Climate Change

Think Globally, Shame Constantly: The Rise of Greta Thunberg Environmentalism

Her future—and that of the planet—hasn't been "stolen" and the best way forward is through serious policy discussion, not histrionics.

|

Appearing like some child messiah in a science fiction novel, the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has just delivered what is arguably the fiercest jeremiad in America since Jonathan Edwards uncorked "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in 1741. Speaking at the United Nations, Thunberg, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and started protesting climate change in 2017 by staying out of school on Fridays, told the audience that it was responsible for destroying her life and that of the planet.

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

Thunberg—and other doomsayers—are wrong about the environment and how best to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. You can watch her speech below:

To say that reactions to Thunberg are as extreme as her rhetoric is an understatement. When I tweeted about her remarks earlier today, my timeline quickly filled with replies such as "Hitler also liked using pigtailed propaganda girls" and "She is a prop and a tool for eco-communism. A propaganda icon that needs to be destroyed." Of course, President Trump weighed in, posting a clip of her speech and commenting sarcastically, "She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!"

But despite the volume and vitriol of the attacks directed her way, it's vitally important that the worldview she represents and the policies she espouses are refuted. Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and a host of other American politicians, Thunberg believes that we've only got a few years left to settle the fate of the planet, a basic tenet pushed by supporters of the Green New Deal and by most of the Democrats running for president. In fact, Thunberg thinks that "cutting our emissions in half in 10 years," the target invoked by many environmentalists, is too little, too late. She avers that such a drastic reduction only

gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty percent 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.

Such catastrophic thinking is similar to AOC's equally apocalyptic statement that "The world is gonna end in 12 years" and Warren's contention that "we've got, what, 11 years, maybe" to cut our emissions in half to save the planet. As Reason's Ronald Bailey has documented, such predictions stem from a fundamental misreading of a 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report offered up predictions in the growth of global economic activity, how it might be affected by climate change, and how reducing greenhouse gases might increase planetary GDP. It did not specify anything like a 10- to 12-year window after which extinction or amelioration is inevitable. Writes Bailey:

If humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be.

Let's make those GDP percentages concrete. Assuming no climate change and an global real growth rate of 3 percent per year for the next 81 years, today's $80 trillion economy would grow to just under $880 trillion by 2100. World population is likely to peak at around 9 billion, so divvying up that GDP suggests that global average income would come to about $98,000 per person. Under the worst-case scenario, global GDP would only be $810 trillion and average income would only be $90,000 per person.

"There is no looming climate change 'expiration date,'" writes Bailey, a point underscored by Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which promotes cost-effective policies to remediate climate change, hunger, disease, and other global issues. Lomborg notes that the IPCC itself

has found the evidence does not support claims that floods, droughts and cyclones are increasing.

The scientists have said, "there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend" in drought, a "lack of evidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale" and "no significant observed trends in global (cyclone) frequency over the past century."

What's more, the scientists have found that current human-caused global warming cannot reasonably be linked to any of these extreme weather phenomenon-"globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in (cyclone) activity to human influence", "low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought" and low confidence "that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of floods". This doesn't mean there is no problem-just that the facts matter.

There are only better and worse ways to deal with coming changes. Contra Thunberg, the better ways don't demonize economic growth as a problem but as a solution. "The most inexorable feature of climate-change modeling isn't the advance of the sea but the steady economic growth that will make life better despite global warming," writes science journalist Will Boisvert. The environmental Kuznets curve, by which countries get wealthier and their citizens demand a cleaner environment, is the rule, not the exception. Such a dynamic is predicated upon economic and technological innovation that would be almost impossible under the sort of regulations promulgated by Green New Dealers and activists such as Thunberg and Naomi Klein, who wants to "decimate the entire neoliberal project" in the name of environmentalism. Environmental commons tend to deteriorate as countries begin to develop economically—but once per-capita income reaches a certain level, the public starts to demand a cleanup. It's a U-shaped pattern: Economic growth initially hurts the environment, Bailey reminds us,

but after a point it makes things cleaner. By then, slowing or stopping economic growth will delay environmental improvement, including efforts to mitigate the problem of man-made global warming.

Greta Thunberg's histrionics are likely heartfelt but neither they nor the deplorable responses they conjure are a guide forward to good environmental policy in a world that is getting richer every day. For the first time in human history, half the earth's population is middle class or wealthier and the rate of deaths from natural disasters is well below what it was even a few decades ago. Protecting all that is just as important as protecting the environment and, more importantly, those two goals are hardly mutually exclusive.

Advertisement

NEXT: Breaking--Professor Mila Sohoni on Article III and the "Universal" Injunction

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

      1. Spot on. Please think of the children and ignore the real agenda. Which is the perpetration of Communist/Socialist and in turn Progressive governance. Just like ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas the Progressive/Socialist twits who are trying to force unworkable solutions to Man’s negative impact on the environment use children as shields against the truth. This poor child who has admittedly several mental disorders expresses tremendous emotional tirades that simply don’t offer cogent and practical solutions nor does she really offer any facts. She can’t and that is the problem with the so-called “green movement”

      2. She’s very emotional. But hey. I did my part. I bought a Chevy Bolt and I only had one child. My carbon footprint is tiny as long as you don’t count all those gas hog air polluting V8 cars and SUV’s I’ve had over my life. And to be totally honest. I only bought the Bolt because they are fast as fuck! I wonder what she’ll drive and how many kids she will have when she grows up. 2, 3, 5, 7? Just think of all those stupid little stick figures she’ll have to put on her car rear window.Her carbon footprint could be monster sized when she’s done.

        Think of the Children!!!!!

    1. I’ll see your oy gevalt and raise you a meh.

    2. In this thread, Tony realizes he is badly beaten, and resorts to bleating “TALKING POINTS!!!” 39 times.

      1. Tony takes his cues from stupid kids like Woke Wednesday Addams here, and that Hogg punk.

        How pathetic is that?

        1. “”Woke Wednesday Addams”‘

          + 10 Girl Scout cookies.
          Made with real girl scouts.

          1. lol. We don’t hug.

    3. Greta speaks as a member of the safest most privileged and protected generation to have ever lived on this planet. Of course she complains , mere comfortable survival is her birthright , so naturally, she wants more. Basically she wants to be able to choose whichever unicorn she fancies, in whichever shade she desires and woe unto the person who denies her demands.

    4. Oh boy….here we go again. Been hearing this nonsense since kindergarten.

      “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century” (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970). “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming” (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971). “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast” (The Guardian, January 29, 1974). “The Cooling” (New York Times Book Review, July 18, 1976). “Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes” (Noblesville Ledger, April 9, 1980). “Acid rain no environmental crisis, study concludes” (Associated Press, September 6, 1990). “Rising seas to obliterate nations by 2000” (Associated Press, June 30, 1989). “New York City’s West Side Highway under water by 2019” (Salon.com, October 23, 2001). “Gore: ‘Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years’” (WUWT, December 14, 2008).

      1. This is my retort to all climate catastrophe predictions. I simply say, you fooled me once, you won’t fool me twice.

    5. I think none of those who criticize this girl and her message have a decent education in science. They use their ignorance to justify their expressions of hate.

      Start here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

      1. OK…we’ve all heard ‘the message.’ How about some practical solutions?

      2. Is that the IPCC report that reports no increase in extreme weather and a low confidence in a global warming threat outside of the political report? Or did you not know the IPCC report consisted of different reports outside of the political one the alarmists use?

      3. Why does any expression of hate need justification? I hate her pure and simple.

      4. of stop your affectation, dullard

      5. Interesting that you think those who need an education in science should start with the Summary for Policy Makers instead of the actual technical articles and findings. Perhaps you should do some digging yourself and get into the real science.

        I recommend starting with some advanced courses in statistics so you can properly evaluate the studies and models being used to support the claims behind the catastrophic global warming hypotheses.

      6. I agree. And I also think Mr. Gillespie relies on a straw man argument in attacking Thunberg.

        Sure, she uses a lot of hyperbolic language and I won’t pretend to have insight into her internal beliefs and ideals, but Gillespie mis-represents what the modern environmental movement is calling for rather catestrophically.

        His quotes of Thunberg, for example, overstate the so-called apocalyptic claims that Gillespie attributes to her like the world ending in a decade, etc. Those statements may represent what AOC has said, but mis-represent what most people are saying when they argue for more stringent carbon reductions.

        Indeed, the IPCC reports do quite clearly state that we will be unlikely to keep warming to <1.5 degrees (the generally accepted target for good long-term outcomes) if we don't make drastic reductions in carbon outputs in the next 10-15 years, with sustained reductions aiming for net-zero and then net-negative carbon outputs well within the next century.

        As Gillespie correctly points out – there is no data to show that we will feel major impacts of climate change within the next few decades. Even sea level rise is likely to be only a few meters (or less) by the end of the century when most of us alive today will have died. Drought, reduced agricultural yields and increased heat-related deaths will almost certainly become significant problems prior to 2100 – but this will hardly be catastrophic to society. The jury is still out on whether cyclones and hurricanes will be worse or better in the future.

        However, even though the impacts of climate change in a post-1.5 degree or higher world are unlikely to have major affects on the lives of people living in rich countries during our lifetimes, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the upper bounds of impacts this century (run-away positive feedback loops might take off in the next 10-20 years) and we really cannot predict whether many of the changes that will be wrought by warming will be irreversible through human action in the future.

        The upper limits of risk and the extreme uncertainty about increasing future risk are problems and these problems do need to be addressed now. And, the reality is that Thunberg is correct: the inaction of our governing bodies over the past 30 years has been shameful. And, the longer that inaction continues, the greater the chance that more moderate, growth-oriented solutions will be at all helpful declines.

        It would be inane to argue that we ought to actively shrink our economies in order to address the issue. That will only compound the problems of developing countries that are struggling to meet basic standards of living.

        But it is also highly problematic to protect the political class that refuses to act. We need climate solutions to be implemented today; we don't need to fall back on convenient truths (GDP growth won't decline that much in the next 50 years, so no big deal…) to protect the incompetence of those charged with enacting the many and varied solutions that are only waiting to be implemented.

        So, in that I agree with Thunberg. The global political elite probably does need to be shamed into action. The fact that the loudest call is coming from a teenager, I think, tells you something pretty profound about how poor a job our leaders have been doing on this issue to date.

        1. “It would be inane to argue that we ought to actively shrink our economies in order to address the issue. That will only compound the problems of developing countries that are struggling to meet basic standards of living.

          But it is also highly problematic to protect the political class that refuses to act. We need climate solutions to be implemented today; we don’t need to fall back on convenient truths (GDP growth won’t decline that much in the next 50 years, so no big deal…) to protect the incompetence of those charged with enacting the many and varied solutions that are only waiting to be implemented.”

          OK, if there are “many solutions,” let’s hear about some of these solutions that don’t actively shrink our economies. We’re listening…

          1. Not being a climate expert, I am not the correct person to provide an in-depth discussion of all the solutions. But, obvious ones include investing in low-carbon energy technologies and electric vehicles, shifting our food system towards less energy intensive foods, working on reforestation, limiting energy use that goes to wards inefficiencies like heat loss from buildings, etc. If you want more information on this, here is a book that provides a long list of actions that could be undertaken starting today, most of which are not aimed at shrinking our national GDPs (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31624481-drawdown – the full list is easily accessible in the top rated comment on that site).

            1. Oh, and obviously, we need to eliminate the current incentives and government give-aways for oil, coal and other dirty-energy industries and consider instituting a price on carbon emissions to shift industry incentives. Let’s aim for growth in the industries of the future, not the industries of the 19th and 20th centuries that got us into this mess.

        2. If only there was some advanced science that could unleash a torrent of energy a thousandfold greater than the chemical reactions we currently used, perhaps developed in the 1950’s, that we could fall back on, to significantly reduce these outputs. If there were, then people concerned about this issue could call on us to adopt this special technology, so that we wouldn’t have to rely on burning fossil fuels, or fall back on intermittent and destructive-to-the-environment-in-their-own-way wind and solar power.

          That way, we could continue our way of life, and avoid this scary scenario altogether!

    6. You wrote: Such catastrophic thinking is similar to AOC’s equally apocalyptic statement that “The world is gonna end in 12 years”.
      That wasn’t her statement.
      This is a full quote: “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'” Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Tanehisi Coates at an “MLK Now” event in New York. This isn’t saying the world is going to end in 12 years. She was quoting Millennials & Gen Z on what they thought. She didn’t say that was her opinion. “We’re like” was the current thinking of her age cohort.

      1. Then maybe she should show some courage and educate instead of appease, but that’s not going to happen since the “solutions” are precisely the things her side has been trying to implement for 50+ years. This is just a cop-out.

    7. The 12 year timeline is the time to limit the feedback loops and stop some of the worst catastrophic events.
      The world won’t end in 12 years but it could be put on a runaway train that can’t be stopped, only slowed down.

      1. The problem, of course, is that we don’t even know that these feedback loops actually exist.

        That, and we fear another type of feedback loop: the kind that hit our nation in the 1930s, when Government action plunged us into a Great Depression, and then kept us there for a decade.

        Perhaps the solution isn’t government action, but private industry. We can start by looking in to how to make it easier to construct and run nuclear power plants.

    8. Someone should tell that passionate and gullible little girl that one of the hardest parts of growing up is realizing that you can’t trust just any story that somebody tells you: not even if it’s exciting and thrilling and gives you a chance to feel important, not even if it’s told by somebody whom you like, not even if it’s repeated constantly by people who make you feel important. You should only trust a story if you’ve made the effort to check it out and verify it yourself. Otherwise you’re just a Useful Idiot, as Stalin said.

  1. I can see why Gillespie needs to defend this retarded little cunt. If we started criticizing retards for spouting their retarded opinions in public while adults are trying to talk life would get a lot more difficult for the Reason staff.

    1. Well, so much for “serious policy discussion”…

        1. No, she’s a cunt because she tells people they are evil and should be scared. She’s freaking out an entire generation. Her parents allowed it but they didn’t start it.

          And she’s little.

          And she’s at least semi-retarded.

          1. That reply was for Diane.

            Fucking Reason comment system…

    2. She’s not a “retarded little cunt”, she’s a young, most likely troubled girl who’s being criminally exploited by politicians and the environmentalist movement– who are one in the same.

      1. “There are three things politicians hide behind: the flag, the bible, and children” George Carlin

        1. That’s the old days. Now you have to add anti-racism.

        2. “There are three things politicians hide behind in 2019: the rainbow flag, environmental homilies, and mentally ill young womyn” George Carlin’s ghost

      2. If “Greta Thunberg’s histrionics are likely heartfelt”, then Greta has been abused via adult histrionics about global warming, leading her to think “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”

        This AGW hysteria, is simply politicians trying to use a crisis to obtain power (and future wealth as a result), and don’t want it to go to waste. The problem is, there isn’t a crisis. It all assumes the greenhouse gas effect due to extra CO2 we produce will make the planet hotter. And while all the climate scientists’ models predicted lots of warming, it hasn’t occurred. So the models are bogus, and shouldn’t be used to promote this hysteria – yet they still do. Even Michael Mann, promoter of the famous hockey stick tipping point theory, lost in court to someone who called him a fraud, because guess what, Mann wouldn’t produce the data which he used to promote his hockey stick. That’s anti-science, from one of the many pseudo-scientists, earning a living serving politicians who want control of our energy use.

        1. Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.

          There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming – and what those hundreds of millions of years have to tell us – people need to know and understand at hseneker.blogspot.com

          The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

        2. and even if it does get a little warmer it’s not the end of the world.

        3. Things aren’t so bad right now, but it is getting warmer.

          1. Winters and morning lows are getting warmer. Highs have been steady. Do we want to compare deaths from cold vs the heat while we complain more? Do we want to point out massive deaths from blizzards during the LIA? Do we want to discuss global greening and how food production is way up? Warmer isnt bad. Especially the way it is happening.

      3. And climate change/polar bears/sea turtles

      4. She definitely suffers from several mental illnesses. From Wikipedia:

        Thunberg says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it. Three years later she became depressed and lethargic, stopped talking and eating, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.

        Depression, eating disorders, OCD and selective mutism are all very seriously mental illnesses with two being deadly at times. Adults should be caring for her and making sure she gets the help she needs but instead they are putting the weight of the world on her shoulders and wearing her out physically and emotionally.

        1. She claims that her parents didn’t want her to get involved in all this and that they weren’t even supportive of her school strikes, but I suspect that’s bullshit. Her mother in particular is a well-known Swedish actress who LARPs as an activist, and her dad is also a minor actor in the business.

          The truth is that her parents are probably incapable of actually taking care of two high-special needs kids (Greta’s sister is even more of a basketcase than she is), and tend to go along with whatever demands the girls impose on them to try and keep some semblance of sanity in the home. Greta being feted by all these media companies and world leaders just gives them a way to foist one of their kids off on the handler for a little while.

          1. She would have to have had her parents’ permission to enter the country so there’s that. And I’m sure there are education laws in Sweden that the parents could have used to force her to go to school. But when parents write about their messed up family to up their public profile, they don’t really have their kids best interest at heart.

            What really disturbs me is how all the people that I know who should know better don’t see anything wrong with this at all.

          2. “..who LARPs as an activist.”

            Excellent. I’m swiping that.

      5. And who should have been spanked more at a younger age.

        1. They don’t spank in Sweden, in most of Europe even, yet kids don’t do stuff like this. She’s a tool being used by her parents for publicity and the environmental movement for sympathy. In the end, I don’t think they’ll like the monster they’re creating.

    3. Did you even bother to read the article? The closest Gillespie gets to “defending” her is to acknowledge that her wrong-headed beliefs are probably sincerely held.

      1. “wrong-headed beliefs are probably sincerely held”

        The left is never considered evil, even when it’s clear their plan is to use children to push the anti-free mind, anti-free market agenda that most everyone here knows to be evil propaganda.

        1. The left is never considered evil
          Well, except for all the people who consider the left evil.

          1. You mean everyone with experience with them then.

          2. The left is pure evil. The time for talk and debate is over. There need to be tangible consequences for their progressivism.

            1. I’m sure you are going to do something about it. Authoritarian implied violence from a “libertarian”. Oh boy!

      2. I was going to post a comment saying that in a few weeks, at least one of the Republican commenters will accuse Reason of fully supporting Greta Thurnberg, but we didn’t even have to wait a day.

    4. Crude thuggery against a girl makes you a real man?

      1. It’s projection. Many of these guys are on the same spectrum as she is. Add in some closet incel and you almost feel sorry for them.

        1. The 16 year old retard isn’t going to fuck you bruh

      2. She was picked as a political propaganda tool, she accepted that role, and people are attacking her in that role. She’s free to return to private life any time she wants to. Until then, she deserves all the contempt and verbal attacks she is getting.

  2. Why are you bullying the autistic child nick?

    1. It’s her or Tony.

      1. No reason it can’t be both – – – – – –

  3. Seriously though this whole thing is disgusting and the parents should be ashamed. It’s creepy and gross. Using children as meat shields for sham partisan action is wrong no matter who does it. Seems to be more accepted on one side than the other but the conservatives do it to with things like the march for life but are rightly mocked for it.

    1. Using children as meat shields for sham partisan action is wrong no matter who does it.

      And using a mentally handicapped child doubly so. Criticism of her is already being framed as “bullying the disabled.”

      1. If they were smart, they’d parlay it into gun control. I’d defend her right to own a gun but you’d have to shoot me before I’d hand one to her.

      2. That’s why we need to find some dude with downs to call her a slut and say electric cars are for homos.

        1. Aspys actually have superior IQs to normies, not lower.

          1. Aspys actually have superior IQs to normies, not lower.
            Would you want one making decisions for you?

            1. I didn’t say anything about better judgement, just correcting an incorrect statement. This girl likely has an above average IQ. She also has been manipulated by progtards. No one should listen to a thing she says.

          2. Aspys actually have superior IQs to normies, not lower.

            Bullshit. Under the autism spectrum model, this isn’t correct and, by virtue of sampling bias, the claim was arguably bullshit before it was considered to be part of the spectrum.

            Something like 3% of people with ASD have an IQ above 115, which is significantly below the expected proportion for the normal population and, as I indicated, lots of ‘smart’ people who are/were just narcissists, sociopaths, and generally assholes are more capable of defending their more typical sociopathies under the umbrella of Asperger’s/ASD.

            There’s no data set that conclusively correlates Asperger’s with IQ. There is a correlation between claiming you have a high IQ, claiming you have Asperger’s, and otherwise being an immoral fuckwad.

        2. LOL!
          At work.
          It was commented upon.
          And I chose not explain exactly what made me burst into laughter…

      3. Let it be parlayed that way. The more they do that, the more effective “why are you exploiting a disabled child?” will be as a retort.

        1. Oh, I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen, and is in fact already happening.

          I’m starting to wonder whether climate hysteria is going to survive this election cycle.

          1. An adult with any kind of self-respect isn’t going to be receptive to some developmentally disabled teenager trying to guilt-trip and harangue them into giving up their first-world lifestyle to eat bugs and pay carbon taxes.

            1. I got my mama’s old mixing spoon for her ass if she gets in my face about climate change.

        2. She isn’t disabled. She’s probably got a very high IQ, but hasn’t learned how disingenuous and manipulative normies can be. Especially the kind of low cunning one sees from the progressives.

          Since this is unnatural to an Aspy, it is a learned thing to recognize it. She has not learned to do that yet. And that has allowed progtards to fill her with their AGW bullshit.

          She would be fine if we got rid of the progtards. They are the root problem. So tear the problem out by the root.

          1. This. Aspy’s tend to be more gullible because we have more difficulties reading people’s intentions. We also have more sensory sensitivity, anxiety and awkwardness. We also lack some coordination, especially fine motor skills. We do, however, tend to have very high IQs and can be very analytical. However, we can be very tied to certain view points. Overall, most Aspy’s function very well with some minor accomodations. We are not Rainman, we are not broken.

          2. No, she’s disabled and mentally ill to boot. She’s been diagnosed with autism, selective mutism, and OCD that was so severe she committed self-harm by nearly starving herself to death. Just because she might have a high IQ doesn’t mean she possesses all the faculties of someone who can function in ordinary human society.

      4. Asperger’s is not classified as a mental handicap. Most of us that qualify as Asperger’s have above average IQs. I personally test in the genius range.

        1. No reputable psychologist recognizes a “genius” IQ range. It isn’t 1935 anymore. You’re a smart person, but you merely have very superior intelligence. Lots of people do. Unless you’ve done something to shift an entire domain of knowledge, you’re probably not a genius.

      5. And using a mentally handicapped child doubly so. Criticism of her is already being framed as “bullying the disabled.”

        That’s why she was carefully chosen and groomed for this part.

      6. “Criticism of her is already being framed as ‘bullying the disabled.’”

        This was their plan all along.

    2. The right doesn’t take it nearly as far. I know it happened a decade ago, but Occupy used children as human shields.

    3. Her parents are proud of her now, but wait till she and her creepy little friends start snooping around each other’s homes cataloging environmental infractions (thermostat wastefully set, incandescent light bulbs, politically incorrect browser history) and denouncing them to the neighborhood environmental guardians. Will they still be proud when they’re in the re-education camps?

      1. Actually, her parents are extremely creepy from what I’ve read. They’ve used her diagnosis to exploit her and her sister.

    4. Ashamed or arrested? This is child abuse- allowing a girl to be constantly frightened and feeling unrealistically that she is the only hope for a whole planet.

  4. I think we open borders advocates need our own version of Greta Thunberg. We need a teenager who will travel around the planet promoting unlimited, unrestricted immigration (except into Israel; they can keep their wall).

    Some might argue using children like this is in poor taste. To which I respond, extreme times call for extreme measures. And with Charles Koch’s net worth stalled out under $60 billion, we are clearly in extreme times.

    1. The last time Europeans sailed to American shores, it did not turn out so well for Indigenous Americans

    2. You swung and missed this time. You see…

      Greta is the best advocate for promoting unlimited, unrestricted immigration. As the world continues to heat up due to human malfeasance, more and more climate refugees will need to be resettled. 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man made, and polls show that the vast majority of Americans think “immigration is a good thing.” We should all promote Greta’s work, as she is a huge advocate for the Koch/ Reason Liberaltarian agenda.

    3. Thanks to Sandy Hook our chances of using an autistic kid to advocate against gun control went out the window.

  5. I think I am going to ask my five-year-old grand niece for her views on tariff policy.

    1. To really sell it to the public, convince her that if her views on tariff policy aren’t enacted, she’ll die. Because five-year-old’s have an awesome reaction that totally tugs at the heart strings when you convince them they’re going to die. Think of the sales opportunities.

    2. Wont be worse than Boehm or ABC.

  6. How about we hold a beauty pageant with girls 6-10 dressed up like slutty cougars instead?

    1. The left only does that with boys.

  7. Her future—and that of the planet—hasn’t been “stolen” and the best way forward is through serious policy discussion, not histrionics.

    No, the best way forward is histrionics. Because once the policy discussion gets serious, the entire concept of Man-made Global Warming can be called into question.

    1. Climate alarmist and flat earth believers have one thing in common. They both believe the science is settled.

      Science challenges current beliefs.

      The people that think climate does not change, or cannot change on it’s own is ignoring the history of the earth.

      1. That isn’t really what most of them are saying, however. They are suggesting that global temperatures are rising and that it is causally linked to CO2 emissions. These temperature increases change the climate in other ways (though not very measurable at this point).

        The climate change alarmist crowd is often shrill, and they seem to exaggerate their claims…it is really annoying, but that doesn’t make them completely wrong, either.

        1. That’s what I thought, not too long ago. But as it got more shrill, I got more suspicious. This isn’t the way to convince people that you’re right. Loudly appealing to guilt and grievance is the argument of coercion.

        2. “The climate change alarmist crowd is often shrill, and they seem to exaggerate their claims…it is really annoying, but that doesn’t make them completely wrong, either.”

          Their “solutions” are completely wrong.

  8. If you’re going to advise not engaging with hysterical retards and their hysterical retarded shit, what the hell are we going to have to talk about and who are we going to be talking about it with?

  9. when I was 16 oh so many years ago, I never thought about death that much. It led to some incredible living.

    1. That’s because you weren’t woke. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      1. I’m only ashamed of the living I didn’t do. Luckily I can make up for it in my later years. I’m looking forward to it.

    2. That’s the autism for you. When I was 16 I dreamed of marrying Leif Garret on a beach in Hawaii instead of sperging about climate change. Maybe that would have been better seeing as how Leif aged and the fact that I’m a dude that doesn’t find men attractive.
      Being 16… It was a blast.

  10. What exactly has been stolen from her?

    1. Capacity for rational thought.

      1. Well played.

    2. Her fidget spinner. That’s why she’s acting this way.

    3. Critical thought and a desire for freedom.

      Nordic Socialism! You won’t even know that you’re a slave!

  11. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

    LOL. This must be related to her parents telling her that she can see CO2 and that it can be “sucked” out of the air like a vacuum.

    1. Trees. Plant moar trees. Lotz moar

      1. Hahahahahaha. “The outlook is grim”. Bullshit. The planet is healthier than it’s been for hundreds of years.

        1. Yeah, but it might be inconvenient if you live on the coast…better just kill ourselves now.

      2. MOAR

  12. We get the maximum optimist take at Reason, an ideological outfit not only funded by oil interests but whose ideology depends on minimizing government action. Both of these conflict with the nature of the problem. People should take you about as seriously as a 16 year-old, unless the 16 year-old has facts on her side, in which case you should take her more seriously.

    The selective Panglossianism of libertarians is strange. On so many other counts all you do is bitch about how terrible things are. Yet when it comes to any policy solution that means digging up and burning less fossil fuel, there’s always an excuse never to change.

    1. “”unless the 16 year-old has facts on her side, in which case you should take her more seriously.”‘

      What facts would those be?

      1. Taking the histrionic rantings of a 16-year-old as “fact” on a subject as complex as climate must be the sort of “science-based policy making” that the Left boasts about so much.

      2. I meant any 16 year-old.

        This particular one just had a passionate and angry message directed at people who continue to give not two shits about conserving the ecosystem she has to grow up in.

        1. Well, given that industrialized civilization cut child mortality by at least 90%, there’s a very good chance that Greta would not even exist if not for us evil capitalists.

        2. “to give not two shits about conserving the ecosystem she has to grow up in”

          So your claim is that literally nothing related to the ecosystem of the planet has improved in her life time?

          This is what you’re going with?

          1. Some things have improved. The overall picture is grim, however.

            1. For idiot leftists like you, yes it is. The rest of us are prosperous and happy.

        3. You mentioned facts. I was interested in those.

        4. “This particular one just had a passionate and angry message directed at people who continue to give not two shits about conserving the ecosystem she has to grow up in.”

          Her boat trip used more carbon than I will release this year.

          Tell me more, please.

        5. Maybe what she and her generation should do is stop trying to persuade the unpersuadable older generations but simply go on strike and reject them. Not for one day but forever. Not as some sort of dumbass march but simply create the alternative life that is sustainable and LIVE it. Reject everything that those older generations are using or dependent on that prevent them from seeing the change as possible. Reject voting. Reject taxes. Reject debt-based money which creates environmental (and intergenerational public) debt as well. Reject every obligation and burden and expectation and constraint that that older generation places on younger generations or that has that effect. Reject every siren song that has the goal of cooptation. Embrace generational sovereignty – the dead or soon-to-be-dead have no right to bind the living to their laws/customs – and find that part of any country that is the most ‘frontier’ in which to build it with their peers.

          Fact is the young have always had more power than they realize. But part of growing up means transitioning from the futility of a temper tantrum to simply seizing that power as an adult regardless of the consequences. Worse when a tantrum is merely manipulation and continued infantilization.

          I suppose kids today no longer read Thoreau’s ‘On Civil Disobedience’. And if they do, they read it as some meaningless philosophy text rather than as a justification to act.

          As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad…It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil.

          1. “Reject every siren song that has the goal of cooptation”……… ummmmmm………

            If massive collective guilt and grievance is not “cooptation”, what is?

          2. And as for “going on strike”, I’m not sure if you’re trying to be sarcastic here, but yes! giving up all modern comforts and convenience is exactly what they should do!

            That’ll show us! Haha.

            1. I don’t think you understand the difference between ‘going on strike’ and ‘I’m going to hold my breath until my face turns blue’.

              1. If you say so. I do know what practice what you preach means.

                Now do “cooptation”.

              2. “I don’t think you understand the difference between ‘going on strike’ and ‘I’m going to hold my breath until my face turns blue’.”

                Going on strike involves sacrificing something important (such as work) for a higher principle.

                What, exactly, are the “youth” sacrificing here?

                Perhaps older folks should FORCE them to sacrifice by banning tablets and phones for people under 21.

                1. What, exactly, are the “youth” sacrificing here?

                  Again – I’m not advocating they do any of this current dumbass marching that they are calling a ‘strike’. It’s obviously not. It’s a demonstration – and with a silly laundry list of demands on others to do something where some in that generation are somehow claiming to be the intermediary of them all or something. That’s all shit.

                  What I’m saying they should do is strike – withhold everything from the gens that are creating problems for them. More like Thoreau at Walden or the back-to-the-land movement or the hippie communes or for that matter Galt’s Gulch without the moronic arrogance that the looter generations will soon surrender so no alternative really need be built. And in all likelihood without the assurance of a peaceful end-game. A generational strike has only one ‘demand’ of its elders – die already. There’s nothing to negotiate. It remains peaceful until the nextgen can figure out – on their own – what works – and then if the oldergen is still alive and clinging to power and resistant, it prob ceases to be peaceful.

                  What are they ‘sacrificing’? The debt-based baubles of modern life that allow one to loot the future of their children in exchange for spending it in the present. They are sacrificing becoming part of the problem. Which is in fact the easy way out.

                  1. But they AREN’T sacrificing the debt-laden baubles of modern life. They use them more than most adults.

    2. “You seem like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

    3. “Panglossianism” …what the fuck are you talking about?

    4. A 16 year old girl ranted and cried and this idiot summarizes the event as “facts”.

    5. When the policy solution is “hey, let’s be communists!”, I’ll pass.

      1. Exactly.

      2. Well, that is what this crap has always been about.

    6. “On so many other counts all you do is bitch about how terrible things are.”

      Like what? Sure, Glen Garvin doesn’t seem too happy with this year’s new programing on broadcast TV, but John Stossel just had a whole article about how life is better than ever.

      1. John Stossel has the verbal acuity of a 5th grader, at best.

        I suggest a set of priorities that do not align with reality. For example, a gay wedding cake is not the biggest problem in the entire cosmos.

        1. ‘Stache basher.

          1. Excellent chick band name!

        2. For example, a gay wedding cake is not the biggest problem in the entire cosmos.

          It’s revealing Tony doesn’t make this criticism of those who think it is. So amusingly he ends up citing this as a justification to support people who think gay wedding cake is the biggest problem in the cosmos.

        3. “For example, a gay wedding cake is not the biggest problem in the entire cosmos.”

          …then why did the Left pursue it so hard that it had to be decided by the SCOTUS?

          1. Why did they pursue it so hard that they went to multiple bakers until they found one who refused to make them one?

          2. The Left didn’t deny people their usual business service in the name of bigotry.

            1. But the left did turn it into a public spectacle. Or as you might say act like it’s the biggest problem in the entire cosmos.

            2. Nor did the baker.

              He declined a contract order for a special cake.

              And, again, if it such a nothing event…why did the left pursue it so hard? Answer your own question, please.

            3. The left IS bigotry. Bigotry incarnate.

        4. “John Stossel has the verbal acuity of a 5th grader, at best.”

          Your childish retort has nothing to do with the claim you made. If you can’t address a point, it’s better to ignore it than to call attention to your failure to address it.

          “I suggest a set of priorities that do not align with reality.”

          I suggest you don’t understand either libertarians or reality, so I don’t particularly care what you suggest.

          “For example, a gay wedding cake is not the biggest problem in the entire cosmos.”

          And this is a perfect example. It’s not the libertarians seeking to use the government to force people to bake gay wedding cakes, and most actual libertarians don’t have a problem with gays or gay marriages. Libertarians have supported gay marriage way back when liberals were still claiming marriage could only take place between a man and woman. Libertarians do have a problems with government compulsion, particularly when it is used in favor of something as minor as gay wedding cakes.

    7. funded by oil interests

      I wonder if you know the ratio between what the global energy sector spends and what global governments spend on climate research and propaganda.

      Hint: the propaganda bit that there’s a ton of money being spent on this by oil companies is not being paid for by the oil companies.

      And how can you still be bleating that only governments can fix this when the US leads every other country in addressing it despite being one of the countries most reluctant to take government action?

      “On so many other counts all you do is bitch about how terrible things are when the government interferes in people’s business. Yet when it comes to any policy solution government interference that means digging up and burning less fossil fuel, there’s always an excuse never to change a consistent tendency to believe the government will fuck that up, too.”

      FTFY

      1. Let’s be clear. Not even the oil companies engage in climate change denialism anymore. That’s just you guys. Alone in the world.

        1. Well, the climate fucking changes halfwit. When you guys FINALLY settled on that, the rest of the world was like “No shit, why have you been bleating about fake warming forever”

          1. Well not forever. I mean forever after all the other things you bleated and were wrong about. Like cooling.

            1. So yeah, you FINALLY settled on “climate change” because you were tired of being wrong, and are now apparently super proud of the fact that you noticed something exceedingly obvious to literally everyone else, and feel like you should get attention for it after being totally wrong previously.

              1. More lame, stale talking points. Go read a Wikipedia article. Go read anything. See Spot Run. Whatever it takes. Mental illness and stupidity is a terrible combination.

                1. I see you’re upset that I pointed out your lack of clothing.

                    1. Like every other day for Tony the Feeble.

                2. Mental illness and stupidity is a terrible combination.

                  Take Greta Thunberg, for example.

                3. “”More lame, stale talking points”‘

                  Climate has always been in a state of change. Not lame. Not stale.

                  If people really wanted to do something about human contribution to the earth’s eco system, then decouple it from trying to kill capitalism.

                  1. “Climate has always been in a state of change.”

                    Exactly, so labeling this whole issue as “climate change” rather than “global warming” renders the assertion non-falsifiable. That’s not science, but it is precisely what the “warmists” intended.

                4. Poor Tony. He is so dumb that he has no idea that the Sun will go all Red Giant and destroy the Earth forever.

                  Basically, this means that as the Sun continues to expend hydrogen in its core, the fusion process speeds up and the output of the Sun increases. At present, this is leading to a 1% increase in luminosity every 100 million years, and a 30% increase over the course of the last 4.5 billion years.

                  Approximately 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This increase in luminosity will also mean an increase in heat energy, one which the Earth’s atmosphere will absorb. This will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is similar to what turned Venus into the terrible hothouse it is today.

                  In 3.5 billion years, the Sun will be 40% brighter than it is right now, which will cause the oceans to boil, the ice caps to permanently melt, and all water vapor in the atmosphere to be lost to space. Under these conditions, life as we know it will be unable to survive anywhere on the surface, and planet Earth will be fully transformed into another hot, dry world, just like Venus.

                  In 5.4 billion years from now, the Sun will enter what is known as the Red Giant phase of its evolution. This will begin once all hydrogen is exhausted in the core and the inert helium ash that has built up there becomes unstable and collapses under its own weight. This will cause the core to heat up and get denser, causing the Sun to grow in size.

                  It is calculated that the expanding Sun will grow large enough to encompass the orbit’s of Mercury, Venus, and maybe even Earth. Even if the Earth were to survive being consumed, its new proximity to the the intense heat of this red sun would scorch our planet and make it completely impossible for life to survive.

                  1. The astronomy professor is explaining the life cycle of our sun when a frightened student in the back of lecture raises her hand and asks:
                    “Professor, how long did you say we have until the Sun becomes a red giant?”
                    “About 5 billion years.”
                    “Phew! Thank God! I thought you said MILLION”

                  2. 3.5 billion years? 5.4 billion years? We don’t have that kind of time, man! 12 years, tops, till we ruin everything!!!!!

                    Haha.

                5. Tony, you are a barely literate moron. Everyone here is better read than you.

                  Now go drink your Drano.

          2. Oh you really got me there with that semantic zinger. I am felled. How was I to know that we were talking about global epochs this whole time and not a specific, recent, rapid phenomenon of human-caused warming?

            For the love of shit, your talking points are so fucking stale because not even the oil companies are pumping them in your brains anymore. You just don’t have anything but the old shit. And it’s so lame it embarrasses me.

            1. “Oh you really got me there with that semantic zinger”

              I know. And now so does everyone else.

        2. Not even the oil companies engage in climate change denialism anymore.

          “Climate Change Denialism.”

          You keep throwing this term around, but consistently refuse to define what it means. But clearly to you it means “not believing that only the government can solve this problem.”

          Can you show us that you understand any part of climate science? Or does being a “Climate Change Believer” not entail taking an interest in the science?

          1. Perhaps, just like the creationists before you, you move the goalposts as soon as you start getting too embarrassed to show your face in public.

            A few short years ago it was “there is no warming.”

            After you couldn’t deny that anymore, it became “humans aren’t causing it.”

            Now we’re creeping along, ever so delicately, to “humans are causing it, but it’ll be great!”

            Anything to keep burning hydrocarbons for as long as possible. The libertarian energy source!

            1. “Perhaps, just like the creationists before you, you move the goalposts as soon as you start getting too embarrassed to show your face in public.”

              Like you did with global cooling? And then again with global warming?

              I win.

              1. You are just not mentally equipped to engage in this discussion.

                Global cooling? Is this 1997?

                1. Oh, Tony can cite the past but nobody else can. Got it.

                  1. Sigh. One magazine in one article once talked about global cooling in the 1970s. And you people have been rubbing your tiny dicks all over that one article ever since thinking it disproves all of climate science. You are so pathetic in your willful lack of knowledge it makes me embarrassed.

                    1. One magazine in one article once talked about global cooling in the 1970s.

                      No. It was a big deal. You clearly weren’t alive in the ’70s.

                      You are correct that “some people said something that was wrong 50 years ago” is not really a solid argument.

                      OTOH, it’s hard not to notice that the global cooling hysteria came in the wake of discovering that such a thing was possible.

                      Likewise with the “greenhouse effect.”

                      Oddly, humans have always been convinced that the most recent thing they realized could happen is definitely happening. Until we discover the next thing.

                    2. No it wasn’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You aren’t remotely interested in educating yourself on the facts of this subject. You think it was a big deal because propaganda artists have retroactively convinced you that it was a big deal.

                      It was literally one article in one magazine four decades ago.

                      Why do you even want to talk about things you deliberately have no interest in knowing anything about?

                    3. Tony, utterly and abjectly disconnected from reality like usual.

                    4. REASON’S fucked-up comment system won’t let me post a link to many, many instances of the prediction of the new ice age, but they exist.
                      cei, dot, org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
                      Replace “, dot, ” with a period and it might work.

                    5. Why don’t you also tell me that people used to think the earth was flat, and that is why science you don’t like is wrong today?

                      It doesn’t matter of 500 journals predicted global cooling if it was wrong. It has no bearing on what current science says. Do you know how science works? As in, did you graduate high school?

                    6. “It doesn’t matter of 500 journals predicted global cooling if it was wrong. It has no bearing on what current science says.”

                      No, but it certainly has bearing on how much faith we should put in the validity of our current understanding.

                      “Do you know how science works?”

                      Yes, and making dire predictions based on computer models that have repeatedly failed to reflect reality is not science.

                    7. Tony, you aren’t versed in facts, and are by your own admission am extremely dishonest person. So don’t presume to lecture anyone, ever. Be grateful you are allowed to live and have your asshole plowed by the rough tricks you seek out.

            2. Personally, I was going door-to-door in the late-80s, early-90s with CalPIRG and Greenpeace telling people about global warming and trying to get the studies funded.

              I was registered Green until 2004.

              I’ve been following the science for literally 30 years. The state of the science has changed in that time. But the main thing that has changed about me is my awareness that the only role the government has to play here is to fuck things up.

              The only reason you still haven’t learned that lesson in life is that you’re blinded by political tribalism.

              So, in sum, you’re not actually talking to me (as per usual), but to the voices in your head (as per usual).

              1. Okay fine. I see you engaging me and not the vast sea of science deniers here, and I take that as a bias, but I apologize if I’ve mischaracterized your appreciation of science.

                So the issue is whether government should do anything. Without question, public action (which I take to be indistinguishable from government action, depending on scale), has fixed environmental problems. The bigger the problem, the bigger the mechanisms necessary, which should also be obvious. We reversed the ozone layer problem, we got rid of smog in LA, we reduced emissions, and we have been providing clean water and sanitation for ages, all with the use of government.

                Surely it’s a tool to at least consider, given its rather successful track record. We’ve given the markets one hell of a try on global warming, and they’ve just shat all over themselves, haven’t they?

                1. Almost all of those things were started by voluntary actions of industries before the goverernment stepped in (late as usual). The goverernment is cumbersome and slow to react. Almost all the CO2 reduction in the US has been industry (and remains industry) driven.

                    1. List off the regulations and government acts that have achieved this. Aren’t you constantly complaining that our government “does nothing?”

                      So which is it – has our government done nothing, or has our government done everything?

                    2. Fracking, another one of those things liberal environmentalists love to castigate, has done more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than anything else.
                      https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34872

                2. We reversed the ozone layer problem,

                  There was never an ozone layer problem and nothing has really changed since banning CFCs.

                  https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html

                  Click on one of the animations and tell me if you can see when the “ozone layer problem” reversed.

                  1. That was a great link. If one clicks on the same month back to the beginning of the graphs and clicks through all the way until 2019 you find that the primary variation is seasonal, nothing to do with what year you pick. Every fall there appears to be a “hole” in the ozone layer above the south pole. By the time spring comes along, no hole.

                  2. Part of the problem with the link is that it doesn’t go back far enough. Another part of the problem is that CFCs can last a long time in the atmosphere, so simply banning them helps prevent further damage but doesn’t immediately begin fixing the problem.
                    https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=11&secNum=10

                    And seasonal variations are to be expected because stratospheric ozone is formed by the absorption of UV rays (which is why the problem is concentrated at the poles) so when there is less sum there is less ozone.

                3. So the issue is whether government should do anything.

                  I would add “whether the government can do anything, because so far the government has only hindered progress, and the relationship between progress and government involvement has been inversely proportional.

                  We reversed the ozone layer problem

                  As Juice points out, there was no ozone layer problem – it was pure hysteria. But the government banned some things anyway, just for good measure.

                  we got rid of smog in LA, we reduced emissions

                  Those two are actually the same thing, and as soldiermedic76 points out, the government only just barely got the Clean Air Act passed in time to take credit for it. But I acknowledge that it’s debatable and that one could make the case that CA’s emissions standards are what drove smog out of LA.

                  we have been providing clean water and sanitation for ages

                  You think it’s the government that’s responsible for clean water? How’s that working out for Flint?

                  Surely it’s a tool to at least consider, given its rather successful track record.

                  See – that’s where we disagree on the facts. In my lifetime of watching the government get involved in environmental issues, I’ve only ever seen the government fuck it up.

                  We’ve given the markets one hell of a try on global warming, and they’ve just shat all over themselves, haven’t they?

                  Have they? When have we “given the markets one hell of a try on global warming?” Other, than, of course, the US leading the world in reducing carbon emissions despite the reluctance of our government to get involved?

                  1. The biggest driver of reduced emissions (correction: not reduced emissions, but fewer emissions than if the status quo had remained since 2005 or so) is increased use of methane instead of coal. The second biggest driver is increased wind power, followed by reduced industrial electricity use. Following that are tighter emissions standards in cars and other factors. This is ignoring the effect the great recession had.

                    I think the conversation about how much of this is government vs. how much is market is totally irrelevant with respect to the problem. Do whatever the hell works. But since this is the primary autistic tic of this particular website’s worldview, you can parse that out if you wish. Government surely played a role, one that you guys have opposed at every turn and that the current government (yay coal!) is trying to reverse purely out of ignorance and spite.

                    If we must talk philosophically, why don’t you explain to me why a market must necessarily reduce emissions. What could possibly motivate that besides government intervention and, perhaps, public do-gooderness? The fact that conservatism and libertarianism have spent decades trying to minimize both doesn’t earn you a gold star from me, that’s for sure.

            3. I didn’t ever move the goalposts.

              From the beginning my response has been “What are we going to do about it?”

              The only consistent thing about the answer is that a) it’s wrong and b) it will change.

              I’m not a climatologist and, even if I were, the evidence supporting every word of the term *man*made*global*warming* is shaky at best. Fortunately, I don’t have to be a climatologist either. This is a democracy and we don’t even have to be phenomenally well informed electorate. Just look at Trump.

              The problem is that scientists, bureaucrats, and climate journalists just have to refrain from being dishonest and unscrupulous shit bags that no one believes. As vile and evil as Trump may be he has, as a cult of evil personified, yet to equal things like Greta Thunberg or Desmond. It’s likely that somewhere out there, a 12 yr. old wakes up every morning and dons his MAGA hat. The GOP has yet to stick the kid front and center at a rally to lecture all the SJWs on their impending damnation.

              1. The problem is that scientists, bureaucrats, and climate journalists just have to refrain from being dishonest and unscrupulous shit bags that no one believes.

                ^ This.

            4. I don’t think you quite understand what actually happened.

              A few short years ago it was “there is no warming.”

              Because there was no warming. Like there is no ‘warming’ now.

              There is the natural cycle of the seasons, the natural cycle of the sun, the natural cycles of the planets, the moon, and all the things that affect our environment.

              After you couldn’t deny that anymore, it became “humans aren’t causing it.”

              The cry of the poor fools who thought that admitting to it would get you to shut up.

              But there was still no warming. There were still no models that could predict anything.

              And there were more and more pieces about the fact of the ‘global cooling’ scare in the 70’s.

              And then the extremely obvious ‘pause’ started. Only, there wasn’t really a ‘pause’. The ‘pause’ is the actual temperature put up against the projected temperature the models said it should be.

              And then the ridicule started.

              ‘If it snows, it’s global warming, if it doesn’t snow, it’s global warming. It’s like, if the weather does anything, it’s global warming–even when it’s freezing.

              And, in that, ‘climate change’ was born. The Unfalsifiable Hypothesis. ‘Everything that happens is the direct result of Anthropogenic Climate Change’

              1. “‘If it snows, it’s global warming, if it doesn’t snow, it’s global warming. It’s like, if the weather does anything, it’s global warming–even when it’s freezing.”

                They use another related tactic. When it is pointed out to Warmists that we had an unseasonably cold winter, they say, “that’s weather, not climate. You can’t go by that.” But if there is one heatwave, it’s: “Look. You see, global warming.”

        3. The oil companies did not deny climate change even 30 years ago and this is now being used to sue them for “crimes against humanity.” See how this works?

          1. The bullshit talking points people have been spitballing at me here for years didn’t come from nowhere. They didn’t come from credible scientific sources, to be sure, but they didn’t come from nowhere.

            I always assumed the executives of oil companies weren’t so fucking dumb to deny basic scientific reality, but nihilism and global catastrophe for short-term profit is hardly more morally laudable.

            1. “The bullshit talking points”

              It’s awesome when you get so run down that you can’t even come up with unique ways to dismiss things that destroy your world view.

              “TALKING POINTS!!!”

              1. It’s a nice way of saying you are incapable of reading and thinking for yourself.

                1. That’s what he’s trying to tell you, yes.

                2. Tony’s lack of self-awareness would be breathtaking, if there weren’t so many other leftist drones equally as lacking.

                3. Tony, you puke up whatever pablum your progtard elite owners feed you. You are a good one on the democrat plantation. Got your mind right.

                  You must feel so proud to be a good pet.

        4. That’s just you guys. Alone in the world.

          Because we all met our climate goals.

        5. The oil companies see a juicy new source of corporate subsidies.

          No, we aren’t denying climate change, we’re denying that governments should let fascists like you get away with using it as an excuse to funnel trillions to corporations while doing nothing to stabilize the climate.

    8. I think you are confusing different libertarians thinking differently with inconsistency on the part of libertarians. Nick tends to be pretty optimistic about a lot of things.

      1. Especially about the direction of men’s fashion.

    9. Tony believes an autistic 16 year old girl.

      That tracks.

      1. Well, his arguments are indistinguishable from those an autistic 16-year-old girl who had been lied to by leftists would make.

    10. “unless the 16 year-old has facts on her side, in which case you should take her more seriously.”

      Tony thinks the world is going to end within 15 years.

    11. Agree. Bailey and Gillespies arguments and the interpretation of the effects of climate change on the economy pretty obviously states the case for how bankrupt this thinking is. The environment may be going to hell but the economy (GDP) will be hit at most by ~8%. We’re all good cause that money, when averaged across the total population of 9billion people will mean that each and every person is going to be good for ~$90,000. Really, on what planet will this socialist profit sharing happen? None. The wealthy will survive the calamities but the bulk of the population will have a pretty poor outcome. This is what Greta Thunberg is arguing. The fairytale of continued growth versus the reality of sustainability. Physics and chemistry will arbitrate this argument.

      Libertarians only view economic output, and more importantly growth, as the defining metric. Pulling people into the “middle class” is a stated positive outcome. But the definition of middle class is the real trick. It is implied that by middle class, read, t “consumer” and this conversion into a consumer is only good insofar as it expands a consumer market. And getting people to that point imposes a real cost to the total environment. The value of the people themselves, the environment or environmental services is set to zero in the libertarian model. And that is how it goes for libertarian thinking. If it cannot be monetized or marketed it can be disposed of. Human economic activity as currently defined (capitalist, communist, Keynsian, Austrian…) is the singular problem as money is the only endpoint. And more recently, quarterly capitalism and shareholder preferences for quick returns have exacerbated the problem further, limiting the ability to plan in to the future. If that planning also has to account for environmental impacts, then it becomes far easier to just simply zero out economic value for the environment. Problem solved. The global environmental indicators track downward no matter the economic system you use to count the cash. How sustainable is this scenario??

      1. Really, on what planet will this socialist profit sharing happen?

        Bailey didn’t say that everyone will have an equal share, only that the average will be that high. It’s reasonable to expect that the current distribution will remain, only shifted higher. So everyone ends up better off.

        The value of the people themselves, the environment or environmental services is set to zero in the libertarian model

        No. The value of those things is determined by the individuals who make up the market. It’s baked right in.

        Human economic activity as currently defined (capitalist, communist, Keynsian, Austrian…) is the singular problem as money is the only endpoint.

        That isn’t a problem. Money is a proxy for all the things that people value, including the environment. When an environmental organization comes around asking you to help out, they sometimes ask for your time, but they always ask for your money. And it’s for a reason: Money is a proxy for all the things we value.

        The global environmental indicators track downward no matter the economic system you use to count the cash.

        This was addressed in the article. Find “U-shaped pattern”.

        1. “”When an environmental organization comes around asking you to help out, they sometimes ask for your time, but they always ask for your money.””

          Without money would they accept a dozen turnips? Perhaps two chickens?

        2. An angry 16 year old girl?

      2. “We’re all good cause that money, when averaged across the total population of 9billion people will mean that each and every person is going to be good for ~$90,000. Really, on what planet will this socialist profit sharing happen?”

        You realize that the GDP increases are happening faster in developing countries rather than the developed ones, right? And that the reason is capitalism, not socialism, right?

        1. That’s to be expected by kindergarten arithmetic.

          1. Apparently most liberals never made it through kindergarten then.

      3. Tell her to go to China and India, or any other number of third world countries who don’t actually give two shits about global warming because their inhabitants’ lives tend to be brutal and short, and bitch to them.

        I mean, really, it’s not a shock that these countries signed the Paris Accord because it meant a massive wealth transfer from first world nation who actually have their shit together, to third-world cesspools that don’t, and classifying India and China in that document as “developing” nations was the biggest joke of all.

      4. The environment may be going to hell but the economy (GDP) will be hit at most by ~8%.

        You misread. The IPCC report states no consequences beyond that.

        It’s not “mass extinction + -8% GDP.” It’s just “-8% GDP.”

        Which, as you point out, will make basically no difference whatsoever to most people.

    12. unless the 16 year-old has facts on her side

      Tony, the article spent several paragraphs pointing out that the facts are not on her side. She has focused on the worst case scenario from the 2018 IPCC report and she has fundamentally misinterpreted it. Furthermore, if you look back at prior IPCC reports you will see that they consistently overestimate warming. So it’s a good bet that the 2018 estimates are also a little high.

      Also, do you ever run out of straw men? You’ve been pulling them out like handkerchiefs today.

    13. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!

      Nah, that’s the lib ideology in a nutshell, tony. I mean, listen to that poor girl! Yikes!

    14. Plenty of libertarians would be glad to transition off of oil if superior alternatives were available at reasonable prices. Many here advocate nuclear power. But pretending solar and wind are high quality substitutes doesn’t help anyone.

      1. You don’t get to pretend that the only cost of burning fossil fuels comes from drilling, refining, and buying. The whole reason a laissez-faire approach breaks down is because it doesn’t take into account external costs like the destruction of the habitable environment of planet earth.

        1. Oh yes, your bullshit excuse to steal and plunder what others have.

          You and your friends should be locked away, perhaps executed, for your crimes.

    15. I would take climatolagists seriously if they could propose things that will … how should I put this? … fix the darn problem.

      Take the carbon credit market tried in Europe, for example: give every business a carbon credit, and high carbon industries could trade their credits with low-carbon ones, creating a market that will essentially be a tax on high carbon industries. What happened? The market collapsed, because high-carbon industries discovered it would be cheaper to offshore their businesses to places like Africa and import the materials to Europe. In the meantime, because these materials — things like steel and concrete — are crucial for building infrastructure, and the need for building didn’t decrease, this not only resulted in a net zero change of high-carbon industry — but they now increased their carbon footprint by importing these things!

      In other words, something that was supposed to decrease our use of carbon, resulted in an increase.

      And yet we have calls for a similar program here, in the United States. Why should we believe that you really have it in your heart to fix the planet, when your “experts” (1) can’t devise a plan that will actually save us, rather than hurt us, and (2) can’t even recognize when a plan fails? (Maybe the “experts” need to try it again, to really make sure that the idea doesn’t work, before trying to come up with the next one….)

      Meanwhile? Anyone seriously afraid for our climate future should be seriously considering nuclear power … which, despite its problems, has by far proven to be the safest energy source available … yet it’s almost, but not quite, impossible to find climate alarmists who are also in favor of nuclear power. Who’s the science deniers here?

  13. “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

    I’m using that shit. In response to every hysterical retard I encounter.

    1. I have no doubt her views are sincere, but unfortunately she is being used by both the leftists and corporatists with a huge stake in a “carbon free/neutral” economy.

  14. “Greta Thunberg’s histrionics are likely…”

    Spoon-fed to her by her commie parents, who are using their development-disabled child to push their personal political agendas.

    1. The Greta Thunbergs of this generation have become so radicalized that killing in the name of the environment isn’t unthinkable.

      1. Left out of the discussion so far is that keeping temperatures near pre-industrial levels is going to involve returning population levels toward pre-industrial levels too.
        Fight climate change … get your children spayed or neutered.
        Or wait for magic pixie dust to be invented that makes someone else solve the problem without inconveniencing the rest of us

        1. Well, then you bring race into “the discussion”.

          We can’t have that.

      2. you mean like San Antonio? If you think about it, its going to be the only acceptable option at some point if you legitimately believe we only have X amount of time left, and other people are stopping the possibility of a “safe” world. Just be glad these maniacs haven’t managed to gain control of the White House.

        If the world’s supposedly in danger and some country, most likely a developing one, refuses to shoot itself in the foot for your idiotic beliefs, don’t you have the moral responsibility to force them to comply, for the sake of the world? /sarc

        1. I wasn’t specifically referring to one-offs like that; more like ELF changing from property damage to people, or an eco-terrorist Weather Underground.

          1. I don’t disagree with you. These folks are essentially religious extremists with how they worship climate change. And history tells us plenty about how religious extremists handle anyone who doesn’t choose to repent and conform.

      3. Agreed…Based on the panicked and threatening rhetoric I would say its highly probable.

  15. “fairy tales of eternal economic growth”

    I want to read more about this. Are warming hysterics creating an economic mythology to rebut criticisms their plans will hurt economic growth? Or is this an outgrowth of the fact that hysterics are using environmentalism as cover for their far left economic ideologies and this is a bit slipping out?

    1. It’s hardly only climate activists who question the currently vogue model of capitalism.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/business/business-roundtable-ceos-corporations.html

      1. Revealingly Tony’s link does not support her assertion that eternal economic growth is a “fairy tale”. It almost seems Tony recognizes his worldview’s underlying principles are indefensible and chooses to defend other assertions instead. No doubt he hopes no one will notice the difference.

        1. Maximizing shareholder value (which is a government-imposed requirement if you want to be a corporation) entails a focus on attempting to achieve never-ending growth.

          There have been credible arguments against this model for the entire time this model has existed, focused rather on sustainability and social responsibility.

          I realize that last bit is like holy water to a possessed child to you guys. “Social responsibility? But I’m a Randian superman and the world revolves around ME!”

          1. “Maximizing shareholder value (which is a government-imposed requirement if you want to be a corporation)”

            No, actually, it isn’t.

            “entails a focus on attempting to achieve never-ending growth.”

            Also wrong.

            Your post is wrong twice in the first sentence.

          2. which is a government-imposed requirement if you want to be a corporation

            Do you know why?

            1. To give shareholders a reason to be shareholders. They’re the owners, so it’s in their interest for their officers to be legally compelled to look after their interests.

              But in the deepest philosophical sense, it is because it is. And it’s not just wild-haired socialists who think that maximizing profits and maintaining fiduciary duty must necessarily be the same thing, let alone having more profits next quarter than last.

              1. it’s not just wild-haired socialists who think that maximizing profits and maintaining fiduciary duty must necessarily be the same thing

                Yes. It’s most everybody. Because you don’t have another metric by which to decide that you’ve been fleeced by the people you’re giving your money to.

                This is changing with the concept of the ‘B’ corporation – i.e. a ‘mission-driven’ corporation that doesn’t promise to be profitable.

                It may take off, it may not.

          3. Maximizing shareholder value (which is a government-imposed requirement if you want to be a corporation) entails a focus on attempting to achieve never-ending growth.

            This is both false and irrelevant. The objectives and limitations of one company have nothing to do with limitations on the economy generally.

            Your absurd strawmen remains compelling only to idiots and children.

          4. So, Bush was right to invade Iraq? It was “socially responsible”, after all.

            Good God you don’t seem to realize how bad an idea basing policy on platitudes is.

            1. Because I believe that government should do some things does not mean I think everything governments do is good.

              I’m sorry to have to clear that up.

              1. Oh, forgot, socially good things don’t count if they aren’t done at the insistence of pasty white losers.

                You talk about how “white” conservative get-togethers are? Look at a fucking climate change get together. They’d get lost in a light snow storm.

                …which aren’t supposed to exist anymore, according to “climate science” just a few years ago.

          5. “And the world revolves around ME”.

            Sounds more like what that kid is saying.

            “How dare you!”

            Haha.

      2. Yes, libertarians also question the currently in vogue model of capitalism, with all the rent seeking, bailouts, subsidies and trade manipulations.

        1. From where I sit most libertarians think capitalism should work however Donald Trump imagines it should work as he’s shit tweeting.

          But yes, good. We all agree capitalism can be improved. I wish it weren’t controversial that it should be improved in such a way that favors sustainability of the habitable environment of the only planet we have to live on.

          1. “From where I sit most libertarians think capitalism should work however Donald Trump imagines it should work as he’s shit tweeting.”

            Yes, Reason has been very supportive of Trump’s policies.

          2. From where I sit most libertarians think capitalism should work however Donald Trump imagines it should work as he’s shit tweeting.

            You should probably work on your inability to understand reality.

            1. Is it that you just don’t see the 80% of the posters here who do nothing but praise His Orangeness and everything he does at the expense of all principles?

              1. Why would someone completely devoid of principles like yourself care whether others have any?

                Thinking Trump will better protect freedom than any of the Dem candidates is simply overwhelmingly obvious. That doesn’t mean people agree with every decision or statement he makes.

                Meanwhile despite your lies that the GND is only supported by AOC:

                Elizabeth Warren:
                Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who on Saturday officially declared her candidacy for president weeks after forming an exploratory committee, signed on as a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal after her office initially said she supported the “idea” of such a proposal.

                thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429342-what-key-2020-candidates-are-saying-about-the-green-new-deal

              2. Is it that you just don’t see the 80% of the posters here who do nothing but praise His Orangeness and everything he does at the expense of all principles?

                80% of the posts maybe, especially if LC1789 is feeling prolific, but 80% of posters, no.

              3. Wherein Tony proves yet again that he cannot count OR read.

        2. Zeb should know that crony Capitalism is not the same as the Capitalism that Libertarians advocate but look at him go!

          He even has 0=[] and Tony on board.

          1. Christ, you’re an idiot.

      3. And the market will sort them out very quickly.

      4. Yes, well connected business leaders love the kind of fascist policies you and Sanders promote. News at 11.

  16. You can see how seriously the party of science takes global warming when they trot out a 16 year old girl as their scientist.

    Puts to shame their refusal to consider nuclear power when the world’s going to end in 11 years.

    1. They used a 9 year old’s science fair poster as evidence of the need for plastic straw bans, so a 16 year old is an improvement…

    2. Well, back in 1998, 16-year-old Natalie Hershlag, a Jewish girl from Long Island, co-authored a scientific paper with two years.

      No one seems to cite any papers published by Greta Thunberg.

    3. Who is refusing to consider nuclear power among environmental activists? Name them.

      The people who should be refusing to consider nuclear power the most are libertarians, as they don’t believe in government subsidy for otherwise unsustainable industries.

      1. Who is refusing to consider nuclear power among environmental activists? Name them.

        Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, AOC, all supporters of the “Green New Deal” and all of the CNN info-packets given to my daughter by her school.

        Cory Booker came out as pro-nuke and was praised for having the guts to go against the Party Line.

        1. You’re wrong on some of those but not all.

          The point is the lame, stale talking point “You Greenpeace nerds hate nuclear power, thus we can’t do anything about climate change!” is yet another deflection and excuse to delay action. I’m OK with nuclear. If we can do without it, all the better, because it’s expensive and while relatively safe, when things go wrong they go really wrong.

          It’s just absurd that libertarians rely on this horseshit line so thoroughly considering that no nuclear power plant would ever be built in a laissez-faire environment. No private insurer would ever cough up the money for it. It’s a non-libertarian solution.

          So I said I support nuclear power. Now say you’re not a libertarian but just a culture war hack who hates solar because liberals like it (which, deep down, actually means because it doesn’t make profits industries that lobby right-wing politicians).

          1. “The point is the lame, stale talking point”

            How many times are you going to say this before it becomes a talking point?

          2. You’re wrong on some of those but not all.

            Which ones am I wrong about? Name them.

            The rest of your post is you just flailing because you, as usual, made a flippant comment that was wrong and now you’re welling over with panic.

            You support nuclear power? Fine. Your party doesn’t.

            1. Klobuchar (and Biden, whom you didn’t mention) are in favor of nuclear and neither Harris nor AOC is against it.

              Now address the point that your party cannot be in favor of nuclear power because it is not an industry that can exist in a free market.

              Or is nuclear power, for some mysterious reason, like policing and armed forces, one of those forms of socialism that’s OK because you say so?

              1. Um, AOC’s New Green Deal is quite opposed to it. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that she isn’t going to advocate things she opposes.

                But she is also a moron, so you never know.

                To deny that environmentalists oppose nuclear power pretty significantly makes every opinion you have suspect if you’re THAT ignorant.

                1. But it’s just not true. The GND is an aspirational airy-fairy policy thing (just like literally everything libertarians believe), but AOC herself is not against nuclear. I just had to Google it.

                  Also, in case you weren’t aware, AOC is a freshman member of Congress from a diverse, progressive district, not the spokesperson for all liberals or Democrats, as much as Sean Hannity would like to make it so.

                  1. The GND is an aspirational airy-fairy policy thing

                    As are all left wing policies.

                    AOC is …not the spokesperson for all liberals or Democrats

                    And yet the Dem Presidential candidates tripped over themselves announcing their co-sponsorship and support for it. So Tony concludes Dems aren’t nuts only by denying their own proposals.

                    Absurd!

              2. Now address the point that your party cannot be in favor of nuclear power because it is not an industry that can exist in a free market.

                Of course it could exist in a free market. It doesn’t exist in ours because our court system (i.e. government) is absurd.

                Tony’s entire wordview is built on distorting other people’s positions and believing he knows what they believe better then they do.

                1. It could exist in a free market in which liability for massive damage to other people’s lives and property isn’t accounted for by private insurance, and you just tell them to fuck off and die (i.e., murder and theft are legal), but I hope that’s not a mainstream libertarian view of how markets should work.

                  1. “you just tell them to fuck off and die

                    This is of course nonsense. A legal system which awards hundreds of thousands of dollars to people because someone doesn’t want to photograph their wedding isn’t pricing damages at all. Left wingers have a dilemma since rational thought disproves their conclusions. They can give up their idiocies or engage in demagoguery.

                    Tony goes with the demagoguery.

                    1. We’re talking about the habitable environment of planet earth, and you bring it back to the gay menace. I wish I could say I was surprised.

                      Libertarianism!

                    2. you bring it back to the gay menace.

                      This shows you’re not a serious or honest commenter. The example shows the problems in the legal system, the subject of the example is irrelevant. Therefore your focus on the subject rather than what it shows about the legal system is a distraction. You consistently seize such distractions because you understand your original assertion has been irreparably proven false and changing the subject is the only way you can pretend your conclusion survives.

                      Nobody takes your comments seriously because you consistently show you’re a useless sack of shit.

              3. I didn’t mention Biden because he’s not against nuclear power. I thought that was clear.

                Klobuchar has been pretty quiet – I’ll concede she hasn’t condemned nuclear, but she’s clearly hesitant to express support for it, because (as everyone knows) the Dems on the whole are against it.

                With Harris, as with so many things, it depends on what direction the wind is blowing at the moment, but she’s also been cagey about expressing support for it, and damikesc points you’re just wrong about AOC.

                Now address the point that your party cannot be in favor of nuclear power because it is not an industry that can exist in a free market.

                I don’t have a party. But you’re mistaking “cannot exist in a free market” with “cannot be made profitable.” We may well voluntarily decide that we want to give our money to nuclear even though it’s not necessarily hugely profitable. Liberty is flexible that way.

                Or is nuclear power, for some mysterious reason, like policing and armed forces, one of those forms of socialism that’s OK because you say so?

                No – police and armed forces are there to stop people from initiating aggression against one another. You’ve been here long enough to not have an excuse to not understand that.

                1. We may well voluntarily decide that we want to give our money to nuclear even though it’s not necessarily hugely profitable. Liberty is flexible that way.

                  You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

          3. Haha. If solar was ever in a position to “make profits”, Exxon Mobil, BP, and royal dutch shell will be the evil corporate entities with deep enough pockets to scale it up. And you’ll still be complaining.

            Now that’ll be funny!

      2. I’m sure government regulations have nothing to do with nuclear being so expensive…

  17. Cut only 50% of emissions? We clearly need to cut 50% of the population. Applying social justice valuations, we could accomplish that by eliminating all males. (And the next 50% would be the white/upper class women.)

    What a wonderful world it would be…

    1. White upper class women, like Hillary and Elizabeth Warren??

  18. Appearing like some child messiah in a science fiction novel

    Messiah is the wrong word. Maybe ‘messenger’, but the proper term for an unborn child exposed to the water of life is Abomination.

  19. global average income would come to about $98,000 per person.

    In 2100, we will all be 1 percenters.

    1. Will we al become evil then?

      1. No, our income level will then match our evilness.

  20. I hope a reporter or historian has jotted down some notes about her. It will be interesting to see where she is in 20-30 yrs. so we aren’t left wondering if another ‘Little Albert’ child star/social experiment turned out to be some sociopath or a well-adjusted human being.

    1. She isn’t good looking enough to be famous for a long time.

      1. I’m thinking she’s good looking enough and of the proper pedigree and grooming to give Alison Mack a run for her money.

    2. She will mingle among the Lefty elite and that never turns out well for children.

    3. I’m sure she’ll find a niche as an activist, peddling climate doom until it positively fails to pan out. Then she’ll move on to peddling some other doom.

  21. Notice how she said “my dreams” and not “our dreams” meaning all children? Classic narcissist. It’s all about her.

    1. totes. just another ‘pander to me’ screacher

    2. You’re assuming that she wrote her own speech. And just about every POTUS is a narcissist, but they have no problem saying “we” in their speeches.

      1. A part of her rise to prominence has been that she writes her own speeches.

        And your point works both ways. Every narcissitic POTUS is at least socially aware enough to swap out ‘we’ for ‘me’ or hire someone to do it for her.

      2. “And just about every POTUS is a narcissist, but they have no problem saying “we” in their speeches.”

        Well, Obama seemed to.

        1. There’s always the exception.

    3. Notice how she said “my dreams” and not “our dreams” meaning all children?

      Classic autism spectrum.

      Another reason Greta wasn’t a real good choice for the long game. People on the spectrum have a hard time with the altruism thing.

      1. I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. My oldest daughter is very aspy, as are all her friends. They are, to the one, very self-centered. That’s not to say that they are selfish; it’s just saying that they have a very hard time seeing how things affect others, but are hyper-focused on how things affect them. Empathy does not come easy for aspys.

    4. It’s hard to psychoanalyze people via their public personas. We shouldn’t do it for Trump. We shouldn’t do it for this girl either.

      1. It’s hard to psychoanalyze people via their public personas.

        Operating under the assumption that people are just assholes saves lots of time and money in the psychoanalysis department. I find that the autism spectrum fits into two neat categories: people who have autism and assholes who tell people they’re on the spectrum.

  22. “a point underscored by Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which promotes cost-effective policies to remtediate climate change, hunger, disease, and other global issues. ”
    As I recall, Bjorn took a pretty thorough trashing from Team Left for daring to suggest that other problems were more pressing / practical to solve than trying to fiddle with the global thermostat. Nice of Nick to dust him off for round 2.

    1. daring to suggest that other problems were more pressing / practical to solve than trying to fiddle with the global thermostat

      Wasn’t even that – he dared suggest that it’s too late to limit CO2 emissions and we should focus our efforts on remediation.

      1. Do people really believe that it isn’t too late to limit CO2 emissions in a meaningful way?

        1. Considering that, although U.S. and European emissions have decreased in the past decade, global emissions have increased 20% during the same period – due mostly to China, India, and the developing world – and that China, et. al. are not required to start reducing emissions until 2030, per the Paris Accords, I’d say it might be too late.

          https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science

        2. Do people really believe that it isn’t too late to limit CO2 emissions in a meaningful way?

          Also, because of the falsehood of ‘Consensus!’ the term ‘limit’ is utterly meaningless.

          Limit how much we emit per year? Limit the increase? Limit the total atmospheric concentration? Per person?

          Per above, I’m not a climatologist but I am a trained biochemist and early on if you posed the question “What should atmospheric CO2 concentrations be?” you got plenty of answers like “As low as possible.” that were even more catastrophic to all life on Earth than even impossible numbers like 8-900 ppm.

          Just a couple days ago I posted about how a policy maker was on NPR saying we needed to wean ourselves off industrial agriculture *and* sequester 100 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere, potentially through farming. He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that sequestering 100 ppm of CO2 through farming would be a larger industrial agriculture undertaking than humanity has done *cumulatively* thus far.

  23. President Trump’s tweet was a copy of Greta’s twitter bio. Trolling level: Expert.

    1. For better or worse, Trump is good at trolling.

  24. All the trolls sent Tony lunch money today so he could focus on spreading Lefty nonsensical dread today.

  25. “and fairy tales of eternal economic growth”

    Unfortunately for Thunberg, Keynes, Malthus, and every aptly named Malthusian, food production is of no concern, population growth is not infinite, and 300 years of doomsday predictions still haven’t come true.

    Shame on everyone abusing this kid. She’s so freaked out and terrified she spergs to a global audience. I doubt anyone will be able to cure her PTSD at this point.

  26. So, intersectionally, a girl so white that she is borderline opaque should lead the world?

    She’s, honestly, a dullard and a bore without anything interesting to say about anything.

  27. More people burning more fossil fuels in more countries is the only way to reduce CO2 emissions. Surely, not even a 16 year old girl would believe such a thing.

    1. When your position becomes untenable in the extreme, you have no choice but to go full Orwell. It’s called freedom.

      1. Thank you for finally describing your strategy in detail.

      2. Yup, that describes you pretty well: going full Orwell.

    2. More people burning more fossil fuels in more countries is the only way to reduce CO2 emissions.

      You really still don’t understand that?

      Do you understand that fossil fuels are not the only things that emit CO2 when burned? Do you understand that fossil fuels are among the cleanest things humanity burns?

      1. “Do you understand that fossil fuels are among the cleanest things humanity burns?”

        It’s not the pollution that’s the problem, it’s the CO2. Certainly one can grow the economy by burning more fossil fuels. We’ve been proving this now for two centuries. But burning more fossil fuels will not reduce CO2 emissions. Even a 16 year old girl seems to know this.

        1. It’s not the pollution that’s the problem, it’s the CO2.

          That’s what I’m talking about. Fossil fuels are among the cleanest things we burn in terms of CO2 emissions.

          If you’re not going to go full nuclear, and can’t provide your full baseline industrial power with renewables, the cleanest thing you can burn is natural gas.

          So getting people to burn fossil fuels instead of other organic materials is progress.

          You people are your own worst enemies.

          1. “So getting people to burn fossil fuels instead of other organic materials is progress.”

            Progress in terms of economic growth, certainly. But it’s a step back in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. The more natural gas we burn, the greater the CO2 emissions. Burning more fossil fuels does not reduce CO2 emissions.

            1. Since you’re stupid let me make this plain.

              The more natural gas we burn, the less coal we burn. The less coal we burn, the less CO2 we emit.

              The more natural gas we burn, the less wood and oil we burn, the less CO2 we emit.

              1. “The more natural gas we burn, the less wood and oil we burn, the less CO2 we emit.”

                Encouraging more people to burn more natural gas will result in increased CO2 emissions. It’s less of a burden than coal, but still a burden. There are some alternatives to fossil fuels which only incidentally add CO2 emissions like wind, tide, nuclear and solar. CO2 emissions are an unavoidable part of burning fossil fuels, and that includes natural gas.

        2. Even a 16 year old girl seems to know this.

          And might I rejoin with “this is what happens when you rely on 16-year-olds to explain complex phenomena?”

          1. I was a lot younger than 16 when I learned that putting more sugar in my tea made it sweeter. Have you been able to grasp such complexities yet?

    3. Said the Chinaphile whose cities look like a late 19th Century English factory town.

      1. Most of my time in China was spent in the mountain fastenesses of the West. The Tibetan areas and those of the Hmong and Akha were probably my faves. Thanks to the concentrated burning of fossil fuels I found that my nose ran with black mucus after a couple days in the city. (apologies for the distasteful image)

        The countryside of China is wonderful. It’s fairly basic and a good knowledge of the language will certainly help you to get the most of the place and people. Unless you have a taste for rancid lard, the food might be a problem. I made it a rule to eat at Muslim restaurants, quite common in the West, and rarely suffered from stomach discomfort.

        1. Most of Tibet’s power is hydro.

          That smell you smelled was the yak dung, wood and other scrub that are the most commons sources of heating in Tibet.

          They would be much better off with a gas or oil plant to supply their heat.

          1. Have you been to Tibet? I was struck by all the solar panels that were in use. Most of the nomads living there have no access to the power grid, which is a city thing. They used yak dung, which I never found smelly, even though I had a large pile of it for fuel in my bedroom while I was staying there. There is also goat dung, which is more expensive and burns with greater intensity. They also used yak butter lamps and solar panels.

            “They would be much better off with a gas or oil plant to supply their heat.”

            They would also be better off if they gave up this yak herding foolishness, moved to the city and got proper jobs.

        2. Thanks for being unable to refute what I said.

          1. Did you say something you want refuting?

  28. Shame on her parents for allowing this tantrum in public.
    Shame on her parents for allowing their child to dictate their professions and diets.
    Shame on the UN for enabling this continued hysteria.
    Shame on all the teachers and parents who persuaded and enabled children to be used as props in the “climate strike” last week.

    The existential threat to humanity is not climate change, it is whether individual freedom will endure.

    1. Don’t forget to say ‘tsk tsk’ while you are rubbing your forefingers together. For Freedom.

  29. So, when you talk aboueort money, you are talking about the value required to feed, shelter and clothe the masses of people in the world. When you say money should not matter, you are saying that none of those values matter and you do not care about the well being of those people.

    Disdain for money and economic matters is not a virtue.

    1. Don’t you wish Ayn Rand could have said that so succinctly, rather than taking a couple thousand words?

  30. To all you wonderful people who believe in climate change:

    I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
    Cash only.

    1. From 1989:

      https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

      I’m old enough to remember a bunch of hysterics from the 1980s.

      They filled kids with angst through AIDS (don’t exchange saliva!), Acid Rain (the reason why Prince wrote ‘Purple Rain’….I kid), kids getting abducted (and joining the Children of the Corn), daycare molestation, Live Aid (do they know it’s Christmas by now?), Farm Aid (we’re gonna starve! Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow and all that), the burning down of the Amazon (as Bruce Cockburn sang), aaaaaand the biggest scare of them all – that the Soviets were gonna drop the bomb (culminating into the prime time movie The Day After). Sting sang, ‘do the Russians love their children too?’

      Doo-dee-doo.

      Yet here we are. Bigger, better, faster, safer, healthier and with better hair than Stalin.

      1. Oh and who can ever forget the shenanigans of one Tipper Gore and watching Dee Snider and Frank Zappa basically tell her to fuck off?

        The Gores are whores.

      2. A nuclear holocaust and nuclear-plant meltdown were the two biggest bogeymen in my particular yoot.

      3. No no no. This time it’s real. We promise.

    2. “Cash only.”

      How about I let you sequester my carbon?

      1. Does that make you a top or a bottom?

  31. What we witnessed was a poor child afflicted with depression and autism have a neurotic nervous breakdown before our eyes and in real time. I can’t help but feel this won’t end well for her.

    She’s too young and ignorant to know the endless stream of failed prognostications pimped out by shysters and climate change alarmists as well as the deceitful language and manipulated data they use.

    If you feel anger towards someone reserve it for her asshole parents and the shitheads who applaud and cheer her on claiming it’s her ‘passion’. Their the ones scaring the shit out of children with their bull shit propaganda.

    1. Make that to ‘understand’.

    2. ^^ This

    3. They’re

      One of the tough ones, I know.

    4. Her parents, handlers, and the orgs behind her are the real monsters here, but even with her mental illness and developmental disorders, she still has enough agency to be held responsible for her words and actions.

  32. “told the audience that it was responsible for destroying her life”

    And yet she lives! Destroying our lives. Babylon Bee has an excellent photo of her at “the speech” with the puppet strings drawn in.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/marionette-strings-clearly-visible-during-greta-thunberg-testimony

      1. I wonder if I could get a grant investigating the correlation between ‘Can I speak to your manager’ haircuts and autism.

        1. …and being named “Karen.”

    1. LOL, great Thunderbirds reference.

      Although to me she looks more like a ventriloquist’s dummy than a marionette.

  33. Somebody’s making money off this kid. I hope she gets part of it. She’ll need it before the mass extinction.

  34. You’ve made monsters to destroy yourselves. Thunberg is the result of the huge anti-market, anti-freedom production line that is modern public education.

    And it’s been running for decades, producing a more vicious mix as it feeds upon its own output. Hundreds of millions get churned out every year. Thunberg, like Ocasio-Cortez, just happen to be the loudest voices, the ones with the gift for political manipulation, but there are legions behind them.

    While dumbing-down kids, they’ve outsmarted the rest of us. Got us to pay for it and got us to pass the laws. It’s quite an achievement. Masterful and quite without precedent.

    The wave is about to break but the lesson we learn from history is this won’t be a collapse into a new dark age; no, that’s not what they want. What they want is a system where they get to hold the whip, bark the orders, vent their spleens, all while living like the anointed classes of old.

    1. Everything about the modern progressive movement screams “Animal Farm.”

    2. There is no “they” there. This is just collective, purposeless insanity and individual greed.

  35. Trumps tweet was fine satire. Grow up, Nick.

    1. You aren’t allowed to satirize a hapless, dumb, mentally ill girl who is being used as a marketing prop by a for-profit “environmental startup”. You’re supposed to quietly acquiesce to her inanities! Because when a crazy female speaks, men must listen!

  36. Kuznetz curve? I hope it pans out better for climate change than it did for income disparity.

    1. A worm in every apple….

      Fine, maybe there is disparity, but the poorest American has access to medicine that was only science fiction to Prince Albert or Calvin Coolidge’s son.

  37. The best way forward is to turn up the AC a notch, and start figuring out what to do about the 23 trillion dollar national debt.

  38. I might give a crap about global warming except that the “solution” is the same old liberal wishlist from decades ago: give up several personal freedoms, gvt control over your life, ridiculously high taxes, elites don’t have to sacrifice anything….

    1. Plus promises of shitloads of free stuff to the proles.

      None of which will be actually available to the non-anointed because scarcity = sustainability. But it’s nominally “free”

      1. None of which will be actually available to the non-anointed because scarcity = sustainability. But it’s nominally “free”

        FTFY

  39. putting this particular little actress aside, having Nickie complain about histrionics when his magazine publishes articles by Eric B (every .75% down move in the dow is a crash) and shika (a reduction in immigration by 1 person makes you a nazi state) is rather precious

  40. Her future has been stolen: she was used as a marketing prop and will forever be remembered as an autistic, ignorant, hysterical child.

  41. I’d carbon tax that ass like a thirteenth century nobleman.

  42. Best 4chan quote on Greta….

    “Would Not Bang: She’d probably just lie there complaining about the weather.”

    1. Spergs are known to have extremely black and white thinking though. 4chan could turn her into a white supremacists with little to no effort. Especially if she’s worried that tomorrow may not belong to her.

      1. Aside from a bunch of unintentional comedy on the part of her handlers, I suspect this ultimate psycho girlfriend archetype is rapidly approaching her “best buy” date.

        She strikes me as a less sympathetic Cindy Sheehan at best.

        Does anyone really remember Sanjaya Malakar ten years on? I think it will be a race to the mortuary between her and David Hogg.

  43. Greta Thunberg is a child with a number of mental conditions. Her ability to reason is suspect, and her known conditions mean that being pushed into the public eye is bad for her. Every. Single. Person. involved in her public appearances should be charged with child abuse.

    This is not intended to address her arguments. I don’t say anything about them, one way or another, here. But the people using her are abusive vermin.

    1. “I don’t say anything about them, one way or another, here.”

      I do:
      They are the rantings of a disturbed teen aged girl and should be ignored.

  44. I don’t remember any of these people complaining about the hundreds of thousands killed and millions more intentionally displaced by Obama’s foreign policy, do you?

  45. She appears to be trying to pass an incredibly huge dump or shes singing Bruce Springsteen tunes, I can’t be sure which. She seems a bit deranged someone needs to red flag this bitch ASAP!

  46. “Greta Thunberg” sounds like shed be the first kid kicked out of the chocolate factory for excessive joylessness.

  47. Look up Himmler’s daughter Gudrun Margarete Elfriede Emma Anna Burwitz (née Himmler, 8 August 1929 – 24 May 2018). That pigtailed poster-child for real naziism is alarmingly like today’s econazi version. The child’s entire life was spent denying that Nazis ran death camps and asserting that daddy’s accusers were liars and selfish bad people. In the instant case, discussion is conveniently shifted away from varnished data and actual ozone, temperature and ice measurements. How a hundred econazis claim to be 97% of all scientists is genuinely puzzling to the 31000 signers of the Petition Project.

  48. Green energy is white privilege.
    Greta traipsing aboard her carbon fiber yacht whining, “they’ve stolen my childhood”, while brown children in third world factories are exposed to toxic chemicals manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines, saying, “Cool story, bro.”

  49. Dear Greta, exactly how has global warming stolen your childhood? You have been brainwashed by the Marxist left who loves to fight their battles with children (mainly because they are too wimpy to use a gun). You are to be ignored at all costs…even at the cost of your adulthood, how terrible it might end up being. Especially if you continue to be influenced by extreme leftists, you will die a very lonely, angry, sad and miserable person. I for one couldn’t care less.

Please to post comments