Greta Thunberg: False Prophet of the Children's Crusade

I hope 🤞 that toes will be safe when I step with this reply. I watched the videos and for me the emphasis was made albeit quite softly, on the environmental catastrophe coupled with counting money and worrying about profits. That is an interesting aspect, since becoming so prominently visible in a relatively short amount of time requires quite a bit of money and PR, which shows planning, dedicated execution (manipulated or not) and motivation to make more money. In other words, there is no business like show business. It is such a pity that making money has been amalgamated as an industry and it is accepted as such. It has open the door to moneyfy everything, even nature. Once environmental taxes will be imposed and green bonds will be created and swapped and traded, only a sudden pole shift or an asteroid could make an impact stopping the mega show of the financial systems.
Laura said:
genaro81 said:
I think you have a good little article here Neil. If you just tweak it a little and take out the references that ordinary folk won't have any idea what you're talking about. (i.e. Kantek and the Cassiopaean material)
I agree! It was beautifully written!
I actually didn't think it was anything special. The diction is more geared toward a forum or blog post in the style of "I read this article today and it reminded me of the time..." blah, blah, blah. It's mostly just me recounting my experience with my global warming beliefs; not really what I would call "news" and very feature-y. There's not much actionable information or evidence except in the third paragraph, and it's only touched on. The distilled moral of the story is that the liberal "taste buds" do have some validity but are manipulated to lead one to draw false inferences about reality, and both sides are predicated on an illusory dichotomy which is unified in its ultimate aim. For publishable material I think it is good style to introduce yourself in the beginning and then make your points while taking yourself out of the equation as much as possible, unless you're writing an autobiography or narrating as a witness to some important event. This post was really all about me.

At any rate, if we want to proceed despite all of that:

The last sentence of the first paragraph is probably irrelevant, but it was important to me and probably a major contributor to the reason why I didn't initially get swept up in the fervor and urgency to prevent climate change.
Neil said:
and how an icehouse earth scenario was no longer a concern for the future because solar luminosity increases as stars begin to fuse heavier elements in their cores.
It should probably be specified here that we were talking about the slushy snowball scenario that was alleged to have occurred during the Cryogenian period where the average surface temperature of the planet dropped to 5 C and glaciation made it almost all the way to the equator. Some call run of the mill ice ages an icehouse climate, but we were discussing a different event. Based on extrapolations from the standard model of stellar evolution, the sun has and will steadily get brighter, making another Cryogenian pretty much impossible. Conversely, the electric sun model basically allows for anything to be possible, and the sun's spectral class varies based on whatever is going on with the plasmas in the particular region of the galaxy it happens to be travelling through.
Neil said:
It was around this time that Laura was putting some things out there on climate and I had become interested in it due to the Kantek material and cosmic catastrophes.
This sentence could be changed to "Due to my interest in astronomy and the space sciences, I became curious about space-based catastrophes, such as those proposed by Clube and Napier, and how they might influence the climate to a degree that was unexplainable by terrestrial mechanisms alone."
Neil said:
Once the crack was there, the Cassiopaean transcripts greatly accelerated my ability to put the pieces together.
This can probably be deleted, but again it was important and probably a pivotal reason why this story has the particular ending that it does.
This can probably be deleted, but again it was important and probably a pivotal reason why this story has the particular ending that it does.

Perhaps leave it in then. There was a pretty interesting post on the 100% Carnivore group on FB. A post about "Fact-Checking Greta" It was pretty interesting to see the heated comments though not unsurprising. What was surprising, to me anyway, was that there's allot more people who don't believe the hype than I anticipated. So basically, you don't need to write the definitive article disproving AGW. Just an article with a personal touch from an intelligent person so others can see they don't need to feel alone and overpowered by the hysteria. There are perfectly normal and rational people who aren't getting their panties in a wad over all this in spite of the theatrics.
Windmill knight said:
I think that the problem is that in order to be able to see through Greta, one would need to have enough curiosity about the truth on climate change in order to understand that the science is far from settled and there are much more plausible explanations apart from AGW.

luc said:
I think it's even simpler than that: even within the AGW narrative, you just need to be curious about what exactly official IPCC science says. I mean, don't you want to know when, and how the world ends? What exactly is proposed here?

Turns out that even 'official science' is much more toned down than the shrill hysteria being peddled by Greta and the media. Unfortunately, hysteria is precisely what keeps people from thinking straight.

From what I had been observing from some friends/family, is that they do not have that curiosity and, god forbid they go out for their own quest, they are used to be fed by the propaganda machine of the global warming, they want to feel miserable and guilty leaving in such state the earth to their offsprings. And they think that by praising, following Greta, is good, being their grain of salt.
Apparently there is a scandal surrounding a billboard advertisement put by University of Alberta. They dared finding something positive in the "Global Warming". Putting aside the "no GW coming our way any time soon", this billboard is a good example of something hopeful and potentially beneficial if we were to face a bleak future due to GW. But no...the eco-nazis obviously went on the attack.

The writing on the billboard:
“Beefier barley: climate change will boost Alberta’s barley yield with less water, feeding more cattle.”


In a statement posted Sunday on the university’s blog, The Quad, Tam said the public’s interpretation of the ad as promoting climate change shows the billboard “fails to communicate the meaning and complexity of the research.”

“The messaging on the ad called the reputation of the University of Alberta and its extensive research on climate change into question. As vice-president (university relations), I apologize for this and take responsibility,” she said, adding she was resigning immediately from the institution

Some alumni posted online about how they were “embarrassed and disappointed” by the message.

On Thursday, the university had posted a defence of its “Truth Matters” campaign on The Quad blog, saying it was seeking to highlight the complexity of some research underway at the university.

“Different, even divergent, approaches are pursued by researchers across the University of Alberta; this is necessary work, even when it challenges expectations and assumptions,” Tam wrote Thursday.

Turpin said he’s unsure whether the fiasco had affected the university’s reputation as an institution that takes climate change seriously. Many told him the ad did not reflect the good work researchers do on novel power generation techniques, climate change adaptation, smart grids or oilsands remediation, he said.

“Climate change is real, it’s happening and as a society, we must adapt,” he said.

He’s asked the university to review its advertising approval processes to determine what went wrong, he said.
Last edited:
After the talk of Greta Thunberg at the UN, Sweden will pay now about 1 billion Euros more to the UN climate fund.
During the UN Climate Summit in New York, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (S) promised to double Sweden's contribution to the UN Climate Fund. At the same time, more than 100 municipalities are facing deficits and welfare cuts are at the door.

- Sweden is already the largest donor to GCF per capita according to the government. We will now double our contributions to them. Everyone must do their part to improve the transition, says Stefan Löfven, according to Expressen.

The government is investing in double the contribution to the UN Climate Fund, the GCF. This was stated by Stefan Löfven during the UN Climate Change Summit. From 2020 to 2023, Sweden will contribute SEK 8 billion.

- Sweden is already the largest donor to GCF, Löfven announced.

He explained that one can not only listen to science but also have to act.

- Heavy industries account for 30 percent of all emissions. Going from gray to green is a key issue in the fight against climate change, Löfven said.

In the autumn budget that was recently presented, the assistance - which includes the climate grant partly - totaled SEK 46 billion.
Sweden has got a number of serious social problems related to a large extend with the failure of the multicultural society, if that was a goal, or the failure of convincing the late arrivals that integration or assimilation into traditional Swedish society is desirable. As such there are, as the above quote hints at in the beginning of the text, some areas where the Swedish welfare system is unsustainable. In such a situation global warming and climate cause comes as a most desirable diversion from a political point of view and even one billion Euro is far less than what it would cost to fix some of the present problems. Of course, those who fully believe in Greta Thunberg will say the issue is not a diversion, but indeed the main topic of the day. If I imagine being a child or teenager in school, I might ask if i would be taken in by the spell Greta Thunberg throws. Much depends on the surroundings, but it is possible, the way out for me would be sustained curiosity about how things work. Trying to broaden the scope by encouraging children, to ask questions about what they think they know, might be one way to go. For some it will perhaps even serve as a stepping stone to become interested in the world and the cosmos, but I wonder how this is all going to look in say ten years?
Just as this discussion was taking place, I was in Vienna on a family gathering. And just as some people I was with were saying that education wasn't bad in Austria, and that it was much better than, say, the propaganda in the US, we saw children marching. They were between 8 and 10 years old, and frankly, they made me shiver. Their expressions were what you would expect from a new "nazi youth". They signs said the usual Greta BS, "If you are not a vegetarian you are killing the planet", "the Earth will die because of you", etc. Yikes... I heard that the new rule in some schools was to demonstrate like that every Friday.
Although it could be obvious that this is like "nazi youth" Austria did apparently not encourage the Austrian relationship with the Nazi movement to be a subject for much discussion. It was no longer politically correct after May 10, 1945. WW II is now 75-80 years ago, a long time if one is not a interested in history or encouraged to study the lessons. When I looked up Hitler Youth on the Wiki, Austria was not mentioned. In the German version "Österreich" is mentioned one time but not connected to Hitlerjugend. This is actually almost nothing short of amazing - because if one changes to German language search entries and skips the common Wiki, one gets a completely different picture. One short entry is here: Hitlerjugend, HJ and a longer is found on Hitlerjugend – Wien Geschichte Wiki which Taken together they informs us that in Austria from March 25, 1939 all other youth association were dissolved and membership of Hitler Jugend including full military training became mandatory. This programme was for those of 14-18 years of age, while there for those of 10-13 years of age was a different programme, just as there was also a programme for girls. In the Wiki about the German Hitler Jugend, one learns that it already began in 1922 and gradually grew to take over all the scout clubs and all the Christian youth clubs, the sport clubs, in fact the whole German youth in the late 1930'ies. Fortunately the Greta Thunberg climate strike mobilization has not yet reached that level of control.

Before the invasion of Austria by Germany, there could be something else to remember, the preparation. In connection with another thread, I found a description of a book "Zwischen Hitler und Himalaya: Die Gedächtnislücken des Heinrich Harrer" regarding a well known name in Austrian alpinism. A text about the book written more than 20 years ago gives an idea of Austria in the days before 1938.
Originally Posted by REINHOLD MESSNER from the magazine "Alpin", Munich, September 1997: "I've always known about Harrer's SS membership and I do not think he should now make a rope out of it." Who was not there at the time? but do not understand: Today, at the age of 85, he still glorifies the ideals of those days, why does he not question them? He still believes that what the Nazis preached is correct. I have repeatedly pointed out how much National Socialism is above all else rooted in mountaineering ...

So-called virtues, like those of the alpinists of that time, were synonyms for "the German"; Ideals like roped-up, mountain companionship, faithfulness to the death. Many of Hitler's ideas came into being in the minds of alpinists. The illegal Nazis of the thirties in Austria came mainly from mountain climbing. The huts in the mountains were conspiratorial meeting places where the connection was prepared. The Austrian Alpine Association still has a lot of educational work to do in this area. We alpinists should know that we have responsibility for the Nazi period. The case of Harrer reminded us. Alpinists had delivered food with their Berg-Heil ideals, with which National Socialist construction and war should succeed ...

I criticized Harrer in front of the camera for not having realized which lie hides behind the ideal of the roped party. In 1988, after 50 years, we celebrated the first ascent of the Eiger North Face in 1938. It came to a television scandal between Harrer and me. Again and again he emphasized that the "rope team" was the great value of his life. Again and again came from him the criticism that we boys could no longer rope for life, we lacked intensity, loyalty and perseverance. In the hack-hack with me about these ideals, he remained obdurate, reproachful, even offensive. It is the ideals of his youth, ideals of Nazi propaganda, and beyond that, his life-lies that make me perplexed. How can an old man lie to himself like that? Man is not hard as Krupp steel, he is fragile and weak, makes mistakes. "

So, yeah, it's even happening in places that used to be more on the conservative side, and nobody is immune. I feel extremely sad for the new generations, and especially the children born after 2010 who don't seem to have any chance left of escaping some serious indoctrination and brain-washing. And the parents... the amount of denial that THEY go through and facilitate just to feel that the world is a safe place, is plain scary... They COULD and SHOULD know better if they only looked back a few years, but they seem to be too busy with their phones and trying to appear cool and open-minded as is dictated by the system into which they have dumped their children.
Might one say that the attitude of the parents to some extend is related to postmodern thinking?
In Postmodern thinking of millennials
Breo posted a comment that may add some details to the concept of "Austrian talk" mentioned in Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski. Included in the post is also a video that shows scenes from the ecstatic reception Hitler received in Vienna in 1938. In a different video with more commentary and analysis, but in German, they say it was a genuine feeling, but the sound track in the video Breo posted shows the intensity clearer than words.

The post by Breo begins with a quote from Laura:
In the European languages, “Austrian talk” has become the common descriptive term for paralogistic[1] discourse. Many people using this term nowadays are unaware of its origin. Within the context of maximum hysterical intensity in Europe at the time, the authentic article represented a typical product of conversive thinking[2]: subconscious selection and substitution of data lead to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter. In the same manner, the reflex assumption that every speaker is lying is an indication of the hysterical anti-culture of mendacity, within which telling the truth becomes “immoral”.
There is a joke like saying that describes the Austrian paralogistic mentality:
"Austrians managed to make the world believe that Beethoven was an Austrian and Adolf Hitler a German."

And then there is the historical fact that Austria was involved in the start of both World Wars.
The catalyst event for the outbreak of WW I in 1914 was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne in Sarajevo. And Adolf Hitlers birthplace, who provoked the second World War, is in Upper Austria.

How closely Austria is connected to both World Wars is not explicitly taught in Austrian schools and not present in the average Austrian consciousness. When this is mentioned in a conversation the mildest typical Austrian reaction is uncomfortable bewilderment. At its worst it is "The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provoking constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyper-irritability and hypo-criticality on the part of others."

What is taught in Austrian schools is that Austria has been the victim of the annexation („Der Anschluss“) by Nazi Germany, which is legally correct but in stark contrast to the reality of how the majority of the population reacted. 1938 the masses frenetically welcomed Hitler in Vienna. A vivid example of „subconscious selection and substitution of data leading to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter.“
The term „Austrian talk“ is typically not known or used in Austria of today, also not by educated intellectuals.
Having said this much about Austria, one could add that there was also the author Bertha von Suttner who wrote a book "Lay Down Your Weapons" in 1889. It is a book about the cruelty and meaninglessness of war and also the role of women. It was translated into 16 languages and became an unexpected international bestseller of the 19th century. Before 1905 it came in 37 German editions! Suttner died only 7 days before the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, that led to the beginning of World War I only four weeks later which killed 20 million people! (Btw, Suttner must have been in Vienna at the same time as Hitler, Trotsky, Stalin and Freud.) During her life Bertha von Suttner became a friend of Alfred Nobel and convinced him to institute a Peace Prize in addition to the other prizes he already had on his mind, like chemistry, physics, medicine, and literature. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and allegedly also the owner of 90 arms factories, was Swedish. Now if there is any relationship between the punch that Greta Thunberg is having, her Swedish background, and that many educated people in the world are well aware of the Swedish philantropist, Aflred Nobel, concerned about the knowledge of mankind, is a question one can ask oneself. Far out isn't it, but If one was a marketing agent or communications expert, selected to make a campaign one would probably prefer Sweden, to a number of other options say Malawi, Ecuador, Cuba, Burma, Israel, the US, China, Brasil, Russia or the UK? There is a lot of politics behind Greta Thunberg, though an easy way for Sweden to cut CO2, if they really want to, would be for people to migrate south, because it is much more energy consuming to live in a cold country.
I thought this was brilliant :-D

LOL! Very good use of satire.
"Should we not change our ways, our old predictions will melt, dangerously raising the chance of us having to move the goalposts again," said Al Gore. "Do you really want me to write another book, film another movie, and go on another tour in my private jet just because you dingbats couldn't be bothered to alter your lifestyles? I don't think so. Let's all get on board with this 12-year figure, or we'll have to push back the date again."
I just found this video that details 10 reasons why Greta Thunberg is a fraud. In the beginning it also explains the strong financial interests involved with her. In trying to find it again afterwords I discovered that searching for the exact title on youtube did not yield a result on Youtube. In other words it was suppressed so that it will not show on in results though still be available if one knows the direct link. Here is the link:
Apologies if it has already been posted.
Here's another example of how climate "research" is being made much more alarmist than it is.

Recently "Nature" retracted one of the papers about an "alarmingly fast" warming of the oceans. And the way the retraction is being worded would make lawyers trully proud! :-D

Take a look:

Retraction to: Nature, published online 31 October 2018.

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.
Recently "Nature" retracted one of the papers about an "alarmingly fast" warming of the oceans. And the way the retraction is being worded would make lawyers trully proud!

Clear as mud! Obviously designed to put off most readers from understanding the retraction. Instead it could have read; "The margin for error was grossly underestimated, however, we still stand by the narrative that the oceans are warming and therefore everyone should be hysterically concerned over climate sensitivities resulting therefrom."
I just found this video that details 10 reasons why Greta Thunberg is a fraud. In the beginning it also explains the strong financial interests involved with her. In trying to find it again afterwords I discovered that searching for the exact title on youtube did not yield a result on Youtube. In other words it was suppressed so that it will not show on in results though still be available if one knows the direct link. Here is the link:
Apologies if it has already been posted.

Hmmm... in just a few days they've gotten almost 400K views, so obviously, all the apparent "Greta Support" may not be actual.
Putin: I don't share excitement about Greta Thunberg's U.N. speech - Reuters

Putin said young people who paid attention to environmental issues should be supported, adding: "But when someone is using children and teenagers in personal interests, it only deserves to be condemned.

"I'm sure that Greta is a kind and very sincere girl. But adults must do everything not to bring teenagers and children into some extreme situations."
Top Bottom