Climate activist Greta Thunberg has a lot going for her.
She’s old enough to have a strong opinion, brave enough to voice it strongly to the masses, articulate and passionate enough to be effective, yet young enough and – dare I say it – disabled enough to be effectively shielded from criticism.
In other words, the 16-year-old Swedish activist, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, is the perfect propaganda face of the left’s weird climate-change cult. And there’s no denying that they’re using her to maximum, politically devastating effect.
Consider leftist and media reaction to President Donald Trump’s reaction to Thunberg’s becoming the youngest person to win Time’s “Person of the Year.”
“So ridiculous,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”
At which point the tried-but-true ‘Donald Trump Is A Big Mean Bully’ narrative predictably reached fever pitch.
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin and virtually every other non-conservative media figure accused the president of essentially “bullying a child.”
The reaction on Twitter was just as fierce. Liberal filmmaker Rob Reiner called Thunberg a “passionate caring champion for the survival of our planet,” and Trump a “Soulless Pathologically Lying Malignant Narcissist who cheats to win and pisses on our Constitution and the Rule of Law.”
Star Trek “resistance” clown George Takei wrote, “So…kids stop being shielded from adult bullies the minute they stand up for something. Got it.”
I could fill up a whole other column or three with the liberal tears, but you get the picture. However, although Trump’s tweet undeniably gave his critics an opening, it wasn’t entirely beyond the pale.
The president probably tweeted that because Thunberg appears, well, angry… pretty much all the time, especially when she’s up on stage wagging her finger at world leaders.
And giving her a “Person of the Year” award IS more than a little “ridiculous.” Instead of using what is likely mostly-natural and cyclical slight global temperature changes as a vehicle to seize power for the left, Thunberg SHOULD be in school with other kids, or even, yes, watching a “good old fashioned movie with a friend.”
But instead, she’s out there, in the public eye, giving speeches to world leaders and becoming Time’s “Person of the Year.”
And yet, we aren’t supposed to criticize her because she is young and has a disability. To borrow a pithy phrase from Takei – “Got it.”
But first lady Melania Trump didn’t “get it.” Instead, she issued a statement defending her husband, sort of, and drawing a key distinction between her son, Barron, and Thunberg: “Their son is not an activist who travels the globe giving speeches. He is a 13-year-old who wants and deserves privacy.”
The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty wrote an entire op-ed slamming Mrs. Trump for using what she considered a “classic dodge that bullies can be relied to fall back on when they abuse someone who is smaller and weaker than they are.”
The “dodge,” according to Tumulty, was “He (or she) asked for it.”
Trump wasn’t, Tumulty opined, “airing his differences with her over the issue of climate change.” Instead, “He was calling attention to her demeanor. Thunberg has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Those who have this condition often do not express their emotions as others do.”
While that may be true, it does beg the question: Why aren’t leftists then speaking about against Thunberg being thrust onto the world stage as she has been?
This young woman is, after all, a person with a disability, who does not “express their emotions as others do.” Is she not?
Isn’t taking advantage of her passionate, emotional speeches in order to seize power for the Left in effect taking advantage of this teenager’s disability?
Finally, isn’t that just a bit, uh, manipulative?
Of course, leftists are perfectly content to take advantage of Thunberg, and her disability, for their own ends, which belies any false outrage they pretend to have at Trump’s comment or, for that matter, any other punch-back from the right.
Speaking of Thunberg’s influence on the climate change debate in September, Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined that the Swedish activist has become “a kind of human shield.”
“You stole my childhood,” Carlson sardonically said after playing a clip of her now-famous UN speech. “Do what I want you to do or else you are evil. How do you respond to statements like that? The truth is, you can’t respond and of course that’s the point. When you use children to demand power, they become a kind of human shield. You can hide safely behind them. No one can criticize you. But who would do something that unscrupulous? Anyone who would do that is someone who would literally do anything to seize control, and that’s exactly what they are doing.”
But fight back we must, or the left could eventually succeed in using the wacky climate cult that Thunberg has become the face of to implement their Communist ‘utopia.’
And if that happens, we may ALL someday find ourselves “against the wall.”
Read more at Townhall
She’s a bratty, empty-headed, ignorant creep. What’s worse though are those who take her serious. But I suppose it’s to be suspected. Higher education today teaches our youth to be self-loathing, politically correct, wimps.
Life is too short. It’s annoying enough having to deal with the supposedly mature adults. It has more to do with “the madness of crowds”.
It’s not difficult to show that CO2, although steadily increasing, has little to do with our current warming. It’s also easy to show that the Medieval Warming Period (1.000 years-ago) was global and at least as warm as it is now, and this can be demonstrated without controversial models or dubious statistical machinations. Alarmists, rather than recognizing the value of historical data (specifically, earlier global warming information), have for unexplained reasons based their computer projections on a cherry-picked short-term correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature from 1975 to the 2000s. (That warming period is bracketed by conflicting data, namely a global cooling between 1945 and 1975 as CO2 was steadily increasing, and by the IPCC acknowledgement that there was a temperature “hiatus” in the 2000s while CO2 continued to increase.)
The only other indication favoring CO2 as causing warming is related to experiments showing that when CO2 is added to a closed container, the container temperature supposedly increases somewhat. However, the open atmosphere is hardly a closed container. Satellites detect heat escaping to space and closed containers do not experience planetary-level feedbacks.
The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably DENY that the Medieval Warming Period was global and likely warmer than it is now. The alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region during the MWP is too well documented!) Alarmists apparently take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain any of these earlier global warmings. Their computer models depend heavily on increasing CO2 level, even more so on yet another ASSUMPTION – that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase supposedly brought on by the increase in CO2. They also apparently ignore the fact that the supposed heating influence of CO2 diminishes very quickly as CO2 level increases and CO2 has already doubled 8 times.
The global temperature increase during the MWP, as well as during the earlier global warmings, was not related to CO2 because there was no increase in CO2 during those periods. The problem for alarmists is that it becomes obvious that perhaps our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph. Mann recently lost a Canadian suit he brought against Dr. Tim Ball years ago. Ball had apparently implied that some of Mann’s work was fraudulent. Mann succeeded in delaying dismissal of that suit by agreeing to provide his “work”, on or before the revised termination date, but apparently did not supply his data by the extended date. Man has been ordered to pay Ball’s $700k in legal expenses. (How does this suit differ from a legal harassment suit?) Mann claims some of his work is proprietary but there are a few others who claim to have matched Mann’s hockey stick. Presumably their “work” is available, so what’s proprietary about Mann’s work? Why should anyone believe a supposed scientist’s work if the basis for his conclusions are not provided, especially when the results are so controversial? The top IPCC paleoclimatologist agrees that Mann’s hockey stick papers are wrong!
https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/top-ipccs-paleoclimatologist-agrees.html
Without bothering to argue further about the dubious (and controversial) process employed by Mann to generate his hockey stick graph it is completely debunked by actual data which demonstrates that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing directly about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who continue to DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. The link below provides, among other things, an MWP global study. It also rebuts the various alarmist defensive “talking points”.
https://principia-scientific.org/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/
The question remains. Why in the world did the alarmists choose CO2 as the culprit when there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever, even over geologic periods when CO2 was 10 to 20 times higher, had any impact on our planet’s temperature? There was obviously some uncertainty, including immediate strong skepticism voiced by credible researchers about Mann’s process. Mann’s claims were also at odds with various existing peer-reviewed studies. Phil Jones, one of the prominent alarmist early players, publicly stated that if the MWP was global and as warm as now, then that was a “different ballgame”. Nonetheless, alarmists decided to deny (or ignore) earlier data and instead opt to blame human activity. That position pretty much necessitates alarmist denial that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf
It’s obvious now, if not then, that a more thorough investigation of the earlier global warmings was necessary, particularly the MWP, before resorting to speculation about CO2.
Some time ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist and his associates, offered a theory which makes use of the historical data. Svensmark’s theory proposes that sun activity modulates the level of a relatively steady stream of cosmic rays intent on penetrating the lower atmosphere. (CERN certified some time ago that cosmic rays may influence the level of cloud cover.) Until very recently we have, for some time, been experiencing a high level of sun activity. During such an active period the level of cloud coverage drops because fewer cosmic rays penetrate the solar wind in the lower atmosphere. With less cloud cover more sun energy reaches the earth surface so it becomes warmer. However, a very low level of sun activity appears to now be underway. If the sun remains inactive for a significant period Svensmark’s theory predicts more cloud cover, hence more sun energy deflected back to space and therefore a cooler earth. CO2 plays no role in Svensmark’s theory.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/12/03/geologist-dr-don-easterbrooks-new-book-on-solar-climate-link-is-out-it-is-unequivocally-clear-that-climate-changes-large-small-are-driven-by-fluctuations-of-the-suns-magnetic-field/#comment-4712506794
Whether or not Svensmark’s theory holds up, it is apparent that historical data deserves serious attention. If earlier global warmings cannot be explained why should anyone believe speculation about future climate? Since CO2 increase was the only possible link between human activity and global warming, it appears that human activity (apart from its impact on Urban Heat Islands) plays no part in global warming. The issue about increasing CO2 should be left to such disciplines as botanists and health researchers rather than climatologists.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/global-warming-for-dummies-a24928b51ca9
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
https://youtu.be/rvrsA0XlYGg (<–Svenmark’s video presentation of his theor
Weaponizing children is nothing new in the arsenal of guerrilla warfare. She deserves no immunity from accountability or criticism. She’s a mouthpiece for a scam hellbent on global totalitarianism-a mouthpiece having served it’s purpose is discarded.
The point that I take from this is that the promoters of the CAGW idea are again pushing their agenda whilst staying well away from discussion of data, methods and impact of their “solutions”. In other words a classic scam!
It is so often notable that “liberal Lefties” are anything but liberal. UK Election had the Liberal Democrats showing their illiberal undemocratic colours by openly demanding that Brexit for which we in UK voted be cancelled. They lost their Leader as a result. Greta Thonberg indulges Jungian shadow projection all the time, onto world leaders, politics, industry, all of us, while holding herself and her mission as pure goodness. “The price of constant virtue is perpetual irritability” (Jung). She looks, like her admirers at the splinter in the eye of her brothers, but not at the wooden plank in her own. Nor does she look at her background in successful high living standards Scandinavia. She appeals to sentimentality and the idea that children are all innocent victims. Also the media, where ignorance is their bliss: money and sales.
Also stupid enough not to question her own passions. Obvious that she has a phobia about plane travel – calls it environmental activism. Obviously hates having to be an invisible one of a crowd in school – calls it strike for climate and drops out once she gets a better offer that fits her craving for prestige. Overweening ego, no internal checks or self-questioning. Her handlers will live to regret what they have created. If she manages to stay out of jail, she’ll become the 21st century Hitler.
To say its the left the ones who are promoting the phoney climate change is a big mistake; It’s to perpectuate the error of thinking that a left and a right exist, exactly what our Talmudic elites want, to divide people [divide & conquer]. World agendas are today unfortunately supported by governments, both on the left and “conservatives”, otherwise how can one explain that a “conservative” Trump is financing the LGBT agenda? How to explain that “conservative” David Cameron forced his own MP’s to vote to legalise homosexual marriage in the UK? How to explain a “conservative” Theresa May who gave 200 million pounds to the homosexual agenda….abroad? It’s the same with climate change, with the exception of two or three leaders who oppose it, but not because they are on ‘the right’. If you want to fully understand what I’m trying to say then you need to read former insider Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy & Hope” in which he explains how a small world elite has taken power over nations by owning “national banks” and buying or bribing politicians.
Of course climate change is a pure communist/pagan Agenda, out of the UN Agenda 21 on Sustainable Development and it’s “2030 Goals! But that doesn’t mean only communist governments are promoting it; You see, jewish communism has been very successful in the West by masking it under other guises, like liberalism, humanism and feminism. [all cultural marxism] .
And I scratch my head in unbelief in how sites like this one haven’t keep things simple and call things by their names – why aren’t these bloggers using the one simple fact that demolishes all the lies of climate change: that weather weapons exist since at least the 50’s, technologies such as Haarp and Chemtrails. Don’t people know that microwave weapons can manipulate the weather? As Chemtrails do with its ‘cloud seeding’, also called aerosols….all called “Geo-engineering”! Example? “1976 United Nations Weather Weapons Treaty”!
Are you familiar with Occam’s razor?
Well, if you were afflicted with Ass Burgers (or is it Ass Boogers?), you would probably go around scowling and making a fool of yourself, too.
Using children, especially those like Greta, is despicable and illustrates for anyone with eyes to see, and a brain to think how desperate the power and money lusting lefties really are. There was a time when champions for those less able to defend themselves and for the impoverished many, spoke out and fought for those causes and not for any monetary gain or a means to gain powerful position. Such a man was Gerald Massey. Praise given him in 1895 should be remembered and read by all – http://pc93.tripod.com/gmppm.htm
The New York Pravda(Times)Washington Compost Fake News Network(CNN)Slime(Time)Magazine and its Slime for Kids(Time For Kids)and the gap between the M.S. Media and the American People gets wider each and every day
Absolutely Yes
As Greta is angry all the time and has the hubris to assume that she is 100% right in everything, Trump was absolutely correct about Anger Management and her relaxing a bit and being a teenager.
Can’t really understand why folks accuse Donald Trump of particularly picking on Greta? His cultivated rich-man, powerful-man, they-all-serve-me mentality is indiscriminate in its bullying: he treats all women, children, people of color, foreigners, citizens without a billion, without a condo in his hotels, without a nuclear weapon and or anyone below him, all the same. The privilege of being POTUS. Greta must have a persecution complex if she thinks he singled out her.
Trump’s shtick is working for America. The Latin word for Left is sinistra. Yep, left is the wrong way.