Greta Thunberg fury: Arch-rival launches devastating vow to crush teen activist's argument

GRETA THUNBERG's arch-rival Naomi Seibt has brutally challenged the teen activist to "debate me" after mocking her stance on climate change and urging her to stop "spreading panic, but offer hope".

Ms Seibt, known throughout the world as the anti-Greta Thunberg of climate change, made the demand after she was snubbed by the EU despite Ms Thunberg being allowed to push her point across to MEPs about the myths of global warming. The 19-year-old German has pleaded with institutions to listen to the other side of the debate, which focuses on how the gloomy outlook on carbon emissions is addressed throughout the media. Ms Seibt, who has previously claimed rival Ms Thunberg has spread "panic around climate change when she should be offering hope", agrees carbon dioxide - a by-product from the use of fossil fuels - does affect climate change.

However, she argues that the real damage it causes is considerably lower than the likes of Ms Thunberg allege.

And after seeing Ms Thunberg invited to talk to EU leaders earlier this year - despite coronavirus lockdown conditions being imposed - Ms Seibt wanted a chance to discuss the bill and other arrangements that could be made.

When asked by Express.co.uk whether she expected to ever be asked to speak to the EU, she said: “I don’t think so because they are so immersed in their beliefs that they don’t want anyone from the outside to come in and talk to them.

"Even if I tried to reach out to them I don’t think they would allow me to speak and that’s why I accept every opportunity for an interview or to speak because I would love to talk to someone on the other side.

"And if anybody is willing to debate me, even if Greta is willing to debate me, I’m willing to come any time and debate them on the issue.”

Her comments came amid the announcement that Brussels intended to create new legislation in order to eliminate carbon emissions to become the world's first "carbon neutral continent".

The Green Deal - the name of the EU’s proposal - was created in a bid to curb panic and is the basis of a new growth strategy for those in the bloc.

The law was unveiled by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and makes it essential that the EU balances emissions and the removal of greenhouse gases.

At the time, Ms Thunberg also took aim at the plan, saying by having such a long term goal, the EU had “surrendered” to climate change.

In a letter to leaders, Greta and 33 other activists added: “It means giving up. “We don’t just need goals for 2030 or 2050. “We, above all, need them for 2020 and every following month and year to come.”

And for once it appeared Greta and Ms Seibt agreed - the deal was nothing to get excited about.

Ms Seibt added: “I think that is just ridiculous because the effect the C02 emissions can have is absolutely insignificant and the consequences of controlling society in that way and only relying on alternative energy sources is not reliable.

“Like solar power and wind power that is not reliable or sustainable it’s just ridiculous.

“We don’t even have nuclear power to switch to, so right now in the lockdown of the coronavirus, I’m a bit worried because what happens if we experience a blackout and don’t have any electricity.

“So the economic consequences are ludicrous.

“Something that I do find hypocritical is that usually in my experience, it’s the people on the side of climate change that says we need to help the poor, need to fight for climate justice and social justice.”

SOURCE 





Made with Wind Power

As the completely unhinged push for increasing amounts of renewable energy continues, more and more companies are proudly printing that they are "Made with Wind Power" on their packaging.

These companies, no company, has any way of knowing that the electricity they are using comes directly from wind energy. Do you know how they feel they have the right to put these meaningless little pictures on their packages? Well, we asked...

Two things:

1. They pay a PREMIUM price for electricity.
2. They still need COAL.

They pay for this "wind powered" designation. The wind does not blow 100% of the time and they also produce energy at a fraction of what Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear do.

To better understand why they cannot possibly know where their energy is actually coming from, we refer to Ohm's Law.

This is directly from MISO (the gird). The same grid that General Converting, Inc. gets their electricity from.


Again, two things:

1. Electricity passes through all possible paths but there is more flow through paths with less resistance.

2. Once a fuel source has added their energy to the grid, it becomes part of the fuel mix. MISO does not keep the fuel sources separate. They cannot and do not say, "Wind power to this building, Nuclear to this home, Coal to this factory." That is a magical world and it is not reality.

SOURCE 





How climate change alarmists are actually endangering the planet

“You’ll die of old age, I’ll die of climate change,” reads a typical poster held by teenagers in climate rallies across the world. The media, activists and even politicians are unabashedly indulging in climate alarmism, stoking the fears of millions.

Books on the impending implosion of civilization due to climate change line shelves in bookstores across the world. Media outlets have changed the name of climate change, calling it the “climate emergency” or even “climate breakdown.” The cover of Time magazine tells us: “Be worried. Be very worried.”

Unsurprisingly, this causes most of us to brood about a future that we’re being told will be calamitous. Children are growing up terrified, with six in ten American teenagers now afraid of climate change. The scaremongering has reached such a crescendo that now half the world’s population really believes climate change will likely end the human race.

This alarmism is not only false but morally unjust. It leads us to make poor decisions based on fear, when the world not only has gotten better, but will be even better over the century.

Remember that the world today is much better in almost every measurable way. In 1900, the average life expectancy was 32. Today, it has more than doubled to 72. The disparity in health between the rich and poor has reduced, the world is much more literate, child labor has been dropping and we are living in one of the most peaceful times in history. Indoor air pollution, previously the biggest environmental killer, has halved since 1990. Four out of five people were extremely poor in 1900 and today — despite the intense impact of the coronavirus — less than one in five is.

Alarmist is not only fake, it's unjust. Rising sea levels is a trumped up charge.

The UN Climate Panel’s middle-of-the-road estimate for the end of the century is that we will be even better off. There will be virtually no one left in extreme poverty, everyone will be much better educated, and the average income per person in the world will be 450 percent of what it is today. Yet, because climate is a real challenge, it will leave us less well off. Based on three decades of studies, the UN and the world’s only Nobel climate economist estimate global warming will reduce the 21st century welfare increase from 450 percent to “only” 434 percent of today’s income.

Clearly, this is a problem. But a 3.6 percent reduction by the end of the century is not an existential threat. Resorting to panic and hysteria is unlikely to help. Indeed, one of the UN Climate Panel authors warned against this: “We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.”

How is it possible that the media’s portrayal of the impacts of climate change are so vastly removed from reality? Because simple, moderating factors are left out. Last year, a paper generated lots of headlines and clicks claiming that future sea-level rise would flood 187 million people.

But it was spectacularly misleading. It had to assume no one would adapt over the next 80 years. Actually, the research showed that as people obviously adapt, just 0.3 million people will have to move. The scary number is 600 times too large.

This trumped-up rhetoric leads us to make unrealistic promises. We have mostly failed our climate promises for the last thirty years, and we are poised to fail our Paris climate promises by 2030 as well. It also leads nations to make exorbitantly expensive promises of carbon neutrality by 2050, something that will be more costly than permanent coronavirus shutdowns. Only New Zealand has asked for an independent assessment of the cost of its climate policy. It will cost 16 percent of its GDP each and every year by 2050, making it more costly than the entire New Zealand public expenditures for education, health, environment, police, defense, social protection, etc.

Rhetoric from the left inflates non-threatening issues. Here, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg attends a committee on the environment.
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has helped fuel the belief among young people that they will die of climate change.EPA
Spending 16 percent of a nation’s income to solve a smaller part of a 3.6 percent problem is bad policy. Moreover, it is unlikely to happen. We need smarter solutions.

Climate economic studies convincingly show that one of the best investments to fix climate in the medium run is to invest heavily in green R&D. Because research is cheap, we can explore many avenues, from better renewables and battery storage, to carbon capture and fusion, fission, carbon-neutral oil-producing algae, and more. If we can innovate on the price of green energy down below that of fossil fuels, everyone will switch — not just well-meaning rich people, but also most Chinese, Indians and Africans. The models show that each dollar invested in green energy R&D will avoid eleven dollars of climate damage.

It’s imperative that we shift our focus to such smart efforts — efforts that have been shown throughout history to work. We should tackle climate smartly, and also make sure that a monomaniacal focus on climate change doesn’t crowd out urgent investments in the many other, crucially important issues of health, education, jobs and nutrition.

SOURCE 




Cancel Culture Dominates Climate Research, Canceling the Scientific Method

Contrary to popular perception, “cancel culture,” in which people or their opinions are shamed and shut out of the discussion when they don’t conform to whatever those shouting the loudest or rioting in the streets believe, isn’t a new phenomenon.

For more than two decades, politically connected climate scientists have been leading the cancel culture movement.

These researchers abandoned the pursuit of knowledge and human progress for the pursuit of political power to impose their vision of how society should be shaped. Rather than seeking an understanding of the world through the use of the scientific method and its reliance upon data and empirical falsification, they’ve promoted the political notion of consensus as to how knowledge is obtained, and comity, rather than experimentation, as to how progress is made.

They “cancel” through making personal attacks, denial of funding, removing “opponents” from positions, and suppressing the research of any researcher or analyst who dares to disagree with the so-called consensus position that humans are causing catastrophic climate change.

Honest scientists who cling to the quaint notion that climate change theory should be tested against data are deemed retrograde or climate deniers, whose views aren’t worthy of being considered in these days of post-modern climate science. Indeed, many cancelers advocate for imprisoning climate skeptics.

Let’s look at just a couple of examples of in which academic conferences and media headlines have given consensus, cancel culture science pride of place over the facts when it comes to alarming climate claims.

Based solely on the unsupported assertions of consensus climate researchers, the media has been flooded with stories claiming human-caused climate change is causing famine and starvation.

In late June 2020, Cornell Alliance for Science claimed farmers in sub-Saharan Africa were desperate for new farm technologies and crops to fight a climate change-induced decline in crop production that the Alliance claimed was “driving millions [of Africans] into hunger.” Yet data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization shows cereal (staple) food crop production across southern Africa has grown substantially, and fairly steadily, since at least the 1960s. Moreover, the past 10 years have provided the 10 highest crop yields in sub-Saharan African history.

Dozens of similarly false claims linking supposed anthropogenic climate change to an agricultural apocalypse were covered by outlets such as Google News, GQ, the New Republic, and Roll Call over the past couple of months. Yet, had the journalists writing the stories showed a little bit of investigative initiative, they could have easily discovered hundreds of field experiments and studies collected on CO2 Science, much of which was distilled or summarized in the exhaustive report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II.”

These reports show crop yields have been booming and hunger and malnutrition declining as, and in large part because, carbon dioxide concentrations have been rising.

Following the Democratic playbook, per Rahm Emanuel, of “never letting a crisis go to waste,” radical climate alarmists have also manipulated science to assert climate change is making pandemics more frequent and deadlier. Dozens of media outlets, including Jurist Legal, the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and Time magazine published articles during the midst of the CCP virus pandemic claiming human-caused climate change, if not already making the incidences of pandemics more likely, would make them more frequent and more deadly in the future.

For instance, an article in Pro Publica blatantly lied when it stated, “Vector-borne diseases—those carried by insects like mosquitoes and ticks and transferred in the blood of infected people—are also on the rise as warming weather and erratic precipitation vastly expand the geographic regions vulnerable to contagion.”

The body of scientific literature, as detailed in Chapter Four of the second volume of “Climate Change Reconsidered II,” shows there is no factual basis for this claim.

Studies from Africa to England and Wales, to North and South America, to Thailand and beyond, find that any link between human climate change and the spread of malaria, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, and other vector-borne diseases is either grossly overstated or outright false.

Indeed, historically, colder periods are linked to famine, as crops fail, and to the rapid spread of pandemics, such as the bubonic plague, which ran rampant during the little ice age. By contrast, pandemics typically wane, though they don’t disappear, and hunger and malnutrition decline sharply during relatively warm periods.

In one study published in The Lancet in 2015, researchers examining health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—found that cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700 percent more people than hot weather.

Commenting on the study in a 2017 New York Times article, columnist Jane Brody wrote, “Over time, as global temperatures rise, milder winter temperatures are likely to result in fewer cold-related deaths, a benefit that could outweigh a smaller rise in heat-caused mortality.”

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Sadly, climate researchers would cancel Einstein if he said that today.

There is an old adage in legal circles, “When the law is on your side, pound the law; when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when neither are on your side, pound the table.” For three decades, climate alarmists have been pounding the table. They hold rallies carrying placards and wearing T-shirts that say “Believe Science,” even as their actions betray science.

Too many climate scientists have become sideshow hucksters hoping to sell the general public the dangerous notion that giving government experts greater control over our lives will allow us to control the weather, and make the world a utopia. Ask the people in Cuba, Hong Kong, North Korea, or Venezuela how that’s working out for them.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************