians that don’t support the Climate Change scam by demonstrating outside their homes.

starzmom
Reply to  John the Econ
April 22, 2021 3:34 pm

We can’t even get our vice president to discuss illegal immigration at our southern border. Given that, she is no better than a 16 year old socialist activist. With that in mind who cares who says what. It doesn’t matter.

spock
Reply to  starzmom
April 23, 2021 12:52 am

Libertarians should support open borders. Borders are barriers to trade. Borders are arbitrary barriers erected by the state for their benefit, not the people’s.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders

What can be done to spread freedom around the world? One answer is to make different governments compete for citizens. States with private property protections, low taxes, and something like the rule of law are more attractive places to live than places that lack those institutions. When people leave the jurisdictions of bad governments, it deprives those governments of material support. That only works, though, if other countries are willing to take in the people who have left.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  spock
April 23, 2021 6:52 am

From an engineering viewpoint, a barrier does two things, keep people out, or keep people in!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  spock
April 23, 2021 6:54 am

What if a country can’t afford to take in every poor person in the world? No limits?

Uncontrolled illegal entry into the United States will destroy the Republic.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  spock
April 23, 2021 10:22 am

Hogwash. Without defined borders you can’t have a country. And if you can’t control your borders, you may as well not have a country. No countries means no rule of law and we just revert to pure tribalism which only creates death and misery.

PCman999
Reply to  spock
April 23, 2021 10:40 am

Anyone coming to a given country needs to be checked out and needs to be respectful of the laws. Double failure for illegals sneaking into another country. Disclaimer: I am the son of Italian immigrants who followed the rules and jumped through all the hoops, and I’m in favour of increasing immigration levels so that 🎼 my home and native land 🎵 Canada can double it’s population relatively quickly. However open borders makes no sense except to communists who keep supporting lunatic ideas in the hopes of causing societal collapse so they can take over. Not fair to residents or prospective immigrants to subject them to the chaos and deprivation of open borders.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
April 25, 2021 6:12 am

“We can’t even get our vice president to discuss illegal immigration at our southern border.”

We are probably better off if Kamala doesn’t get involved.

Her only real expertise is at race-baiting.

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  John the Econ
April 22, 2021 6:06 pm

This is all about money. There’s a lot of money in taxing carbon.
And let’s face it – zero carbon emission is less likely than world peace.

fretslider
April 22, 2021 2:12 pm

For the EU the more impractical something is the better

VDLia a disaster, mind you so is Doris. Both he and the EU get their instructions from the UN which kind of cancels Brexit out

Robert Arvanitis
April 22, 2021 2:13 pm

The real reasonfor “Greta” is that Nordhaus understands the value of innovation, and by implication, the wisdom of crowds.
He won the Nobel Prize for considering tradeoffs in climate: growth vs. mitigation.

But he laid the groundwork well before for that, when he assessed the true value delivered by innovators and showed how little of that value innovators themselves actually captured.

In that world, there is no room for dirigistes. It’s impossible for the state to improve over the market. Such a message is naturally abhorrent to statists.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w10433

john harmsworth
April 22, 2021 2:14 pm

Because brain damaged people like a chance to speak to people in the same condition?

Mr.
Reply to  john harmsworth
April 22, 2021 5:10 pm

I would describe them as “irrational” people rather than “brain damaged” John.

Brain injury would be an understandable cause of a person’s disconnect from reality, whereas irrationality can be overcome by an effort to embrace and apply a bit of honesty in one’s approach to matters.

“Willful irrationality” best describes climate catastrophists.

John Bruce
Reply to  Mr.
April 22, 2021 6:26 pm

I think he was referring to the puppet not the puppet master

Wim Röst
April 22, 2021 2:20 pm

A well-viewed video with Marcel here:

(for English subtitles: click on the icon)

Robber
April 22, 2021 2:26 pm

Why the persistent use of 1.5 or 2.0 degrees C temperature rise since pre-industrial times as the tipping point for catastrophe/emergency?
Because, given that the “data” indicates that the temperature has already risen by 1.0 degrees C, where is the evidence that the climate has been devastated by that rise, yet somehow a further 0.5 degrees C could possibly be catastrophic? Yet the warmistas including the compliant media keep beating the same drum.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Robber
April 22, 2021 3:26 pm

It will stave off the “worst effects of climate change”… you know… uhh… uhrmm…
Actually the ‘worst effect of climate change’ has been the constant bleating by the alarmists. Maybe if the temperature rises 3C and nothing happens, they can finally shut up.

Independent
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 22, 2021 9:50 pm

I doubt it. It’ll be like Arctic sea ice predictions: it’ll all be gone by 2007, no 2008, no 2011, no 2012, no 2014, no 2016, no 2020 we really mean it…

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Independent
April 23, 2021 12:33 am

Was it not a little boat trip to the Arctic Circle, called the Kapitan Kalebnikov? A vessel hired to take a bunch of Eco-bunnies & sensationalist journos to see for themselves the disappearing ice? I seem to recall they got stuck in ice that wasn’t supposed to be there, for a couple of weeks rapidly running out of food & fuel to keep warm!!! Not even an ice-breaker could get through it!!!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 2:34 pm

They should have left them there, and parachuted in the rest of the “True Believers” to join them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 23, 2021 7:09 am

“Actually the ‘worst effect of climate change’ has been the constant bleating by the alarmists.”

Isn’t that the truth!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robber
April 23, 2021 7:08 am

“given that the “data” indicates that the temperature has already risen by 1.0 degrees C, where is the evidence that the climate has been devastated by that rise, yet somehow a further 0.5 degrees C could possibly be catastrophic?”

And since that rise up to 1.0C above the average in 2016, the temperatures have cooled by 0.7C.

So it’s cooler than the alarmists would have us believe. The alarmists keep talking about all this warming, but where’s the warming? The alarmists are talking about a reality that currently does not exist. They are saying warming, when it’s cooling. A serious disconnect from reality, I would say.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 2:38 pm

More to the point, the warmer climate is BETTER. That’s one of the biggest of the (many) lies they’re selling – the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse than a cooler climate. Exactly opposite of reality.

Joel O'Bryan
April 22, 2021 2:29 pm

Because climate change policy has nothing to do with climate and temperatures, the EU needs an ignorant, emotional high school dropout to sell their socialism.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 22, 2021 2:49 pm

Good thing I read the comments to the end, because I was going to say what you did … almost word for word. There’s nothing like a childish scold to make a Marxist’s day. It’s why Pol Pot used kids to do his dirty work.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 3:39 pm

Mao’s Red Guards ranks were mostly filled with ignorant un-educated urban teenagers and young adults to do his dirty work of k1lling university academics and anyone who they thought held “traditional values.” Mao even closed the urban schools to help swell the ranks of his Red Guard.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 22, 2021 5:42 pm

Just noticed PBS are featuring Greta’s “A Year to Change the World” dog and pony show tonight. I think I’ll give it a miss. It’s true though, if you want some truly high class hectoring done for your cause, you can’t do better than a 15 – 18 year old female with a cause (mace and plastic bags are optional). Mao’s Red Guard was a perfect example, especially when attacking ‘The Four Olds‘.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 23, 2021 7:14 am

Yes, they showed “Action Planet: Meeting the Climate Challenge” on the Science Channel last night. I guess all the major media outlets are going to start pushing the climate change agenda.

I recorded the program last night. I didn’t feel like listening to a bunch of hogwash so late at night. I’ll wade through it today, I guess. I know what they are going to say before they say it. That’s the bad part.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 9:36 am

I can’t say I envy you the task of unpacking that mess of masturbatory virtue signalling.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 23, 2021 8:53 pm

I hesitate to say this, especially in an anti-male atmosphere where the majority of university students seem to be female. But isn’t there a huge bias towards female activists in the protests organised in the streets nowadays? I find it difficult to believe that so many of them do not understand the basics of weather and CO2. On the other hand…….. Maybe it is just the facial piercings which cause it!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 23, 2021 9:02 pm

Maybe it is just the facial piercings which cause it!

Hmmm … could be you’ve got something there.

Frankly I have the feeling that few of those female activists feel that the science is important enough to get in the way of a good appeal to emotion. The media response is so much better when facts are avoided altogether. Irrational is the new rational.

PCman999
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 24, 2021 11:32 am

Who said that any of the activists, male or female, had any training in science? Other than political science, of course. In fact it seems even climate scientists have little training beyond computer programming and the knowledge that co2 can absorb and emit IR.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 4:09 pm

All the 20th century Socialists new that they had to obtain control of immature minds, so easily manipulated & controlled, to achieve the total control of the masses, & the following mass slaughter & butchery of people, to strike fear & terror into heir hearts & minds, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Polpot, et al, they encouraged such terror & murder on mass, of course, they never actually pulled the triggers themselves, oh no, their hands might get dirty, far better for these well educated, modestly wealthy middle-class well educated elites, to get their useful idiots to do it for them!!!!! Throughout the 20th century Socialism in one form or other, has resulted in the deaths of millions in the name of the glorious cause!!!!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 22, 2021 6:34 pm

And they want to repeat the cycle in this century, with the same selection of useful idiots who, of course, see themselves as paragons of virtue and superior morality, rather than degenerate fools … often blindly following real monsters. I’ve watched while the UN has placed more and more emphasis on ramping up the hype for “climate change” to satisfy their revenue aspirations and inching towards becoming THE ‘one world government’.

Being close to 80, now, I’m increasingly convinced that “you-know-what” was either a fortuitous discovery or specifically directed at my age group … because we DO know the truth and we are an expense no countries want.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 10:59 pm

That dear friend, is precisely what it’s all about, a One World Global Guvment! Then President of France said to a couple of French journos after the Kyoto agreement, “this is the step on the way to global governance!”. It will be just like the European Union, dictation to the peasants by unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable bureaucrats! Never heard of one EU Commissioner ever being sacked for incompetence despite the horsemeat scandal, & worst still, the breast implant scandal, where cheap industrial grade silicon was supplemented for expensive medical grade silicon, the vast majority of these implants weren’t to adorn the bodies of beautiful young women, who just wanted bigger boobs to become porn stars (with exceptions) of whatever, they were there for those unfortunate women who had suffered the horror of breast cancer, had endured a major surgical procedure, & wanted a reconstruction afterwards! The EU Commission are a classic totalitarian groupthink cabal, they’re in charge of everything, responsible for absolutely nothing!!!! Orwell et al saw it all coming, & we all said no, no, no, we must be watchful of such developments, but the left are very patient, stealth is their weapon of choice! Democracy is far too precious to casually cast aside, too many have sacrificed their lives to achieve it & preserve it!!!!

Disputin
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 2:01 am

Alan, you mean silicone, not silicon. You’d notice the difference!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Disputin
April 23, 2021 6:56 am

Sincere apologies for my tardiness!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 9:29 am

You must remember this …

Why the UK is in the EU – YouTube

… and so many friends say what a good idea the EU is.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 23, 2021 8:56 pm

Slightly more than 50% would argue with that belief!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 23, 2021 9:05 pm

Pardon my being so obtuse, but which belief were you referring to?

Petit_Barde
April 22, 2021 2:46 pm

Why should they invite someone who would inevitably show they are nothing but a bunch of ignorant psychopathic clowns ?

leitmotif
April 22, 2021 2:47 pm

William Nordhaus showed in his Nobel lecture in Stockholm that the ‘economic optimum’ for climate policy is to allow 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100. Economically, it is better to accept a certain amount of climate damage and to limit the cost of mitigation than the other way round: ambitious goals such as staying below 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees are extremely costly.”

Now we have a lukewarmer economist.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  leitmotif
April 22, 2021 4:10 pm

I think he is simply stating the same as Lomborg, even if you believe CO2 is the temperature know trying to control CO2 will be a costly failure

leitmotif
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 6:49 pm

But Nordhaus bases his verdict on bogus predictions.

He is part of the problem.

Redge
Reply to  leitmotif
April 22, 2021 11:27 pm

Perhaps that’s the way to take the heat out of the discussion

(pun intended)

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 11:22 pm

He’s not saying “if”. He does think “carbon” is a problem, just not an emergency, yet. Same as Lomborg. They still provide no evidence to support their beliefs.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 23, 2021 7:18 am

Lomborg was on Fox News again yesterday saying CO2 is a problem, but not that big of a problem.

I would love to be able to ask him how he came to the conclusion that CO2 is a problem and needs regulating.

We all know he can’t give a satisfactory answer to that question. Someone on Fox News ought to ask him that. It’s a perfectly reasonable question.

Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 3:02 pm

There are a lot of climate scientologists who don’t realize the danger they are in I think.

Policy makers are controlling the funding strings to ensure they get published “science” that supports the actions they desire.

It seems inevitable that we will go back into cooling, natural cooling, possibly we already are, at some point there will be no way to hide it.

At this point, the policy makers and politicians will conveniently point at the “scientists” and state they were only following the “science”, therefore fulfilling the prediction Tommy Wils made as was revealed in the climategate emails.

I guess this is a redundant question but are mike Mann ET al not smart enough to see they are setting themselves up as the fall guys?

A multi-trillion dollar fraud, somebody is going to pay, possibly with their lives.
I’d be very worried

Jim Veenbaas
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 5:35 pm

Goal posts will always be moved. They will never be held accountable.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 5:56 pm

When do we get our freon back?

Redge
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 11:27 pm

They’ll be retired on fat pensions by then

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 23, 2021 1:09 am

They will just argue that the cooling is a proof that their “measures” are being “crowned with success”. It’s almost always possible to think of an argument to justify one’s position. If not, it can be introduced over time, by implementing an adequate Overton window. Whether the argument is true or not is irrelevant for these people. The left were very clever: during the last decades, they have conducted a “march through the institutions”, taking control of education and the media. There is only one way out: we have to take back control of education and the media from the left. If this goes on, truth as well as “real” science will lose all relevance.

Chris Hanley
April 22, 2021 3:16 pm

All of William Nordhaus’ rational assessment is based on the assumption that the observed rise in the global average temperature was, is, and will be driven by CO2.
The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report states: “… It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010 …”.
That is no scientific axiom merely a guess, in any case it’s all academic the developing world has made it clear that there is no likelihood that they will follow the EU and the current US economic suicidal tendencies.

Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 3:33 pm

Greta is easier on the eyes than William

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 4:07 pm

You like children?

Richard Page
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 4:34 pm

She’s 18 and no longer a child. Which does make her childish spats more ridiculous – as an adult, she should know better.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Page
April 22, 2021 5:49 pm

She’s still a child. She’s clearly behind developmentally.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 8:25 pm

So is she too retarded to know better, or too young/inexperienced to know better? Or both?

Personally I don’t care. I regard her as meme fodder (cough – How DARE you! – cough) and the current monkey dancing for the controlling organ grinder and believe if you can’t accept public criticism then maybe you should reconsider being in public rather than trying to shield yourself behind age/pigtails/being able to see CO2/harsh glares. Either you have something to say and need to be respected, or you are a child and need to be protected – you can’t be both.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Craig from Oz
April 22, 2021 10:40 pm

As closely as I can work it out, she’s just retarded enough to believe in her own faerie stories … not to mention her family’s notoriety and myths (her Arrhenius grandfather). Clearly she has been set up to play a part for her parent’s benefit that suits the climate farce and their narrative.

Read my response to Taguchi, below. She’s no better than a trained seal and they’ll keep using her until she’s broken (metaphorically, of course) or too old to be appealing. She’s more like a modern manifestation of The Madonna of Lourdes fraud than anything else … capitalizing on the religiosity of AGW.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 23, 2021 4:17 am

yeah anorexia does that

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 22, 2021 4:52 pm

Pat, do you like old MEN ?

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 23, 2021 1:48 am

Rog-tag like snarly petulant little child-minds.

Reminds him of his partner.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 23, 2021 4:16 am

greta gives better head….shots ?
I dont have/know how to get that nifty strikeout option so next best….

Mr.
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 5:22 pm

And Roger, she has “feels” about issues, rather than thought processes and conclusions?
(Many “likes” from leftists about “feels” hey?)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 5:48 pm

I don’t find it particularly rewarding looking at a mentally and emotionally damaged child. How can you find that easier on the eyes? “Come on Mannn!”

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 7:51 pm

Well Rory, if you find looking at an old man better than looking at a young woman, I guess that’s just a reflection on what you find appealing.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 8:21 pm

Yep, it certainly is. I find nothing distasteful about old people. Many have exceptional looks, whereas I do find it disturbing to have an obviously disturbed child thrust upon the world stage like a performing seal to promote a fraud. People need to be better than that. She adds nothing but bathos to an already pathetic narrative.

fred250
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 23, 2021 12:35 am

Roger relates totally to Greta’s mental disturbance issues.

So close to his own.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 11:26 pm

Apparently, Roger, your bar to be invited to something as earth-shattering as a climate summit is pretty low. No knowledge required, just don’t be ugly. You’re as shallow as many others here who insult people based on their looks.

Low class.

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 23, 2021 12:34 am

Greta is more like you in intelligence and knowledge Rog-tag..

Close to ZERO.

Regurgitated propaganda pap, is all either of you can manage.

You and her would make a wonderful couple…. of monkeys. !

Lrp
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 23, 2021 2:47 am

You’re making infantile comments based on people’s age and sex rather than education and intellectual abilities; you embaras yourself.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 11:24 pm

So, only invite people to these conferences that are “easy on the eyes”, not ones that are sensible. Got it.

fred250
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 23, 2021 12:37 am

It is all about “FEELINGS”

….. maybe Greta has an expressive on her face that “gets to” Rog-tag’s “inner feelings”

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Redge
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 22, 2021 11:30 pm

Seriously?

Mods?

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 23, 2021 1:46 am

Rog-tag is used to snarling petulant behavior from his boyfriends.

To bed B
April 22, 2021 3:36 pm

From ABC Australia, Q&A program (a suppodely intellectual debate.

That debate led to former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull lambasting the government’s “gas-led” recovery as a slogan and nothing more, as well as allegations of “cheap blows”, “patronising” behaviour and “mansplaining”.
Mr Pitt, whose portfolio also includes water and northern Australia, bore the brunt of the criticism after he defended the government position and policy on climate change.
The current position is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent by the year 2030, while the US has just announced its ambition to cut emissions from 2005 levels by 50-52 per cent in the same timeframe.
The UK has gone even harder with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson looking to cut emissions by 78 per cent by the year 2035, leaving Australia lagging when it comes to its targets.
Still, Mr Pitt said Australia was doing the right thing by taking what he said was a measured approach to help those in energy and agricultural sectors adjust to change.
“This is about who pays, and who pays is regional Australia because they are the ones that rely on the mining sector, the gas sector, the agricultural sector, our big exporters, our intensive industries in terms of where we deliver our products right around the world,” Mr Pitt said.
“We need to take an approach which is balanced, based on technology, which doesn’t leave them behind, which ensures the cost for them is not something they can’t afford.”

That answer earned a swift rebuke from Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who took aim at Mr Morrison in her response after she said those in regional Australia could not afford a dead Murray River or yearly bushfires.
“We have to get realistic about the fact climate change is here and it’s here because we have polluted the atmosphere,” Senator Hanson-Young said.
“We have to get out of fossil fuels, which is making our planet sick.
“I know it’s hard for you, Minister … because you’ve been given this job from the Prime Minister.
“What he said about trying to divide the cities and the country is just lazy, lazy politics. This issue is not going to be won and dealt with by dividing the nation.
“A real leader actually brings people together, educates, leads and actually speaks the truth. And every time the Prime Minister talks about climate change, his weasel words ring out.”
Mr Turnbull joined Senator Hanson-Young in her criticisms of divisive politics and called for an approach to global warming that does not involve ideology.

“Saying you believe or disbelieve in global warming is as intelligent or sensible as saying you believe or disbelieve in gravity,” Mr Turnbull said.

“So we’ve got to stop the ideology and the idiocy, focus on engineering and economics, and make this transition to the clean energy economy we need.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-23/turnbull-hanson-young-minister-climate-comments-qanda/100089290

Plenty of tweets like ‘
Liveris may be the worst mansplainer I’ve ever seen’ about another panellist representing a gas and petrol company, and complaints about him being patronising to a Greens Senator who was a young bank teller when elected and is our version of AOC.

What can we do when the taxpayers money meant for greater intellectual discourse is spent on promotion of Gretasplaining and the most bigoted of ad hominen attacks called mansplaining.

I’ll add another article that highlights how stupid our betters are
https://www.news.com.au/technology

Last edited 3 months ago by To bed B
ozspeaksup
Reply to  To bed B
April 23, 2021 4:21 am

cant stand hansenyoungs whine
makes listening to her claims bloody painful
and shes thick as a plank anyway

Tom Gelsthorpe
April 22, 2021 3:45 pm

Why value peevish high school dropout over a Nobel laureate who actually knows what he’s talking about?

1. To demonstrate the aggressive degradation of education — despite the incessant bleating of unionized bureaucrats for “More money, more money, MORE MONEY!”

2. Because Greta has cute Scandinavian braids, and is an accomplished child actor who plays, “My soul is tormented!” with aplomb. . . and no shame. Nordhaus is Scandinavian-looking also, but nearly 80, looks and acts professorial. Angry girl GOOD, old white man BAD.

3. Because media and their goofy viewers have been starved for a good Freak Show since the circus closed down. Accomplished scholars don’t cut the mustard, freak show-wise. Hysterical nitwits do.

gringojay
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
April 22, 2021 4:10 pm

Greta got out before the new American curriculum reached Sweden’s shores.

693D0444-5CCE-4E27-9E3F-34D2048CC9BE.jpeg
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
April 22, 2021 11:27 pm

Why value peevish high school dropout over a Nobel laureate who actually knows what he’s talking about?”

Nordhaus doesn’t really know what he’s talking about regarding climate. He’s just making assumptions.

CD in Wisconsin
April 22, 2021 3:52 pm

“Achieving net zero with wind would require 450 new 2.5-MW turbines to be installed every two days until 2050; 82,000 windmills a year! Where would you place them all?”

What capacity factor are we talking about here? Is that 82,000 number taking into consideration a likely capacity factor? Like 0.25 maybe?

Terry
April 22, 2021 4:02 pm

In doing these calculations do you take into account the staggering carbon footprint just from creating the windmills.

April 22, 2021 4:09 pm

“Why did the EU invite Greta Thunberg and not Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus?
Invite to what?

Aksurveyor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 5:12 pm

Another obtuse comment from the master. It appears your mouth wags before your brain engaged and you read the article.

Near the the top of the article:

“Why did the EU invite the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak in Brussels instead of the Nobel Prize winning climate economist William Nordhaus? ”

If your not careful Griff will take you out for cutting in on his bailiwick…

Last edited 3 months ago by Aksurveyor
Reply to  Aksurveyor
April 22, 2021 5:36 pm

To speak about what? At what occasion? OK, it’s in Brussels.

Poems of our Climate
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 5:45 pm

The annual Festival of the Sprouts.

Richard Page
Reply to  Poems of our Climate
April 22, 2021 6:24 pm

‘Twould make more sense if it was.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 6:18 pm

I think it was a videoconference call for ‘Fridays for Future’ with Frans Timmermans – Anuna Wever (head of the Belgian chapter of the ‘Fridays for Future’ protest group) and Greta Thunberg (founder of the ‘Fridays for Future’ protest group) were to speak with him after he delivered the keynote speech via videoconference call for the FT’s Climate Capital Summit. 30th March this year I believe, unless anyone has a more recent event in mind?
I think it was this event – it would make sense for Frans Timmermans to speak with an economist during a Climate Capital Summit and zero sense for him to be talking instead to 2 teenage activists with absolutely no background or understanding of economics at that time.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
April 22, 2021 8:38 pm

“I think it was a videoconference call for ‘Fridays for Future’”
“Greta Thunberg (founder of the ‘Fridays for Future’ protest group)”
Sounds like she is pretty much the right person for the topic. And Nordhaus?

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 6:42 pm

In all seriousness, Nick, doesn’t it speak poorly for those who profess to be concerned about climate change to invite someone like Greta instead of someone like Nordhaus? What does she have to offer other than moral outrage, which can be offered by people with more gravitas than she has

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 22, 2021 8:22 pm

It depends on who they are and what they want the speaker to talk about, and to whom. We don’t know.

And I think it speaks poorly that for all the pontification on this thread, no-one seems to care about finding out these basic facts.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 10:13 pm

Nick: “We don’t know”

WR:comment image

Google search, choose ‘images’, text: Greta Thunberg European Parlement
(or EU)

Last edited 3 months ago by Wim Röst
Reply to  Wim Röst
April 22, 2021 11:54 pm

That photo was posted a year ago, and seems to be of an appearance a year earlier. What makes you think it is the invitation of this post?

whiten
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:14 am

Maybe because Nordhaus got no such a chance, of at least a photo in a worldsaving Climate “forum” of Europian Parliament.

A Nobel laureate, climate
lukwarmer economist,
with a specific work about the self destruction economics of the climate actions proposed by such political governing organisations or institutions like E.P. and UN.

Persona non grata.

Unless you can show that actually Nordhaus actually had the same or similar honours as Greta,
in the proposition of E.P in Brussels,
then what point are you trying to forward here!

Besides the main weight of the article in question is about the work of the Nobel laureate.
And that happens not to be Greta.

Be no mistaken,
no taking sides here.
I myself may actually like Greta more than Nordhaus… but still one got to be fair to the article essay,
and to the work of Nordhaus.

cheers

Reply to  whiten
April 23, 2021 1:36 am

Well, here is Nordhaus talking to the European Central Bank, last October. Not just a photo, the whole thing.

whiten
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 2:26 am

Thanks for the link,
but please stop trolling.

You know and are better than that.

cheers

Richard Page
Reply to  Wim Röst
April 23, 2021 6:11 am

Wim – I think we actually do – please see my post above. Last year, when she was invited to speak in person, there were multiple protests about the breach of Covid regulations so this year, it’ll have been done by video conference calls.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 11:30 pm

The only think Greta can talk about with any authority is emotion. If that floats your boat, then go for it.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 6:06 am

Fair enough. It isn’t stated in the article, and I don’t see other references to a meeting. Perhaps others can find it.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 6:08 am

Nick – I told you what it was in my original post. If your reading comprehension is so poor what are you doing on the internet. Ok, I’ll repeat it for the toddler who needs spoon-feeding: Frans Timmermans was giving the keynote speech during the Financial Times sponsored Climate Capital Summit. Immediately after that speech, as an ongoing part of that summit, on the same day, he spoke with 2 teenage activists rather than a Nobel prize-winning economist. Now does that give you some perspective on the point of the article?

Reply to  Richard Page
April 23, 2021 8:21 am

“Financial Times sponsored Climate Capital Summit”
If that was it, it has nothing to do with EU. FT’s partner was the UNFCCC.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 9:34 am

Stop being so damn perverse and ridiculously stupid for once in your life, please – I gave you everything you needed in my original post and yet you still are acting like a 3 year old that needs spoonfeeding. Frans Timmermans is the first Vice President of the European Commission and has nothing to do with the UNFCC as well you should know (or at least be able to find out). His keynote speech to the (inaugeral) summit was on ‘Prioritising a green recovery after COP26’ – do you need his shoe size or inside leg measurement as well, or is that finally enough?

Reply to  Richard Page
April 23, 2021 5:13 pm

“Frans Timmermans is the first Vice President”
Yes, and he was an invited speaker. FT, a newspaper, did the inviting. Not the EU. It was FT who invited Greta, too.

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick Stokes
whiten
Reply to  Aksurveyor
April 23, 2021 1:33 am

With Mosh directing the fine “slicing”.
😉

Apologies to Mosh.
😶

cheers

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 12:39 am

Poor Nick,

Your UNAWARENESS is becoming quite worrying !

Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 1:38 am

So do you know what invitation the post is talking about?

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:52 am

Yes, EU parliament

Do try to keep up. !!

If you can.

Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 2:02 am

Evidence? When?

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 2:40 am

Poor Nick..

You really are totally out of the loop now, aren’t you poor fella. !!

It must be so frustrating for you to not have the vaguest clue what is going on.!

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Climate believer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 3:18 am

I presume the article is referring to the last time she was in Brussels in March.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200227STO73520/greta-thunberg-urges-meps-to-show-climate-leadership

Greta Thunberg was addressing a EU environment committee, not the actual Parliament.

These committees deal with EU legislative proposals by organising hearings with experts and scrutinise other EU bodies and institutions.

The EU is currently between a rock and a hard place concerning their “Green Deal” due to the current hardships being felt across Europe due to Covid.

Again I’m presuming, but knowing how these people work, Greta has been wheeled in as an “emotive” lever to get people to vote for the climate law despite the fact that it will have dramatic consequences for EU citizens.

A Nordhaus figure, speaking common sense using facts about reality was not needed.

Climate believer
Reply to  Climate believer
April 23, 2021 3:54 am

“Tackling climate change is an urgent challenge. The atmosphere is warming and this is affecting citizens already now. European citizens see climate change as a serious problem and want to see increased action”

This is typical Euro babble for their new Climate Law.

  • Tackling climate change is an urgent challenge, NO
  • The atmosphere is warming, THAT DEPENDS WHERE
  • this is affecting citizens already now, NO IT ISN’T
  • European citizens see climate change as a serious problem and want to see increased action, NO THEY DON’T AND ALL POLLS CONFIRM THAT
fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 2:45 am

The REAL question is, why would an UNEDUCATED child mouthpiece be invite to talk about ANYTHING, ANYWHERE.

Even maybe-once-intelligent fools like Nick seem to be TAKEN-IN by her rantings and childlike tantrums.

Somehow they seem to think she is important

Nick… you really need to look at what you are flapping around trying to support.

Get back to REALITY.. if your meds will let you. !

Lrp
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 3:29 am

Nick knows better and can do better, we know that, but he has to defend the narrative.

Richard Page
Reply to  Lrp
April 23, 2021 9:37 am

It’s obvious by now that he is being deliberately perverse and obtuse simply to be obstructive and argumentative. Nobody could be that stupid except by design.

fred250
Reply to  Richard Page
April 23, 2021 12:24 pm

I see Nick’s maybe-once-intelligence as being in severe decline.

He cannot let go of the massive errors in his past work life.

DMacKenzie
April 22, 2021 4:26 pm

When you root for your team, you need a mascot, why would you invite someone boringly knowledgeable ?

RickWill
April 22, 2021 6:02 pm

William Nordhaus showed in his Nobel lecture in Stockholm that the ‘economic optimum’ for climate policy is to allow 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100. Economically,

What utter conceit; to imply humans actual control Earths climate. Nordhaus is obviously a true believer!

John Bruce
April 22, 2021 6:24 pm

because uneducated drop out puppets bark to their tune

DHR
April 22, 2021 6:26 pm

A foolish article. CLINTEL makes it seem that an electric grid could actually be powered by windmills if only we build enough of them. That is utter nonsense. Just look at the State of Iowa. This State gets just over 40% of its electricity from windmills, or so it is reported. That may be true, but not during the summer when wind subsides to very low levels, nil at times during August. Then its coal and gas, just like everywhere else. It is simply ignorant to even suggest that the grid can be powered this way if only an impossibly high number of windmills are deployed each day.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  DHR
April 23, 2021 3:14 pm

+infinity

I’m always sick of these “how many wind mills/solar panels would it take to replace…”

The answer is “It doesn’t matter how many you build, they CANNOT REPLACE anything.”

george1st:)
April 22, 2021 7:03 pm

Fear is the main ingredient , Greta promotes fear .
Politicians love to save us from our fears .
As with Covid the politicians being our saviours get the most votes .

John F Hultquist
April 22, 2021 8:24 pm

 From Wikipedia: “<em>An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.</em>”

Our dear leaders – bless their little hearts – have accepted the CO2/Global Warming idea as an axiom.
William Nordhaus does not follow where this axiom leads; Greta Thunberg does.
Greta will receive greater media coverage than William and she will further embed the elites with what they think they know. There is no known way of changing this situation.

I hope I live long enough to see what does.

Analitik
April 22, 2021 9:16 pm

HOW DARE YOU?!!!!

Mike Dubrasich
April 22, 2021 9:32 pm

“… the ‘economic optimum’ for climate policy is to allow 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100.”

It’s not merely the economic optimum, it’s the biological optimum, too. Better for plants and animals, including humans — if it happens, which is doubtful. More likely the average global temperature will drop 3.5°C by 2100.

Either way, the largest effects will be at the poles with decreasing change at lower latitudes. Tropical regions will experience no temperature changes at all.

If the IPPC Worst Case Scenario occurs, Europe might get greener. In Canada average winter lows would go from -12°C to -6°C, summer highs from 21°C to 27°C (80°F). It would be a good thing.

In any case, there is nothing humanity can do to make global temps go up or down. No amount of political fiddling short of Nuclear Winter will alter the climate. Planet Earth is going to do what she does regardless of oil wells or wind mills. The tempest is in the teapot. Brussels is irrelevant, except for the sprouts.

Climate believer
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
April 23, 2021 5:19 am

Brussels is irrelevant”

To Nature yes, to us that have to abide by it’s diktats, not so.

spock
April 23, 2021 12:42 am

Why, or why is 1.5 degrees C the magic number? Are we doomed if its 1.51 C or 1.499 C? Why this cultish harping on this one number that will save the planet?

Can someone in the climate change cult please explain.

And what does 1.5C even mean when the Earth has such temperature extremes?

whiten
Reply to  spock
April 23, 2021 3:11 am

Outside the cult explanations.

1.5C number is a chosen number.
The higher affordable one,
in consideration of predicted temp due to AGW.

Any lower and that becomes an empty non horror AGW story.

Any higher and the risk of the “prediction” becoming
falsified due to a detrending or decoupling from reality increases considerably and quicker.

The 1.5C is the UN’s Paris agreement or accord “devine” number consisting as the achivable aim to have the world economically crippled…
and in the same time wholly justified.

Some thing same as with “rona”.

And the most hilarious thing there is that all this “saving the world by destroying it”, is based in the experimental sciency part,
“the models”, which actually do not do any lower than 2.6C, at the very lowest;
as according to the models, which are the very base of this stupidity,
“the warming is already locked and can’t be any lower than what is going to be.
The lower value there is approximately 2.6C,
and the most possible and reasonable according to models is approximately 3C.

I know is all a messy mesmerising stupidity.

well

cheers

Lrp
Reply to  whiten
April 23, 2021 3:32 am

Honestly, 1.5 degrees C doesn’t sound scary at all. What’s the fuss?

marty
April 23, 2021 12:46 am

Greta is a scared child who is prevented from recognizing the physical connections due to her mental handicap. It’s like a school of fish. They also swim after a brain-amputated fish.

Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 3:34 am

“….82,000 windmills a year! Where would you place them all?”

hmmm… how about one in the middle of the Roman Coliseum? One on top of the British parliament building? Lots of room in the neighbords of the very rich- and some built over the homes of the green fanatics? Lots of golf courses where many could be installed. All along the Riviera! Probably 3-4 in the middle of Lake Como. Several in the Vatican. A couple on top of the palace of Versailles. Lots of places! And how about all the grave yards? Room for thousands in them. There you go- I’ve solved the problem. :-}

Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 4:04 am

The scientists who live in their ivory tower laboratories constructing models and making predictions need to get out and live in the real world. We would currently welcome a 3.5°C temperature increase across Ireland. Having lived in a hot dry semi-desert area and seen how people and plants have thrived – with a reliable source of water – these scientist need to go and see and experience the “perceived threats.” Their fears are no different from a young child’s fear of the dark.

Last edited 3 months ago by Michael in Dublin
2hotel9
April 23, 2021 4:09 am

Because Saint Greta The Constipated spews the lies she is ordered to spew.

Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 4:10 am

Funny the same people are pushing Zero Carbon and Zero Covid?

Josie
April 23, 2021 4:23 am

But…. but… then Greta would be out of a job. Playing truant is hard work. Guess she qualifies for a generous Swedish disability allowance though.

I would love (though will not live to feel it but so would my kids) a warming of 3.5 degrees Celsius in 2100. But where is it? Colder than ever here.

Last edited 3 months ago by Josie
garboard
April 23, 2021 5:02 am

one thing I don’t get : Gretas mission is to stop fossil fuel use . there is only one major oil producer in Europe ; Norway . Gretas neighbor , with a huge fossil fuel industry which has allowed them to grow uber wealthy while rejecting the EU . and to pursue government subsidized whale slaughter . yet I have never heard greta say a single bad word about Norways fossil fuel industry . wouldn’t you think she might protest against next door Norway while traveling around the world to castigate everyone for their wealthy first world lifestyles ?

Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 6:47 am

From the article: “Economically, it is better to accept a certain amount of climate damage and to limit the cost of mitigation than the other way round: ambitious goals such as staying below 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees are extremely costly.”

Assuming that is even necessary.

The alarmists claim that the “hottest year evah!”, the year 2016, was 1.02C warmer than the average from 1880 to the present.

So, an increase of 0.5C from there would put the climate at the same temperature as was experienced during the 1930’s where Hansen says 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that would make it warmer than 2016 by that much since 1998 and 2016 are tied for the warmest year since the Early Twentieth Century according to the UAH Satellite chart.

Currently, the temperatures have cooled since 2016 by about 0.7C, so we are now 1.2C *cooler* than at the highpoint of 1934.

We have a long way to go to get back up to 1.5C above the average.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase, yet the temperatures are falling. Instead of heading higher after reaching the 2016 highpoint, the temperatues are heading lower. The alarmists keep telling us that any minute now the temperatures will turn back up and go off the chart. But will they? It doesn’t look like it to me.

Steve Z
April 23, 2021 9:04 am

If climate change activists were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they would be ardently pursuing the development of nuclear power, which has a much higher energy density than wind or solar power, particularly in Europe where sunshine is rare except in summer.

But “environmental” activists were frightened away from nuclear power starting in 1979. On March 16 of that year, the movie “The China Syndrome” (starring Hanoi Jane Fonda) was released, depicting a fictional meltdown of a nuclear power plant with catastrophic consequences. Twelve days later (on March 28, 1979), with many people having seen the movie, there was a real nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, whose consequences were well-contained and minimal, but the news media were quick to blow it out of proportion and consider Hanoi Jane a prophet, and she profited handsomely. There were even rock concerts in the early 1980’s to generate activism against “nuclear poison power” among young people.

These two events started a national movement against the construction of new nuclear plants in the USA, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what is now Ukraine reinforced the movement, since most Americans did not realize that Soviet safety regulations on nuclear power plants were much less stringent than those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the USA.

So when those Senate hearings were held in 1988 about global warming, public opinion in the USA had turned against nuclear power plants, and they were not considered a viable alternative to fossil fuel plants, due to “safety concerns”. Very few nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since 1979, despite the fact that there have been no accidents at existing nuclear plants in the USA in the 42 years since then.

The current fascination with Greta Thunberg shows that people who want to influence public opinion prefer using a young and ignorant person as a poster child for activism, to influence other young, ignorant people to follow them, since young people are more easily misled than more mature adults, and their votes can tip elections. For many young people, “if all my friends are saying something, it must be true”. Greta is to our times like the rock stars of the early 1980’s were to the anti-nuclear movement.

beau
April 23, 2021 9:16 am

liberals are emotionally driven with a spectacular inability to reason, so all that is done by them must appeal to emotion, not reason…the mob, not the thinker…the kneejerk reactor, not the reasoning individual.

because of these factors, all they do WORSENS, not improves, whatever it is they are acting on.

Founders1791
April 23, 2021 9:23 am

Life on Earth is vastly more at risk with cold versus hot temperatures and quibbling over minute variations of temperature during the puny existence of human life is a fools errand given the far more devastating impact of the planet’s axis to the sun when the next Ice Age will occur.

hooligan
April 23, 2021 9:34 am

Let’s see. EU politicians would rather listen to a mentally challenged teenager than credentialled experts. What does that tell you about EU politicians? It tells me that they are emotional chicken littles more interested in virtue signalling than formulating quality decisions. It also tells me that these politicians are growing morbidly obese, psychologically, feeding at the tax payers trough and are not accountable for their actions.

Barry Kromer
April 23, 2021 9:39 am

Why doesn’t Greta go lecture to China! They dump more carbon in the air than any other country.

Aboli
April 23, 2021 10:15 am

It’s about feelings and not about science.

%d bloggers like this: