Greta Thunberg: False Prophet of the Children's Crusade

MikaelYosef

Jedi Master
So many people praise the UN. My hair stands on edge when I hear UN praise and environmental change, global warming, sustainability, green/energy saving in the same phrase.

I believe I'm on the same side as most here towards my feeling about the false prophet. But it's possible I have a contradictory feel about some aspects - particularly the push for green energy. And like all my posts, I am open to be corrected.

To me, the idea of green energy, which uses the natural elements of our planet (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) is appealing for a few reasons. Firstly, it's abundant; infinite from a human lifetime's perspective and theoretically free (if installation and maintenance were free). Secondly if not yet, could eventually become advanced enough, that it's clean. That is, no polluted air to breathe in, and/or less degradation to the natural environment via less open cut mining and sea drilling. Thirdly, it's allows for comparatively quiet operations - including modes of transport that currently use combustion engines. If there was a choice between dirty and clean, quiet and noisy, expensive and cheap, I would pick the best of each of those options.

If the argument (from the false prophet and supporters) is misguided, but the outcome is favorable (to everyone else), is it worth biting the tongue?

It's not lost on me either that for the world to have gotten to an advanced enough state, to be arguing about fossil fuels and global warming, we needed the things being argued against to advance us to a technological level that allows it to be. I'm not so sure the leftist protesters understand the irony, or fundamentally, the physical requirement.
 

manitoban

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Perhaps rather than the big lie, then just one of many lies. Just like "There is a program for everyone" as the C's once said, then there is also a lie for everyone. There are lies for those who hate the Russians or the Chinese or Iranians or Muslims or Christians or Jews. There are lies for those wishing to believe in Big Pharma, GMO, the MSM, the food pyramid, Postmodernism, Darwinism, LGBT++, Freedom and democracy and on and on, and as we have discovered here through the work of Laura and this network, the truth is in the details. The lies intersect each other and form a tangled web.

It hurts to discover that we have been believing and perhaps even promoting lies and for many it is so much easier to stay asleep. Hey you are even supported by the MSM and authoritative figures to continue to believe the lies, so why become an outcast by looking into 'conspiracy' theories? Like 'Cypher' in the first Matrix movie, most would prefer to go back to sleep and remember nothing of that discomforting truth. For those on the path of disentangling from the lies, alarm clocks as Gurdjieff mentioned has to go off every so often so that entropy and sleep doesn't overtake us.

Very true! And I think all the lies, (and the above mentioned probably doesn't even cover a fraction of them) are layer upon layer upon layer, so deep and buried that the digging and research required to untangle this mess is pretty much beyond the capabilities of the average person, who has to spend all their time working just to keep a roof above their heads.

It is so much easier to stay asleep, and for some it is due to social pressure and not wanting to be labelled as a conspiracy nut, but for others I suspect at some level deep down they have a sense that there is something terribly, terribly wrong which they can't bear to face. Hiding their head in the sand is the way they are protecting themselves from facing the awful truth that everything we have been taught is a lie.
 

flashgordonv

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I believe I'm on the same side as most here towards my feeling about the false prophet. But it's possible I have a contradictory feel about some aspects - particularly the push for green energy. And like all my posts, I am open to be corrected.

To me, the idea of green energy, which uses the natural elements of our planet (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) is appealing for a few reasons. Firstly, it's abundant; infinite from a human lifetime's perspective and theoretically free (if installation and maintenance were free). Secondly if not yet, could eventually become advanced enough, that it's clean. That is, no polluted air to breathe in, and/or less degradation to the natural environment via less open cut mining and sea drilling. Thirdly, it's allows for comparatively quiet operations - including modes of transport that currently use combustion engines. If there was a choice between dirty and clean, quiet and noisy, expensive and cheap, I would pick the best of each of those options.
MikeJoseph82, the first thing to do is to research the reality of this supposedly free green energy. Fundamentally, we are talking about solar power and wind power. First point to make is solar cells are full of toxic chemicals and based on actual usage figures only a short lifespan. Originally these things were touted to have a 20-25 year life, but many panels are failing in as few as 5 years and more generically around 10 years. They also suffer a slow degradation in performance over time. So big problem, how to dispose of them after they die. Second on an industrial level, they require huge amounts of space and we have been seeing in the EU and Asia sites where hundreds of hectares of trees are cleared to make way for solar farms. Makes no sense. Third, they only operate intermittently, when the sun is shining. Rain, clouds, and night time all stop them working. Wait I hear you say, lets use batteries to collect excess power and to run the grid when they are not working. Well, to date the biggest tesla battery so far manufactured is installed in South Australia, at a cost of some millions. It only sustains the grid for 4 minutes before it is exhausted. The reality is that solar panels work OK in a domestic environment, but even then, don't provide sufficient power to run everything in a home long term.

Then there are the wonders of wind turbines. First, you can't make these things without fossil fuel - large quantities of steel, fibreglass, concrete etc are required to make them, huge cranes to install them, oils and grease to lubricate them. Short lifetime and then the problem of what to do with the fiberglass blades. Then there are the issues of ELF waves, perpetual noise and the ability of these monstrosities to be the primary killer of the earth's birds of prey, the apex predators of the bird world. NExt issue, is that they operate in a rather narrow wind speed range. Too slow, blades don;t turn, too fast the turbine has to be shut down to protect the mechanism and to prevent spikes in the grid.

So while wind and sun may be abundant, (maybe not so much when the solar minimum strikes and the cold sets in), our ability to harness that in an efficient, environmentally friendly manner is just not here.

IF we then move to consider electric vehicles, then the same sort of issues arise. Production depends on availability of rare earth minerals, the vehicles are full of plastic to make them light (no fossil fuels, no plastic); range is severely reduced in the cold; they are expensive; calculations suggest that if the majority of peopler ina city moved to EVs, the grid would crash, unless everybody only charged their cars using overnight charging. Then, what happens when the power is off, as happened in California recently. No fit for use, not green, and only affordable if the government subsidies their sale and purchase.

There are tons of articles on SOTT and a number of threads here on the forum. Some judicious use of the search function should help you draw some different conclusions to those you currently are entertaining,
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
To me, the idea of green energy, which uses the natural elements of our planet (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) is appealing for a few reasons. Firstly, it's abundant; infinite from a human lifetime's perspective and theoretically free (if installation and maintenance were free).

I can understand your feeling, because the idea of clean energy really does sound nice, and without looking into the details, harnessing wind and solar kind of makes sense, which is the reason it so accepted. But the devil IS in the details.

Wind is a mess in particular, see this thread:


You also may want to read this article, the section about renewables in particular:


Secondly if not yet, could eventually become advanced enough, that it's clean.

The problem is that people, if they even admit to the truth that renewables don't work right now, often make the argument that "one day, it will work" - but why build them all over the place if that time has not come yet? There are actually good reasons why it won't work anytime soon, if ever: first, they spend huge amounts of money on battery research for decades now (highly subsidized in many places), with little results in terms of high-capacity storage. Yes, batteries got awesome in the process, but only for small-scale applications, and using lots of resources. Second, wind power is extremely efficient already (as in the efficiency of the turbines, blades etc.), but this is not the problem - the problem is the unreliable wind. Similar story for solar.

So nope, renewables won't save the day - they just waste resources, make people sick, and are not even remotely capable of powering our civilization.
 

Hello H2O

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If the argument (from the false prophet and supporters) is misguided, but the outcome is favorable (to everyone else), is it worth biting the tongue?

You could say that about pretty much all the current movements, Me Too, LBGTx, BLM, etc, but the thing is, when these are studied carefully, they are not what they are made out to be. They are all about control. And they are built upon lies. They are intended to deceive.
 

isparnid

Jedi Master
When Putin questions the human role in climate change. article in french - google translate below

The Russian president believes that the change in the global climate could simply “depend on processes in the Universe” but "Doing nothing is not a solution either" .

The Russian president believes that the change in the global climate could simply “depend on processes in the Universe”.
This is not going to please the self-proclaimed ecologists who guarantee the well-being of the planet. Contrary to all the dominant theories, Vladimir Putin questioned the human origin of climate change, reports in particular Le Point . For the Russian president, the cause may be simply natural.
"Doing nothing is not a solution either"
“No one knows the causes of global climate change. We know that our Earth has experienced periods of warming and cooling, and this may depend on processes in the Universe, " said the Kremlin resident before adding: " A small change in the angle of rotation of the Earth around of the Sun can lead - and has already led in the past - the planet to serious, colossal changes of climate with dramatic consequences » . For Vladimir Putin, "assessing the influence that contemporary humanity can have" on the climate is "very difficult, even impossible . " However, the Russian president takes the subject seriously. "Doing nothing is not a solution either, and on this point I agree with my colleagues [heads of state]. We must do our utmost to ensure that the climate does not change dramatically, "he warned, reaffirming his country's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and respecting Paris climate agreement.

Especially since Russia is particularly exposed to this change. “It is a very serious process for us. […] Whole cities are built on permafrost [a soil whose temperature remains below 0 ° C for at least two consecutive years, note], imagine the consequences " in the event of massive melting, he argued .
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
This report is from 5 days ago, apparently the U.N.'s big push to get States and major Countries on the band wagon didn't pan out too well. Like being a NATO member, each Country would have to contribute financially to a fund - that would be used for environmental safety. The elites would have their hands - all over it and use the funds to prop up their own private business interests! It's easy to take risks, when you're using someone else's money.

'Total disconnect': Voices from marathon Madrid climate summit
A woman carries her luggage past a sign of the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid, Spain, December 14, 2019. REUTERS/Nacho Doce
A U.N. climate summit closed on Sunday with major states snubbing calls for tougher action to combat global warming, prompting sharp criticism from smaller countries and environmental activists.

Anger erupts at U.N. climate summit as major economies resist bold action
Major economies resisted calls for bolder climate commitments as a U.N. summit in Madrid limped toward a delayed conclusion
on Saturday, dimming hopes that nations will act in time to stop rising temperatures devastating people and the natural world.

Frustrated with climate talks, activists dump manure outside Madrid summit
Green activists dumped horse manure and staged a mock hanging outside the venue of a U.N. climate summit in Madrid on Saturday, airing their frustration at the failure of world leaders to take meaningful action against global warming.

Major states snub calls for climate action as U.N. summit wraps up
A handful of major states resisted pressure on Sunday to ramp up efforts to combat global warming as a U.N. climate summit ground to a close, angering smaller countries and a growing protest movement that is pushing for emergency action.

Vast majority of countries want more ambition on climate: U.N. official
The great majority of countries at ongoing U.N. climate talks want a final text that pushes for more ambitious commitments, a senior official said, hours after the circulation of a draft that was widely criticized as too weak. (Not sound or specific legal doctrine - but generalized wording that can be used as loop-holes.)

Fate of global climate action 'in the balance' as U.N. talks go down to wire
Big polluting countries faced last-ditch pressure from smaller nations to show serious commitment to fighting climate change as negotiators battled into the early hours of Saturday to salvage a result from a fraught U.N. summit in Madrid.


Some of the regulations imposed by Climate Change environmental activities is cutting emissions - involving money which could be used more appropriately in maintenance and operating expenses. Here's one example ...

Ship industry proposes $5 billion research fund to help cut emissions
FILE PHOTO: Container ship RDO Concord sails through the Suez Canal as Egypt celebrates the 150th anniversary of the canal opening in Ismailia, Egypt November 17, 2019. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany
Shipping associations have proposed creating a research fund with $5 billion raised by the industry to develop technology to help the sector meet U.N. targets on cutting emissions. ( Those costs are then passed on to the consumer, in higher prices for commodities?)

My guess ... Greta was marketed and promoted to create public pressure to push Countries to accept the UN's Climate proposal?

I need a break, says globetrotting Greta
Climate change activist Greta Thunberg speaks during a Fridays for Future protest in Turin, Italy December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane
Tireless teenage activist Greta Thunberg has been crisscrossing the globe by car, train and boat - but not plane - to demand action on climate change. But now even she needs a rest.
 

MikaelYosef

Jedi Master
There are tons of articles on SOTT and a number of threads here on the forum. Some judicious use of the search function should help you draw some different conclusions to those you currently are entertaining,
So nope, renewables won't save the day - they just waste resources, make people sick, and are not even remotely capable of powering our civilization.
You could say that about pretty much all the current movements, Me Too, LBGTx, BLM, etc, but the thing is, when these are studied carefully, they are not what they are made out to be. They are all about control. And they are built upon lies. They are intended to deceive.


I appreciate the responses to my questioning. I've had time to reflect on them, my way of thinking as well as from alternate perspectives, and have re-read through the provided links as well as some other peer-reviewed literature. It's not my intention to derail the thread but I respectfully disagree with a few points.

There are some assumptions that the world population will remain static, or continue to increase - there is no guarantee that either of these will happen. There is also an assumption that the most obvious and visual forms of the current 'green' energy are all that there is and ever will be. All there is is lessons - just because a lesson is not appropriate for one person doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from taking it. Without creativity, progress stalls for everyone and I personally choose to support creation and an element of targeted positivism over definitive and defeatist statements.

While I disagree with one section of the forum, I agree with the majority of others and will focus my thoughts and energy towards them.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
While I disagree with one section of the forum, I agree with the majority of others and will focus my thoughts and energy towards them.

@MikeJoseph82 ,

I think you may be choosing too soon about deciding some posts are "defeatist statements".

I don't think most of us are against creativity or working for a "New World". Our technologies are far behind what the PTB allow us to know. I think some have pointed out the weaknesses of what is being called renewable or green energy systems but that does not mean we don't want or need improvement.

As for narrowing your sources of information, the Cs don't recommend "limiting" sources of information.

Session 5 October 1994:
Q: (L) The Bible says that these gods said that they were afraid that man would now take hold of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. What does this mean? Why did the eating of this fruit make god afraid?

A: Did not.

Q: (L) What was the fruit of the tree of life?

A: Limitation.

Q: (L) How can the fruit of the tree of eternal life be limitation?

A: Conceptually limited.

Q: (L) I want you to know that this does not make a whole lot of sense.

A: Yes it does. Think carefully.

Q: (L) Was the god who walked in the garden who warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was that the original creator god? i.e.
the good guy?

A: No.

Q: (L) Who was that god who ordered them not to eat of this tree?

A: Complicated. Laura you are missing the obvious.

Q: (L) In what sense would the fruit of the tree of life be limiting?

A: Believing that one source contains all knowledge is contradicting reality.

Making things black vs white/good vs evil is "limiting".
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
It's not my intention to derail the thread but I respectfully disagree with a few points.

There are some assumptions that the world population will remain static, or continue to increase - there is no guarantee that either of these will happen. There is also an assumption that the most obvious and visual forms of the current 'green' energy are all that there is and ever will be. All there is is lessons - just because a lesson is not appropriate for one person doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from taking it. Without creativity, progress stalls for everyone and I personally choose to support creation and an element of targeted positivism over definitive and defeatist statements.

Disagreements are often good, and in this your points are noted. However, and please correct my assumptions in looking at what you posit - if this is what you might be thinking:

Regarding world populations - staying the same or increasing, from the green side infused with the Malthusians of old and the newly converted, the move is to, almost openly now, vastly reduce world populations (they use climate as the button that people can get behind and push while not understanding it might be them who is reduced). World populations indeed have an effect, which is more one of utilizing space and the movement of people and supplies than over population. Its good planning. Over population is just a fear button played over and over (obviously cities compound the effects) without thinking of how best to distribute populations that allow them more space, land and viable community networking.

It is an old problem and one that has enforced population congestion rather than what is possible.

Not many would disagree that new forms of energy that (and you bring this up in a post above) assures non detrimental pollution, reduces noise levels and can be provided without excessive environmental manufacturing toxic waste, is to be strived for. The environmental movement of old (although small) had good focus on pollution (chemical, biological, atmospheric and radioactive et cetera) and they were hindered by the PTB and also later they had effect in making things more efficient, including scrubbing processes in energy and manufacturing in many places as awareness levels increased, including in areas of land reclamation et cetera. It has all being far from perfect, and much has been derailed by the new environmental movement/NGO's who focus on the current themes while receiving buckets of corporate and government cash (e.g. of the many environmentalists I know today, lost to them are chemicals/toxins (which their new green energy is pregnant with) proper agriculture that reduce soil depletion and the reliance upon chemical herbicides and pesticides and the realities of oil that so far are vital in most processes, and forget radioactivity as the silence of events like Fukushima has been deafening).

One of the current themes is greenwashing corporate giants, and if you have had opportunity to have watched this at work, the slight of hand is staggering. Which brings up the current CO2 nonsense that plays into the corporate image on many levels rather than real stewardship. And stewardship in many areas has been glossed over and forgotten, or it has been replaced with green gloss (solar, wind...) as a global panacea that plays well to the general public. The public, without good data, has not the foggiest idea of the ineffective disparity between energy sources and the hidden toxins and capitalization required to provide for this new broad based energy illusion.

As for lessons, you have pointed out that "just because a lesson is not appropriate for one person doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from taking it" - well agreed, and yet in context here a lesson requires good data that is not obfuscated for people to learn from, and the machine in place doing the work of obfuscation is not helpful for people to learn a lesson, and if the lesson learned results in chaos against the lesson learned by others through better data, then there should be a duty to help prevent that realization from using false data, osit.

I grew up around environmentalism - stewardship being pivotal, and people who either affected positive changes or had potential. Take Patrick Moore, who I don't agree on all his points, focused on atomic testing, whale exploitation, Love Canal, PCP's - toxins before the time of GMO's and the explosion of chemical and pharmaceutical industrialization. What did he see other than a ponerization process that usurped what should have been maintained. And aside from him there was another man of great potential, the geneticist David Suzuki who had the ear of the public and initially spoke of these matters, abandoned his trained roots for a green agenda in sync with other corporate and NGO characters, and thus he has helped sway a whole generation to pseudo environmental causes repeated ad nauseam by a compliant press.

I don't think most of us are against creativity or working for a "New World". Our technologies are far behind what the PTB allow us to know. I think some have pointed out the weaknesses of what is being called renewable or green energy systems but that does not mean we don't want or need improvement.

Yes, spot on.
 
I think by now most of us don't even have to be an environmentalist to be aware of the destruction of ecosystem and waste of natural resource. People are so sure that technology will save them but tech up to certain basic requirement of society ended up with making the situation worse. Example fracking, it is a sign that the easy oil are gone and you have to use a lot of water and destroy the land just to get a little more oil (you have to see it with your eyes or live nearby mining site to notice it). Unless we stop behaving like locust our own planet will turn barren like most other planets that we observe in the sky. We probably won't colonize other planet anytime soon so better make this beautiful planet last for a long time. We just need to adjust our living expectation and consumption behavior to more realistic level. It's what is being warned by numerous channeling like c, allied of humanities, etc that our choices now is the turning point that shape our future. Either we fall to foreign intervention (4D sts) or retain our freedom (4D sto). It is why they all suggested to raise your vibration. If you are weak they will play the savior leader card if you are wishful thinking they will sweet talk you until you destroy this planet and become dependent on them for resources (they give useless tech just to make us squandered resources, such as weapon tech for war etc). Unless we mature up and make the right decision (from self interest short term profit into benefit for all humanities) for united humanities the future will be quite bleak under 4d sts rule. I understand the task at hand is difficult since the intervention have been inserting genetically modified human in strategic leadership (politic, religion, capitalist, etc) positions to make our culture slowly shift to their culture for assimilation.
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
Greta has now been immortalized ... in wax.

Greta Thunberg Wax Figure Unveiled At German Museum
HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media

Teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg is now a wax figure.

On Wednesday, the Panoptikum wax museum in Hamburg, Germany, unveiled the creation dedicated to the Swedish 17-year-old. The museum is the largest and oldest wax museum in Germany and features more than 120 celebrity wax figures.

Made by a team helmed by Gottfried Kruger, the creator told AFP that he thinks climate change “is very important” and that he’s “impressed that this little girl has made it her topic.”

The wax Thunberg is seen holding a sign reading “skolstrejk för klimatet,” which translates to “school strike for the climate” in Swedish. Thunberg first held the sign in front of the Swedish Parliament to call for stronger action on climate change in 2018, sparking a global movement known as “Fridays for Future.”
A wax figure, which is supposed to represent the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, is displayed in the Panoptikum waxw

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thunberg has submitted a request to trademark her slogan, “Fridays for Future,” and protect it from misuse.

“Fridays for Future is a global movement that I created. It belongs to all those who take part in it, especially to young people. It must not be referred to for individual or business reasons,” she said in a statement to The Brussels Times.

Thunberg has since gained global recognition for her efforts in raising awareness about climate change. She was named Time Person of the Year 2019, the youngest person to receive the title in the magazine’s 92-year history.

Published on Jan 29, 2020 (0:50 min.)
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
The European Commission had to apologize again on Monday for a comment by Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, who had questioned young people's commitment to the fight against climate change, referring to it as "Greta syndrome".

EU's top diplomat under fire again for 'Greta syndrome' remark
FILE PHOTO: Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission arrives at a European Union foreign ministers emergency meeting to discuss ways to try to save the Iran nuclear deal, in Brussels, Belgium, January 10, 2020. REUTERS/Johanna Geron/File Photo

Speaking in Brussels on Wednesday, Borrell said he had doubts about young people’s genuine engagement to tackling climate change, and questioned whether they were ready to change their lifestyles to help compensate miners and others who will be most affected by measures to cut carbon emissions.

“It is fine to demonstrate for climate change as long as you are not asked to contribute to pay for it,” Borrell said, calling this attitude “Greta syndrome” in reference to 17-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Under pressure, Borrell, a Spanish socialist, later apologized. “I want to apologize to anyone that may have felt offended by my inappropriate reference to the important youth movement fighting #climatechange,” he tweeted on Saturday.

But facing more criticism on social media and from journalists, a commission spokeswoman was forced on Monday to repeat Borrell’s apologies, describing his remarks as “inappropriate”.

“We hope with that tweet ... the situation is clarified,” spokeswoman Dana Spinant told a news conference, adding that all commissioners supported young activists engaged to reducing the impact of climate change.
 
Top Bottom