The Living Force
Tim Pool believes that the "Climate Strike Demands" have nothing to do with climate....
A war for oil can rarely be stopped by appeals to ethics, but a country that is either energy self-sufficient or has cultivated regional energy supply chains among friendly and stable countries, can avoid being dragged into a war that would be more difficult to avoid for a country at the mercy of Middle Eastern energy markets.
In America, many conservative commentators (some of whom foolishly advocated for the 2003 invasion of Iraq) are now openly condemning any push towards a war with Iran. The pragmatic reason they are giving is that under Donald Trump, the USA is energy self-sufficient and becoming more so by the day.
As such, these commentators do not believe that it is worth fighting a potential war against Iran that would ostensibly secure Saudi Arabian oil supplies against alleged Iranian threats. It is said by such commentators that a war for Saudi Arabia against Iran would be a war to product the price of oil in the European Union. In the age of America First, Saudi Arabia and the EU are not proving to be entities that most Americans feel are worth fighting for – not least because it would require a fight against an Iran that is far more militarily capable than Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 or Syria since 2011.
America’s energy self-sufficiency has resulted in a less militant public. This is by definition good for world peace. As Saudi Arabian exports (including even non-energy exports) to Britain only account for .99% of all Saudi exports and seeing as Norway and the United States are by far and away the biggest sources of foreign energy imported into Britain – Britain too has no interest in fighting a war for Saudi Arabia and their big energy customers in Continental Europe.
The overall lesson for Britain is that the green movement has led Britain astray and that whilst buying energy from stable and friendly countries like Norway and the USA is better than buying from the politically manic Middle East, more energy self-sufficiency can only be a good thing.
For those still not convinced, it helps to remember that whilst not a green cultist herself, Margaret Thatcher deployed green arguments in the 1980s when arguing for the closure of coal mines. Whatever one thinks about obsolete arguments regarding ‘left vs. right’, the fact of the matter is that coal is better than war and so too are all forms of domestically produced energy.
Wrightstone aligns with the opposite of the mainstream (increase C02 is a good things) and cites many objective points that are well known, however he defends the idea that fossil fuel is the main reason for the ppm carbon uptick - which does align with AGW narrative, except for for opposite reasons. For a geologist, he avoids other natural influences, at least here, and nothing on cosmic influences. He does bring up ice age cycles and a policy of frightening citizens with the AGW climate shtick.#CPAC2019 #CPAC What’s Fact & What’s Fiction in Climate Change Debate—Gregory Wrightstone [Eagle Council Special]
And a good thing having just listened to her talk - a real firebrand making the unbelievable believable for the crowds who need a new climate hero after being inculcated to this modern day climate psy-ops where a molecule has been proliferated by humankind, the real villain. Now, what do they have in mind for the villains, us? It will not be good.Meanwhile Trump is not going along with the insanity and tweets:
Jonah Goldberg wrote in his book „Liberal Facism“ about one of the key signs of fascism taking over;
Greta's talking points:...Movements of young people with their immature minds are used for a nefarious agenda. Then combine that with Political Ponerology and it looks very bad. Seems to me that this is just the beginning of something rather tragic, but this time on a global scale and far to many go along with it.
Okay...Greta said:[on older generations]…they also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your C02 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.
No climate emergency for polar bears or walrus means no climate emergency period
Posted on September 23, 2019 |
We are told the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else in the world, yet as the internet reverberates with shrill, almost-the-lowest-ice-extent-ever stories, polar bears, Pacific walrus, and the most common ice seal species (ringed and bearded seals, as well as harp seals), are all thriving. Two new videos published by the GWPF on polar bears and walrus confront this conundrum and the conclusion is clear: if there is no climate emergency for polar bears, there is no climate emergency anywhere.
Polar bears have survived several periods of less ice than there is now as well as periods with more ice. Most ice seal species and walrus, which have existed in the Arctic much longer than polar bears, have lived through many of these extreme sea ice cycles. The low ice extent this year – whether it ends up being second-lowest or third-lowest since 1979 – is merely a blip compared to what these species have experienced during the Pleistocene.
This new video explains that polar bears are important ecosystem indicators that are taking reduced summer sea ice in their stride. My new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, explains why this has caught polar bear specialists off guard.
Moreover – as this new video shows – dozens of walrus falling to their deaths from high Arctic cliffs and large herds of walrus hauled out on Arctic beaches are natural events – not tragedies caused by global warming. Pacific walrus are not threatened with extinction because of reduced summer sea ice.
I can only conclude that if there is no climate emergency in the Arctic for these critical species, there cannot be a climate emergency anywhere.
The press release from GWPF below included links to the two videos.
Press Release: No Climate Emergency For Polar Bears Or Walruses
Critical indicator species like polar bears, ice seals, and walruses are thriving
London, 23 September: Despite the Arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else in the world, critical indicator species like polar bears, ice seals, and walruses are thriving.
In two new recently-released GWPF videos, Dr. Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, explains why Arctic marine mammal species are flourishing despite declining summer sea ice.
“The Truth about Attenborough’s Falling Walrus” provides evidence from US government biologists in the 1990s that walrus deaths due to falls from cliffs are natural events not cause by declines in summer sea ice blamed on rising CO2. Over-crowding is often the primary cause. Moreover, a comprehensive assessment by the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined in late 2017 that walrus in the Chukchi Sea were not threatened with extinction by lack of ice, despite claims to the contrary made earlier this year by Sir David Attenborough in a highly-publicized Netflix/World Wildlife Fund documentary.
“No Climate Emergency for Polar Bears” is a graphic reminder that polar bears, walrus and Arctic seals have survived through periods of much less ice than has existed in the Arctic since 2007 during their evolutionary history. The fact that polar bears especially are doing so well despite almost 50% less summer ice than existed in the 1980s is strong evidence they possess a natural ability to adapt quickly to extreme sea ice changes that predictive models have failed to appreciate.
Dr. Crockford explains that emaciated polar bears – along with dozens of bears onshore at garbage dumps or bears that fatally attack people – are not evidence of climate change. In fact, overall polar bears have been doing very well in a warmer world and this year has been no exception.
“Polar bears, walrus, and ice seals are important ecosystem indicators. However, contrary to prevailing rhetoric, these species have been taking reduced summer sea ice in their stride. I can only conclude that if there is no climate emergency in the Arctic, which is said to be warming twice as fast as anywhere else in the world, there cannot be a climate emergency anywhere,” Dr Crockford said.
Pathological people/groups roughlesly and grotesquely exploiting children and youth by glorifying/sanctifying/programming them and the public for their own unconscionable agenda. Movements of young people with their immature minds are used for a nefarious agenda. Then combine that with Political Ponerology and it looks very bad. Seems to me that this is just the beginning of something rather tragic, but this time on a global scale and far to many go along with it.
Media reports have given the age of Greta Thunberg, as 16? Sorry, I don't believe it! She looks "about 13" to me (with a mouthy attitude). No doubt, due in part, to her Parent's coaching? Someday, she'll make a good Liberal?I have to remember she is not as young as she looks, and somewhere she has been well coached with a script and the memory to recite the AGW talking point shtick.
Sounds exactly like something my Mother would say. Kids are to be seen and not heard. Basically, it meant - you learn more by observing and listening. The only thing kids have an authority on ... is being a kid. It's when a kid tries to act like an adult - they tend to grow up too fast and lose their childhood. This is what I sense is happening to Greta? Her Parent's have pushed her into the limelight and instead of enjoying the "teen-years" like her peers - she's handed the label of "activist", which will probably follow her, for the rest of her life?And the band keeps on playing.
Wake up, grow up and SHUT UP - Brilliant!
After reading Laura's excellent piece this morning (SO needed to be written ) I read the following from Laura's FB wall, and, other than his "extinction" comment, it's a really good answer to Greta's drivel too.I'm sure many people already read this excellent article by Laura concerning this mentally challenged manipulated personAs SOTT readers may know, I've been in the "prophet business" for over 25 years now. It hasn't been easy, either. Despite a "Hit List" longer than both my arms, I still feel like Cassandra most days. I haven't written anything for public...www.sott.net
A Line-By-Line Response to Greta Thunberg’s UN Speech
I am just astounded that most of the people I know IRL have been taken by this girl and are all over FB and tweeter praising her "wisdom" and "passion" and whatnot. Nobody wonders where does a 17 yo get the money to do the trips she does and the access to the places she has, and for what reason? The man-made global warming religion has found their own Jesus, and they are very willing to crucify her too. They will discard her like old shoes as soon as her usefulness to them runs out.A climate skeptic answers the fiery rhetoric of the Left’s star climate alarmist
Opinion by JACQUES VOORHEES (from his Facebook page)
Note: Greta’s speech is reprinted below. Her quotes are in italic, mine follow each quote. If it turns out there were errors in transcription—as seems likely—I’ll try to update with corrections. I apologize for the snarky tone, but if a 17-year-old can dish it out, I think she can take it.
So in your first paragraph you confess that what you’re doing is wrong, and you shouldn’t be doing it. You note you should be back home and in school. OK, so far we’re 100% in agreement. Next?“My message is that we’ll be watching you. This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.”
Not sure where you’re getting your information. No sentient adult goes to young people “for hope,” whether they’ve been “dared” to or otherwise. Normally, when adults consider young people like yourself, the operative word is “despair.” And if you’re unfamiliar with that word, it means “absence of hope.”“Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you?”
Wow, you must have had very fragile dreams, and an even more precarious childhood, if mere empty words could steal them. Even words loaded with meaning shouldn’t be able to take down someone’s dreams that easily, if the dreams are even a little bit deeply held. But empty words? Greta, you need to find better dreams and cling to them with more determination. As for your stolen childhood, this makes me suspect you didn’t exactly win the lottery when it comes to parents, did you? Just sayin’.“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…”
OK, sounds like someone’s been playing too much of the computer video game Civilization. Yes, in Sid Meier’s Civilization VI people are suffering, people are dying, and entire ecosystems are collapsing. Meanwhile back in reality, none of that is occurring. Well, none of it that is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide at least. Greta, try to spend a few hours each day actually off your computer, so you can experience the world as it really is, not as your scary online world, and your handlers, are convincing you it must be.“…and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.”
Now it seems you’ve fallen into a time machine which has transported you back to the Yucatan Peninsula, sixty-five million years ago, when the comet was about to annihilate the dinosaurs. Either that or someone is doing a very good job of filling your head with utter nonsense. Shame on them, for scaring the socks off you. There is no evidence that we’re at the beginning of a mass extinction–certainly not of any life forms we care about.“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…”
Um, did your speechwriter not know the audience you’d be addressing today? You’re speaking to diplomats in the United Nations General Assembly. There is probably no group of people on Earth less interested in economic growth than these folks. They don’t really care about money, either, as they’re all on generous expense accounts and—thanks to diplomatic immunity—can park anywhere they want in Manhattan without worrying about being ticketed or towed. First rule of public speaking: Know your audience.“…and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?”
Did you bother to look at any of that science? Thirty years ago they were saying Manhattan would be under water by now. Most every prediction so called “climate scientists” have made during the past thirty years has failed to come true. This is not science being crystal-clear. It is shamanism being crystal-clear. You need to learn the difference. A science that is not able to make what are called “useful, non-obvious predictions” is not science. It’s religion. And, I’m sorry, but you’ve become ensnared in the climate cult’s terrible clutches.“For more than 30 years the science has been crystal-clear.”
Another rule of effective speaking: don’t contradict yourself, especially within a single sentence. If the “politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight,” what exactly are you expecting these UN diplomats to do, beyond what they’re already doing? If the solutions are truly nowhere in sight, you’re certainly not going to get them from this crowd.“How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.”
Greta, on this one, best go with “evil.” Again, you’re addressing the core members of the United Nations, arguably the most worthless organization on the planet today. Even if they did believe something was an urgent problem, they’d not have the collective will to do anything about it. Actually, a better description than evil in this case would be “utterly f…..g worthless.” Remember, these are the very folks who commissioned the IPCC itself, and told it to make reports…every six years. You’d think if the world was about to end, reports of it happening could be slightly more frequent.“You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe.”
Are you aware that you’re quoting alarmist predictions from the very scientists who’ve yet to be right about any of their predictions? Does that not concern you?“The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. 50% may be acceptable to you but those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution, or the aspects of equity and climate justice, they also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So, a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us, we who have to live with the consequences.”
Well, ignoring that the sentence itself is gibberish, what exactly are you wanting anyone to do? You just told us that there are no solutions anywhere in sight. You’re very good at saying what you’re angry about. But we haven’t yet heard the grand plan that will solve everything. If you don’t have it, do you really think these diplomats sitting in front of you do?“How dare you pretend that this can be sold with just business as usual and some technical solutions with today’s emissions levels that remaining CO2 budgets will be entirely gone within less than 8 and a half years.”
Your rhetoric is slipping into the category of deranged, verbal nonsense, but I do find it interesting that you—a seventeen year old—“dares” (if we can borrow your favorite word) to tell an audience of people over twice your age, that they are insufficiently mature. Rarely does insulting your audience achieve desired results, in public speaking. Might be time to consider firing your speech writer.“There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.”
Well, if change is coming whether they like it or not, why are you even bothering to give this speech? And by the way, what change is coming? You’ve already confessed there are no solutions in sight. This would seem to suggest change is not coming, at least anytime soon. And as for the eyes of all future generations being on the UN General Assembly, good luck with that. Even the eyes of today’s generation aren’t on anything the UN General Assembly does—much less will be the eyes of all generations unto the end of time. But I’m sure the people you’re addressing right now wish they were that important.“You are failing us but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you and if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line the world is waking up and change is coming whether you like it or not.”
Anyway, Greta, a word of advice. You’re clearly a very upset and angry young lady, with endless dedication to your goals. Rather than hurl hate-filled rhetoric at a room of old folks whom you rightly predict won’t do what you want them to do, why don’t you roll up your sleeves and try to make a difference yourself? I think we can all agree that public speaking is probably not your best contribution to the Cause. Go back to school, take some atmospheric physics, basic chemistry, and geology classes. Maybe dabble with the design of that machine that’s going to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Trust me, it’s not yet on anyone’s drawing board. You can be the first!
And a bonus. If you truly study this issue that has so captured your attention, pretty soon you’re going to learn that the whole thing is one gigantic hoax, the greatest hoax in human history, being perpetrated by the government-educational-industrial complex. You’re going to learn that pretty much everything that’s been indoctrinated into your head is false. You’re going to learn that real scientists, tens of thousands of them, have already learned this and have gone on record as acknowledging it. You’re going to learn you’re being used by adults to turn you into a propagandist for shamanistic alarmism, and you’re going to realize that because of it, you’ve been the victim of massive child abuse.
When you learn all this, I predict that your present anger is going to look like a calm, tranquil lake compared to how you will feel then. I predict at that point you’ll decide to write your own speech. And no matter who’s in the audience when you give it, I predict it will be scathing.