The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewE. Michael Jones Archive
Greta Thunberg: Climate Change and Mental Illness
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The conventional narrative on climate change got a new lease on life when Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish environmental activist, arrived in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly in September. As if to lend heightened drama to her entrance, Greta arrived from her native Sweden not by plane but by sail boat, crossing the Atlantic at the height of hurricane season with her father to lessen their carbon footprint. The fact that the sailboat was in fact one of the Rothschild family’s racing yachts came out only after the fact, as did the fact that the entire crew along with Greta and her father were scheduled to fly back to Sweden after their stay in America, but these inconvenient truths exposing who was behind the agenda did little to diminish the drama surrounding her arrival.2

The main-stream media greeted Greta as the child Messiah of climate change. Influenced by all of the hype emanating from New York, the Church of Sweden, which was the state church until it got disestablished in 2000, re-tweeted their “Announcement!” of December 1, 2018, declaring that “Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg.”3

The Swedes had a long history of turning climate change into a sacred cause. In an article which dismissed the climate change hysteria surrounding Thunberg’s visit as a moral panic, retired MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen mentioned the crucial role which Swedes like Olaf Palme, the father of Swedish social engineering, played as early as the 1970s, when he served on the board of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.4 It was the IPCC’s predictions about carbon dioxide which played a crucial role in converting Greta’s mother to the climate change cause. Or as she put it:

Around 30 years ago, James Hansen stood before the US congress and explained why global warming wasn’t a myth. “We can say with 99 percent certainty that global warming is not caused by natural variations but rather by human releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” He declared on June 23, 1988.5

Missing from Ernman’s account is the fact that Gavin Schmidt:

Jim Hansen’s successor at NASA’s New York shop, GISS, has remarked that “general statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media.” He went on to say that it takes only a few seconds’ thought to realise that the popular perceptions that “global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time” is “nonsense.”6

Henrik Palmgren, founder and editor of Red Ice, documented Greta’s connection to Swedish political circles, calling her “a manufactured asset constructed by the very elites she claims to be fighting.”7 Her fame comes from the fact that she organized a school strike for climate on August 20, 2018, all by herself, or at least that was how it was portrayed in the main stream media. Missing from that account was any mention of Ingmar Rentzhog, director of the organization known as Climate Change: We Don’t Have Time, who just happened to be walking by the Swedish Parliament on the morning of August 20, 2018 and just happened to bump into Greta.8 Rentzhog was a graduate of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, who shared the stage at the Climate Parliament with Melania Ernman, who just happened to be Greta’s mother. Rentzhog had been informed of Greta’s protest a week before by another Swedish climate activist. Far from being a loner, Greta was the flower of what Henrik called “an incestuous circle of energy sector social democrats,” in addition to being the product of four generations of social engineering in Sweden.

ORDER IT NOW

She was also—perhaps because of that fact—mentally ill, a fact which prompted Fox News commentator Michael Knowles to claim that “the climate hysteria movement is not about science.” If it were about science, Knowles continued, “it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.”9 Knowles’ claim prompted a “visceral reaction” from liberal pundit Christopher Hahn, who abandoned his role as commentator and became instead a defender of the conventional climate narrative by portraying Knowles’ as “a grown man . . . attacking a child.”

“Shame on you, skinny boy,” Hahn shouted at Knowles. “She’s trying to save the planet because your president doesn’t believe in climate change. You are despicable for talking about her like that on national television and you should apologize to her right now.”

Fox News spared Knowles the effort by apologizing for him. In a statement to The Daily Beast, a spokesman for Fox News said, “The comment made by Michael Knowles who was a guest on The Story onight was disgraceful—we apologize to Greta Thunberg and to our viewers.”10 Fox News later told The Hollywood Reporter’s Jeremy Barr that it has no plans to book Knowles again as a guest.11

[…]

This is just an excerpt from Culture Wars Magazine, not the full article. To continue reading, purchase the November, 2019 edition of Culture Wars Magazine.

(Republished from Culture Wars by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Johan says:

    The good news is that Western society has evolved to the point that such ridiculous stories like the anthropomorphic climate change finds much resistance, disbelief and intelligent refutation. Authority does not have the power it historically has been able to exert, which is a sign of mental progress. The bad new is that the liars, the schemers and the credulous have more money and means, and that they cleverly target the most susceptible, the youngest and the adult ideological fanatics, and are able to do so. So the current situation is that power hungry authorities, like in history, can once more still have their ways. One could see it as a sort of test of the actual situation, rational man has emerged, his rationality has greatly increased, but putting the test en masse, the situation is still too young and brittle. Another thing to be learned from it is that power corrupts, churches, corporations, institutions, everywhere where there is great power, they are going along with the narrative.. A situation which should be food for contemplation in relation to the tendencies of globalism and scale enlarging, and the risks which comes along with it, now, and in the future. In other words, keep things small, govern as much as possible locally would seem a more wise approach.

    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
  2. Dumbo says:

    Oh. I thought E. Michael Jones would be a new blogger for Unz, which would be great, but I see not that it’s just republishing excerpts from his articles at Culture Wars. But interesting anyway.

    As for Greta, I kinda feel bad for her. She might regret all this in a few years. Early exposure to media/fame is rarely a good thing. She might end like so many child actors (although perhaps her social milieu right now is not as “toxic” as Hollywood)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  3. anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:

    EMJ + Henrik

  4. E. Michael Jones, HOW DARE YOU?!

  5. As Peak Stupidity reiterated in “Greta is Gettin’ Upset!”,

    How could it possibly get to this, in the world (not even at Peak Stupidity yet), when a significant share of the population acts like a 16 y/o girl has anything at all important to say to us about public policy?! Where did this girl come from? (I know, I know, across the Atlantic in a yacht, but I mean …)

    On the plus side of the ledger, young Greta Thunberg has turned off millions of potential human traffickers from any wild-eyed ideas to become the next Jeff Epstein.

  6. @Dumbo

    As for Greta, I kinda feel bad for her. She might regret all this in a few years.

    She will be subject to her country’s draft in 2021. Not draft registration, mind you, but the actual draft, which was resumed last year and now includes women.

    A lot of American men (all over 65 now) have said this is what made them grow up. Perhaps it will help Greta, too.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @RAZ
    , @Alden
  7. “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. 

    So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
    https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

    • Replies: @Hiram of Tyre
  8. Thank you Ron for republishing EMJ’s articles.

  9. Polar bears are doing fine …

    The REAL inconvenient truth: Polar bears thriving in spite of climate change, but saying this gets scientists fired
    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/473160-scientist-fired-polar-bears-starving-not-climate-change/

    So are walruses …

    You’ve been lied to: Walrus suicide NOT caused by climate change as Attenborough story quietly revised. What else is a lie?
    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/472795-walrus-suicide-climate-change-lies/

    And the Earth is getting greener …

    Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    The Global Warming — aka Climate Change — histeria/panic has its roots in the 1972 Limits to Growth (computer simulation) report of the Club of Rome.

    It’s nothing but a financial scam aimed at, and not limited to:

    • Diverting trillions (bonds, investments, taxes, subsidies, etc) into the “Green” Economy in order to “save” (read: continue keeping afloat) the currently bankrupt financial system.

    • Slow/thwart the growth of third world and developing countries. Fossil fuel is cheap. “Green” isn’t. The IMF/World Bank will always be ready to provide more debt.

    • Thwart the progress of the nuclear energy sector, especially thermonuclear (fusion).

    • Increase energy cost. Notice at how Germany instantly gave up their nuclear sector following the Fukushima “accident”. The cost of energy in Germany is also among the highest in the world. The same is wanted for the rest of the world.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  10. @james charles

    “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.

    So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
    https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

    Don’t confuse the scientific consensus (heavily lobbied and influenced) with science.

    Back in the days — think Ancient Egypt, the Mayans et al. — the ruling class had knowledge: astronomy. They knew when the sun/moon would go up and down, when an eclipse would happen, etc. Peasants, in awe, did what they were told.

    Thousands of years later — nothing has changed. The ruling class uses knowledge, distorts it (scientific consensus) and imposes it (media) on the plebs.

    Global Warming – aka Climate Change – is a natural phenomenon due to the Sun (and other astronomic influences) and its effects on Earth. Man made CO2 is minuscule in contribution.

    Since you brought up NASA; here is one of their study: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    • Replies: @james charles
  11. Sparkon says:
    @Hiram of Tyre

    • Thwart the progress of the nuclear energy sector, especially thermonuclear (fusion).

    • Increase energy cost. Notice at how Germany instantly gave up their nuclear sector following the Fukushima “accident”. The cost of energy in Germany is also among the highest in the world. The same is wanted for the rest of the world.

    Good comment except for these two bullet points about nuclear power.

    I don’t know why you’ve put quotation marks around accident in describing Fukushima. It was foolish of the Japanese to build some of their nuclear power plants along the Tohoku coast in a region known for powerful earthquakes and towering tsunamis.

    As far as I know, subsurface water is still flowing from the mountains, passing under the Fukushima Dai-ichi site, and making its way into the Pacific ocean. Additionally, TEPCO has been using fresh water to cool the three reactors that melted down, but has just about run out of storage space at the site. Consequently, the utility may be forced to dump this contaminated water — 1.1 million tons — into the Pacific ocean.

    If coal, “fossil fuels,” and CO₂ were not irrationally demonized because of the man-made runaway global warming scam, then we could burn all the coal we want, and most estimates reckon that we on Earth have enough coal to last for centuries.

    With all that coal, there is no need for nuclear power plants except to make material for nuclear bombs.

    Of course if you try to power modern civilization with outmoded, intermittent, unreliable energy sources like wind and solar, you’re going to spend an arm and a leg doing it, and end up freezing in the dark anyway.

    Speaking of fusion, any estimates on how much cash the U.S. has thrown down that money pit?

    But relax. The thorium reactor advocates should be along shortly to assure us that those mahvelous machines will be up and running to solve all our (man made) energy problems “real soon now.”

  12. Fact is that this hystrionic madness surrounding Greta and her BS assertion that “we” stole her childhood and all of the other rediculous claims propagated by her and her desciples , all of the hysteria would not have to to pass without the neurotic BO worshiping Germans promoting her and GS footing the bill.

    The subject of German lunacy, German “Besserwisserei” : German know-it-all ism being tabu , the German axiom of “Am deutschem Wesen soll die Welt genesen” and the origin of “Green” madness : “Grüneweltanschauung” the green worldview being subjects which nitwit American leftists will never allow to be approached as they view Germany to be their model of a perfect socialist society.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained_US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz performer.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  13. mhenry says:

    The lames, and now even Fox, have to apologize if a guest states an opinion opposing the enviro-whackos? Then they televise, and take the side of, Kamala and Tlaib falsely calling the U.S. Pres all sorts of despicable names? So they just alienated half the U.S. population, you know, those of us who think Greta’s marbles are rolling around.

  14. @Sparkon

    Yes the thorium reactor proponents will show up because nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels are.

    And molten salt reactors are a game changer when it comes to safety, since every nuclear reactor accident happened as the result of water as a coolant.

    China has a prototype, modeled after the Oak Ridge Experiment, due to come on line in 2020 and all indications are that it is on schedule. We shall see.

    It is not as if molten salt fission reactors have never been built, unlike fusion reactors. One was built at Oak Ridge in the early 60’s and went critical in 1965 and it ran for several years. Here is an video produced by Oak Ridge in 1969 explaining how it was built and that it worked and how much energy it produced.

    I guess you don’t think China can duplicate American technology when China has all the plans and even video to prove how to do it.

  15. Climate weather is unraveling at unprecedented speed as an uneducated and ignorant public plays more Twitter level games and swills industrial Kool-aid.

    Deniers will only wake up after the environment has collapsed and they are starving to death. It will be far too late for name calling very soon…

    • Agree: james charles
  16. Hibernian says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Drafting women is a sign of extreme cultural decline.

  17. @Sparkon

    Good comment except for these two bullet points about nuclear power.

    I don’t know why you’ve put quotation marks around accident in describing Fukushima. It was foolish of the Japanese to build some of their nuclear power plants along the Tohoku coast in a region known for powerful earthquakes and towering tsunamis.

    As far as I know, subsurface water is still flowing from the mountains, passing under the Fukushima Dai-ichi site, and making its way into the Pacific ocean. Additionally, TEPCO has been using fresh water to cool the three reactors that melted down, but has just about run out of storage space at the site. Consequently, the utility may be forced to dump this contaminated water — 1.1 million tons — into the Pacific ocean.

    If coal, “fossil fuels,” and CO₂ were not irrationally demonized because of the man-made runaway global warming scam, then we could burn all the coal we want, and most estimates reckon that we on Earth have enough coal to last for centuries.

    With all that coal, there is no need for nuclear power plants except to make material for nuclear bombs.

    Of course if you try to power modern civilization with outmoded, intermittent, unreliable energy sources like wind and solar, you’re going to spend an arm and a leg doing it, and end up freezing in the dark anyway.

    Speaking of fusion, any estimates on how much cash the U.S. has thrown down that money pit?

    But relax. The thorium reactor advocates should be along shortly to assure us that those mahvelous machines will be up and running to solve all our (man made) energy problems “real soon now.”

    Thank you and likewise, good comment.

    I wrote accident between quotation marks because, like Chernobyl, I believe Fukushima was an act of sabotage aimed at thwarting the usage and spread of nuclear energy. Looking at it from a geopolitical perspective, the overthrow of the Shah (who wanted to modernize Iran with a nuclear sector (which the Ayatollah Khomeini immediately shut down upon coming to power), Chernobyl (Soviet and French contracts to develop nations with the nuclear were all canceled) and Fukushima (that made Germany immediately drop its nuclear sector, just on time for the planned “Green” economy scam (note how Germany has now the highest cost per kWh in Europe and the world – something wanted for the rest of the world)) were all aligned to serve specific objectives. The nuclear would have hindered the booming oil industry of the 70s-80s and is today, along with coal, natural gas, etc, an obstacle to the “Green” scam. The (Malthusian) financial ruling class wants to save their bankrupt system and takes millions of lives in the process.

    I agree that we have enough coal and we may not need the nuclear but it remains – if one considers actual science, the truth and not he decades-long propagandist fear mongering (regurgitated by unscientific goons like Green Peace and the media) – that it is safe and virtually limitless. I understand how fusion may seem like a money pit but that it what it takes to eventually master it. We’re fare from it and it can only be achieved collectively – something Putin called for not long ago. Fusion should also break the barriers of space exploration (propulsion).

  18. Sad this little girl is so angry and bitter. Seems she would be much happier fixing her hair, playing with makeup and worrying over what to wear to the junior prom.

  19. bjondo says:

    soph on greta:

    version 1:


    version 2:


    not sure the difference. no sound.

    5ds

  20. @Sparkon

    It’s not as if thorium LFTRs and MSRs are suspect in terms of being able to deliver what they promise: as others have pointed out, the Oak Ridge Boys (the science-y ones, not the music-y ones) had a working prototype around the time I was still shitting my nappies[1].

    Sadly, thorium reactors have a significant ‘downside’ that has stalled their development in the West: they don’t produce byproducts that can be used in nuclear weapons.

    The really big promise of thorium is that it can be de-networked; scale the plant down to household size (or ‘mesh block’ size:~50 houses) and the inefficiencies of ‘long-line’ transmission networks are eliminated or reduced.

    I am adamantly against government funded energy research for a variety of reasons, and the refusal to fund basic research at Oak Ridge is a classic example. The scum of the parasite classes funded research that is congruent with their megalomania, but has fuck-all to do with trying to take the “long view” and work for the ‘common good’.

    Imagine 50 years of research into Thorium reactors that was as well-funded as research into nuclear weapons. We would have home reactors by now, and the energy used to run household appliances would be virtually free.

    What would that mean though? It would mean that well-connected large-scale power generation and distribution companies would make less money. In countries with sales taxes on energy (e.g., VAT in the UK; GST in Australia; state sales taxes in the US), a reduction in household expenditure on energy represents a massive drain on the indirect tax take. (They like indirect taxes on things with highly inelastic demand: a demand elasticity < 1 means that tax revenue increases over a very large range of tax rates).

    FWIW: that's the reason government has spent tens of billions of dollars funding the Cult of Thermaggeddon. They want the gullible Malthusian-Millenarians to be the vanguard that rams through increases in indirect taxes on energy use.

    I had surmised that Thunberg was a completely-manufactured 'rebel': nobody reaches that level of prominence by the age of 16. And of course I was not remotely surprised that her entourage claims she's an Ass-burger-sperger: they understand that the broader public associates Asparagus Syndrome with being a genius.

    I wonder if the parents are actually 'True Believers' as opposed to cynical scumbags. If they're true believers it makes it highly likely that little Gretchen[*] is on a cocktail of psychotropics.

    At the risk of sounding callous, I view that as an unambiguously good thing… because it means that in a couple of years she will be completely off her gourd, and we won't have to listen to her anymore.

    [*] I know her name's not Gretchen. The 'mistake' is meant to give the impression that it's not worth bothering to find out what her name is, even if it's on the same page. IOW: she's not worth hitting "page up" a few times.

    [1] Who’s to say I ever stopped shitting them?

  21. @Johan

    There were always sceptical people and informed people who questioned these hysterical narratives about impending climate driven doom. Back before the “New Ice Age” of the seventies I grew up learning about and the impending frozen wasteland we’d all soon be trying to eke out a living in. I cannot for the life of me remember if that was our fault or not, but it came and went and those kids like myself who grew up in fear of it, who survived the “New Ice Age” became much more wary of buying into whatever the latest craze in the mainstream of climate academia might be. I seem to recall the ozone layer was receding so rapidly we were all going to be toast pretty soon too. That was in the eighties… I think. Well we didn’t all die of UV radiation as it turned out. We did alter some chemical practises which may or may not have had anything to do with it. I doubt it frankly because the population is much bigger today and whilst many countries have banned the use of the chemicals responsible for ozone layer depletion many developing countries use them still and in far greater amounts than the developed countries used to.

    I just think each generation gets stung once and then the majority get over it. However there are a lot of daft people, people with short memories or limited reasoning of their own who will always buy into the latest and forget the preceding history. The young people are as gullible and easily led as always…by their desire to be independent ironically… and there is a leftist activist class that really doesn’t care or even always know what it is campaigning for so long as it is anti-something and well attended. They want action, attention and any drugs that are hopefully going around. This climate shit is perennial as the grass.

  22. With a few obvious exceptions, the level of idiocy shown in the comments to this article – and in the article itself – is quite staggering.

    I’m in Australia. The Great Barrier Reef – largest reef system in the world by far – has experienced repeated, unprecedented beachings in this century, indubitably related to water temperature. Most of the reef has been severely damaged and as temperatures continue to rise, is unlikely to recover.

    The forests of Australia – mainly along the eastern seaboard – are another unique and biodiverse feature of this continent. In recent years, there have been repeated fires on a scale and frequency not seen before.

    In line with IPCC predictions, the average temperature rise increase, still relatively small at present, is beginning to change the landscape. As this continues we will lose thousands of plant and vertebrate species and many times more invertebrates. We’re losing a treasure store of biological diversity that cannot be restored later, once gone.

    This gloomy story could be repeated for most other continents. The climate is demonstrably changing, all the major scientific bodies concur and those who question this reality, citing the disinformation churned out by a dying industry cynically seeking to exploit what should already be stranded assets – I’m sorry, but you are becoming annoyingly dangerous.

    The Pope (thanks heavens!) gets this, but Mr Jones doesn’t. Well, he’s entitled to his bogan opinions, even though he clearly wouldn’t pass an Ecology 101 exam.

    But as he concentrates on things he does know something about, such as how to sneer at an idealistic young girl and denigrate her efforts and concerns, sane people can draw a rational conclusion as to how seriously we should take the strident rants of this arrogant and foolish old man.

  23. @Syd Walker

    ” Idealistic young girl” : HA HA HA HA HA

    I know you will not be able to comprehend this statement but anyway: The neurotic hysterical Germans worship her and have elevated her to sainthood within the church of climate , and one of my golden rules being : whatever the Teutons find good is bad, period.

    German political wisdom having displayed it’s insight and validity many times over in past years : “Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen”

    AJM

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
    , @Hotzenplotz
  24. @james charles

    Science denier.

    I don’t deny science, I am critical of the highly biased and lobbied “scientific” consensus.

    For the record, science actually shows that global warming is 99%+ natural. The other 1%- is man made.

    • Replies: @james charles
  25. @Authenticjazzman

    Well, authenticjazzman, I have little idea what you’re talking about. You seem to delight in obscure commentary, so that’s probably by design.

    Let me start with an indisputable fact:

    Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old girl, managed to deliver the following message to the US Congress:
    “I don’t want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists. And I want you to unite behind the science. Then I want you to take real action.”

    That is an achievement of note, whatever one may think about Greta, those who helped her etc etc

    Moreover, in those few words she speaks for me, and for many, many millions of others who want a sustainable future without the kind of catastrophic collapses in human population that would be the inevitable consequence of billions living ever-more unsustainably within a finite planetary environment.

    To repeat the key point: Greta is asking people to listen to the scientists. Not to Greta, but to the scientists. You, it seems, prefer to snigger at her and her cultural background.

    It’s ironic in a way. This same “snigger at the messenger” approach is the characteristic tactic used by media talking heads and their followers to brush aside concerns about the veracity of the official narrative of the JFK assassination, 9/11, the ‘Holocaust’ etc. They won’t (and probably can’t) counter the actual case developed by scholars such as Laurent Guyenot, so they denigrate the very idea of considering alternative narratives as peddling in “conspiracy theories”. In the case of many scholars, such as David Irving, they also unleash extreme personal vilification and harassment.

    When I’ve tried, over the years, to interest some old friends in the environment movement in topics such as 9/11, they typically roll their eyes and tell me to stop obsessing about “conspiracy theories”. Why? Certainly not because they know much at all about 9/11 etc. They don’t. It’s very often because they’ve stumbled across the work/websites of people such as David Icke, Alex Jones, Mike Rivero and Jeff Rense. These loud and opinionated personalities are often (not always) useful sources of info and insights re 9/11 etc, but their dogmatic and very crude dismissal of mainstream climate science renders them dangerous fools in the eyes of my environmentally-educated friends.

    One intellectual has been wise enough – and sufficiently audacious – to bridge this odd divide (I can’t help but think, sometimes, it’s a divide that’s been deliberately moulded by the folk Israel Shamir calls ‘The Masters of Discourse’). The man who has bridged the divide is David Ray Griffin. Not only has Griffin written numerous important books showing beyond reasonable doubt the falsity of the official 9/11 narrative. He’s also written a compelling, carefully-argued book alerting his readers to the severity of the climate crisis.

    I encourage anyone sceptical about the official saga of 9/11 – who imagines, for whatever reason, that climate change is also a grand hoax – to read Griffin’s book about climate change. After that, if you remain convinced that you know better than he does on that topic, please do say so and give cogent reasons. Publish your critique and send a copy to Griffin. I’m sure he’d like to know what’s he’s got wrong.

    But if you can’t be bothered to read Griffin’s book about climate change then please stick to discussing topics you actually know something about. There are many components to humanity’s current crisis. The environmental crisis is among them – and it’s not a game or simulation. The entire planetary environment is at stake, something so crucially important that it clearly should not be the plaything of smart alecs showing off their debating skills. Please be sure you’re truly aware of the issues before you occupy the pulpit and risk spreading even more disinformation in a society already riddled with confusion.

  26. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Syd Walker

    Hi Syd.

    Australia has Eucalypt forests.
    These things drop huge amounts of flammable leaves, bark, and limbs.
    Unless this debris is burned off at least once a year, the fuel loads become immense, and lightning strikes do the rest.
    Short answer: Neglect burn off, get bushfires.
    The Great Barrier Reef?
    It looks as if small sections become dormant from time to time, then spring back into color.
    The Reef is 1,200 miles long, so it’s nothing to worry about.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  27. @Hiram of Tyre

    “For the record, science actually shows that global warming is 99%+ natural. The other 1%- is man made.”

    S.D.

  28. @anon

    Hello ‘anon’

    You over-simplify and get things wrong from your first sentence.

    Australia has a VARIETY of forests. Many forest types are dominated by eucalypts; others, such as a various rainforest types, are not. Within eucalypt forests there’s also a wide diversity, from dense canopy wet eucalypts with very tall trees, adapted to extremely infrequent burns, to dry sclerophyll and woodlands that are naturally adapted to more frequent fires that typically leave the crowns of mature trees intact.

    When someone like you, anon, comes along with a simplistic one-liner one-size-fits-all policy to be applied to all Australian forests – and especially when that policy is to burn everywhere every single year (!!!) – I know the person hiding behind the handle really hasn’t a clue about this topic. Your insane policy would destroy all Australia’s rainforests in a single year and wreak a lot more havoc besides. Get real!

    Now, to the Great Barrier Reef. Yes, it is very big. Elephants are big too. That doesn’t stop elephants from getting sick or dying.

    Here’s a 2016 headline in the Scientific American: “Bleaching Hits 93 Percent of the Great Barrier Reef”. Here’s a 2019 headline in the Guardian “Great Barrier Reef suffers 89% collapse in new coral after bleaching events” and another in the NYT: “The Great Barrier Reef Was Seen as ‘Too Big to Fail.’ A Study Suggests It Isn’t.”

    Now, I guess you may say [1] they’re all lying (on the orders of the Illuminati?), or [b] the reef is bouncing back fast (it isn’t), or [3] this has happened often before (not in recorded human history, it hasn’t). You may have more creative arguments. I don’t know and I’m getting past caring.

    To quote a feisty young woman who’s trying desperately to wake up people like you – “how dare you!”. How dare you tell me not to worry about the reef like a patronising father soothing a neurotic child?! You know nothing about me, my level or knowledge or understanding of this subject matter. Clearly it’s YOU who need to adjust your weird ideas to be in accord with objective reality.

    You should START worrying, anon – because you and your many clones have slowed down action that could have started decades ago to head off the climate crisis and other environmental disasters that are happening right in front of our eyes.

    There’s a lot more that could be said on this topic. I’ll leave it there for now. I’m only participating here because I respect Ron Unz’s intellect and the unique platform for free debate that he’s created. I can’t bear to see it used for the dissemination of dangerous piffle on such an important topic as the future of the biosphere. At the very least, I won’t let every feckless, stupid comment about environmental matters go unchallenged.

  29. Marc Morano has a nice set of CDs and book that gives a good summary of the “climate change” arguments.
    I have read hundreds of papers and see that those who like to curse and scream at us non believers often work in jobs that pay them well to continue with the stories about how man and not the sun and natural cycles is wreaking havoc on earth. Al Gore’s climate narrative is a multibillion dollar industry.
    The CIA says to “follow the money”. This view holds up well especially with the climate narrative weaved by the leftists and spread by their buds in the mainstream media (gotta have some platform to spread our leftism).

    Leftists believe we non leftists are all stupid, and like the screamer who attacked Authentic Jazz Man they cannot control themselves. There are thousands of scientists all across the world who do not agree with the Al Gore gang. But the mainstream media controls the culture and the leftists know the value of propaganda and creating fear. The MM knows that the masses are easily swayed .

    At Khe Sanh in 67-68 was a forward observer named Eddie who had a Stanford -Binet IQ score of 153. It takes high intelligence to plot coordinates and adjust fires especially when tens of thousands are digging tunnels close to you. The point here is that there are a lot of bright people in areas that the left love to target.

    If we don’t buy the radical leftist climate change narrative then we are stupid deniers. That means that there are thousands of scientists from places like MIT and hundreds of other groups that are scoffed at by the intolerant leftists who scream at us “deniers”.
    Syd Walker – you like to smear people because it is not face to face but that is what leftists are good at- attacking people from a safe distance. You are so intolerant you do not even consider what others come up with. You see to have a very inflated ego.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  30. @Authenticjazzman

    the German axiom of “Am deutschem Wesen soll die Welt genesen”

    The citation is wrong and the interpretation of Geibel’s poem is wrong as well.

    Rather sad for someone of your intelligence.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  31. @byrresheim

    ” The citation is wrong” : Just how can a citation be “wrong” ? It is what it is, period.

    “And the interpretation of Geibel’s poem is wrong as well” : I have no idea of what you are talking about here as nowhere in my post did I address or interpret “Geibel’s poem”.

    “Rather sad for someone of your intelligence” : Yeah especially sad for folks who are unable to comprehend my statements.

    AJM

  32. @Lost american

    Hi there Mr American (or should I call you Lost?)

    Yes, I’m such a wimp I post comments under my own name.

    You claim I “do not even consider what others come up with”. That’s not correct.

    Ever since the mid- to late-1980s I’ve been very alarmed about the prospect of human-induced rapid climate change on a global scale (combined with its evil twin, a significant drop in oceanic pH). During that time I’ve seen and heard thousands of claims made in support of the propositions that (a) there’s really nothing to worry about and (b) even if there is, there’s nothing we can do to improve the situation.

    Throughout, I’ve actually hoped that evidence would emerge showing that sceptics such as you are correct and there really is no cause for alarm. I’d like that very much, I want future generations to inherit a healthy planetary environment.

    Unfortunately, the accumulation of evidence has been in the other direction. Whereas in the late 1980s there were huge uncertainties and unknowns, many of these have now dissipated; that’s why IPCC reports have got firmer and more urgent in their increasingly desperate calls for remedial action.

    The other thing that’s changed in the last 30 years is that back then it was very hard work proposing expenditure on renewables such as wind and solar power. In the 1980s and 1990s, using clean renewables (with the major exception of hydro) was clearly much more expensive than fossil fuel power generation.

    The amazing and exciting thing is that those investments paid off! Thanks to the cumulative effect of increased R & D and economies of scale, solar and wind power are now highly competitive on price. Few new coal powered plants are being built; smart money is all going into renewables.

    It really is feasible, within a decade or two, to transform our economies to low-carbon emissions, sustainable energy systems that also don’t cause air pollution (a major health hazard in many parts of the world).

    The transformation to clean renewable energy is a win-win-win solution. It beats me why some lost Americans (and lost Australians too, unfortunately) prefer to keep on losing on all fronts – and cheerfully risk bringing the whole planet down with their stubborn determination to prove they aren’t wrong.

    I could provide a pamphlet full of references, but one is especially relevant to this readership. Perhaps Ron Unz could get Griffin’s permission to republish it here? It should trigger debate.

    9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?
    By David Ray Griffin
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm

    • Replies: @Patricus
  33. Anonymous[225] • Disclaimer says:

    The Child Slaves Who Created Your Electric Car

    August 19, 2017 Edmondo Burr

    Thousands of African child slaves bear the brunt of the drive for clean energy.

    Children as young as four are working in squalid conditions deep inside cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to help power electric cars and modern electronic devises such as smartphones, tablets and laptops that depend on lithium-ion batteries…

    https://newspunch.com/child-slaves-electric-car/

    People who drive electric cars are accessories to this child slavery. They are worse than the most ruthless and oppressive slave owners in the American South in the late 18th century. Meanwhile these 30-something AWFLs (affluent white female liberal) drive their electric cars with their #Resist bumper stickers to get their Starbucks latte, go to their yoga, and then on to their six-figure non-profit job and feel superior and virtuous. They have no idea what human monsters they are.* In future trials they should be charged with materially supporting child slavery and genocide.

    *And they can’t claim invincible ignorance because they’ve abandoned the faith which affords them this understanding and mercy.

  34. Patricus says:
    @Syd Walker

    “Few coal burning plants are being built”? Every week there are new ones in China and India.

    And wind and solar power are not competitive in price. The wind stops blowing and nightfall ends solar power. There were windmills long ago and early cars were all electric. Hydrocarbons changed the world for the better.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  35. Don’t you people have anything better to do than criticize a misguided 16 year old boy? Think about how dumb you were when you were 16.

  36. @Syd Walker

    “The climate is demonstrably changing…”

    Yep, for four and a half billion years now. Takes a lot of hubris to think that man has this under his control.

  37. @Patricus

    You are correct, Patricus. My wording was sloppy. Installed coal plant capacity continues to rise, but the pipeline of new power plants is slowing dramatically.

    Investing in new coal-fired power capacity at this time in history is like cladding your children’s playroom with asbestos. There was a time when it was acceptable to say “well, I didn’t know any better”, but that time has long past.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/seven-charts-show-why-the-iea-thinks-coal-investment-has-already-peaked

    Incidentally, for those of you who, like Peter Sellers, “like to watch”, I strongly recommend this video in which Dan Britt puts the current concern about climate change in long-term geological perspective. It’s a few years old but still highly pertinent.

    A showing of Dan Britt’s lecture is a useful way to help some folk understand that the “gotcha moment” arguments they’ve been picking up from smooth talking climate sceptics are not decisive blows against the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change as they’ve been told. The “gotcha moments” are, when accurate, mainly an artefact of reducing a highly complex topic to “gotcha moment” arguments.

    Yes, the earth has been warmer at times in the distant past (and cooler).
    Yes, carbon dioxide has been a lot higher (and lower)
    Yes, sea level has been higher (and lower)
    Yes, the earth has bounced back (eventually) from mass extinctions.

    So what? Only a fool would take comfort from those factoids without taking time to appreciate their true significance..

    The real question is whether we’re willing to take huge, identified gambles with a complex planetary system we only partially understand, when the worst case scenario is extinction for our entire species as well as a huge proportion of our fellow life forms.

    My plea to the “sceptics” who think they know better than the vast majority of climate scientists: Please stop puerile attacks on people who are trying to save humanity from utter disaster, even if you can’t be bothered to do anything yourselves!

    • Replies: @Patricus
  38. @Authenticjazzman

    “and one of my golden rules being : whatever the Teutons find good is bad, period.“

    Are you really such a moron? Must be.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  39. Ahphui says:
    @Syd Walker

    Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is an example of a super resilient biofilm; if some species die off due to too hot/ too cold, too wet / too dry, other species quickly fill the gap. Like sharks and cockroaches, the GBR will be around long after homo sapiens has gone.
    Australia’s growing spate of terrible summer bushfires are caused by Syd’s greenie pals who won’t allow citizens to burn off excess fuel wood in the winters.

  40. Patricus says:
    @Syd Walker

    I believe there has been some warming of the climate since about 1850. Before then there were 500 years of cooling. Overall the climate has been warming for tens of thousands of years, since the massive glaciers started melting. We are in a fragile position on planet earth. Several simultaneous volcanoes could darken the skies for a year or two leading to crop failures all over the world. The end is nigh–eventually.

    The CO2 produced by burning hydrocarbons has to have some warming effect. Given the tiny percentage in the atmosphere due to burning these fuels any effect is probably miniscule. 400 parts per million seems like a large number but it is in fact 4 hundreths of one percent by weight.

    The danger of dismantling our considerable energy systems will far exceed any benefits from wind and solar power. If temperatures increase a degree or two it is not the end of the world. Might have to build at the beaches a few hundred yards inland. The buildings currently close to the shore line will have to be replaced by that time anyway. Predictions of 10 or 15 degree temperature increases are dubious.

    Our great great grandchildren will probably live on a planet pretty much like it is now. Our planet is much like it was hundreds of years ago.

    Predicting the end of the world has been a permanent human passtime. It used to be religious nuts and beatniks. Now social scientists are urging us to “Repent and don the hair shirts”. As for “saving the world” Thank you for your service. You should probably find a hobby like golf and forget about the legends of catastrophe.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  41. @Hotzenplotz

    ” Are you really such a moron”

    Yep I am such a moron, and for yourself a “deutscher Besserwisser” : “Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen”.
    Look we non-teutonic Dummköpfe, we know that you Germans are the superior ones who know everything better than anyone else, and we have resigned ourselve to be inferior to you Krauts til the end of times.

    AJM

  42. “Our planet is much like it was hundreds of years ago.”

    You must be using “much like” in the broadest possible sense. There have been HUGE changes in vegetation, biodiversity and pollution levels before we even consider the atmosphere. But like many of your statements, it’s too vague to falsify. “Much like” can mean “much like anything you like it to mean”.

    “If temperatures increase a degree or two it is not the end of the world.”

    A degree or two is the temperature rise we’ve already had. Now the roller-coaster starts to accelerate, according to all the modelling. As Dan Britt explains, sea level rise won’t be linear. It has started slowly, but gets faster.

    “The end of the world” is not a term I’ve used in this discussion. You must be thinking of religious fundamentalists.

    “Our great great grandchildren will probably live on a planet pretty much like it is now.”

    So you say, hiding behind your anonymous handle like a true intellectual hero. Excuse me if I prefer paying attention to real scientists who publish their data and conclusions.

  43. RAZ says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Did a wiki search on Sweden conscription and it looks like most who come of age are not actually conscripted. so it seems unlikely she will ever serve in the army, at least in a traditional army role. Maybe she is conscripted and becomes a gov’t rep to travel around the world to climate conferences.

  44. Alden says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I doubt Greta will pass the mental health test.

  45. Ignatius says:

    Arguing about climate change/global warming is attacking a stawn man, it is just another front for eugenics and pushing the overpopulation myth. The rationale is that man is destroying the world so we must destroy human life to prevent further destruction.

    Also, Greta does in fact suffer from mental illness and this is according to her mother. To acknowledge this is not something that anyone should be compelled to apologize for. This poor girl is being used and in return is receiving an abundance of attention, if not idol worship, for her involvement. She turned not getting the attention she wanted at home into the ultimate ego stroke.

  46. Grown adults still moaning on and on about one idealistic teenager?

    You guys need help. Fortunately, help IS available..

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All E. Michael Jones Comments via RSS