More on the (obscenely profitable) marketing of Greta Thunberg

From Patrick Henningsen:

Poor Greta. What you are seeing here is 9th Grade drama acting, but clinging to the script written by the PR firm which manages her. Clearly, she’s teetering on the edge here, a 16 year old with Aspergers, turned into a media commodity by her ambitious parents and ‘green’ capitalist financiers. At some point, people need to call BS on this twisted road show act.

Check out the video of GT at https://www.facebook.com/deutschewellenews/videos/2485418218362511/UzpfSTU1NTYyNjAwMToxMDE1ODE3MzAyOTM2MTAwMg/?comment_id=10158173229276002&reply_comment_id=10158173305146002&notif_id=1569259510094073&notif_t=mentions_comment

And check out Henningsen’s astute response to this indignant comment on his skepticism vis-a-vis Operation Greta:I’m just curious, Patrick Henningsen, if she is indeed a distraction, what is she distracting from?
If human-made climate change is even 1% probable, shouldn’t we act just in case?
Also, are you seriously saying that the ‘human-made climate change deniers’ are also not running on a probability and are not also funded and propagandised heftily?

One thing is to be convinced of one side’s faults but are you so sure the other side got waterproof evidence that human-made climate change is not a thing we should concern ourselves with?

I’m especially saying this as one of the biggest polluters is the military industrial complex, are you actually on their side in this way on this topic?Hide or report this

  • Patrick Henningsen Dee LJ As a general rule, acting on a 1% chance of everything isn’t a very wise approach. The core question is whether or not man-made C02 is causing the planet’s atmosphere to heat up, aka ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (which is not the same as plain global warming). Even if the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then the next question would be: to what degree is man-made C02 driving up the earth’s temperature (which is not the same thing as ‘how much has the earth’s atmospheric temp risen?)? This question would be followed by: how exactly will said ‘green’ policies (in the case of Greta and Co, this would be carbon tax, carbon credits, green bonds and derivatives) alter the earth’s temperature? We’re not talking about pollution here is this question- because C02 is not a pollutant, we are primarily talking about man-made C02 emissions. One could easily argue that to date, the answer to all of those fundamental questions is effectively nil, or near to it, IOW – there is no proof at all that man-made C02 is driving up earth temperatures. There is only theory and computer modeled projections, programmed with a set of assumptions by academics seeking certain results. If that is ‘science’, then I am Santa Claus. These scientists are omitting the biggest variables that influence planetary temperature and climate, namely: the SUN, geothermal, oceanic and atmospheric oscillation, instead constructing all theorem (and corresponding policy) around the smallest trace gas: man-made C02. It’s not scientific at all – it’s tantamount to fraud. I’m all for saving and protecting our precious environment, but not because of some constructed apocalyptic doomsday theory being rammed through on the back of a 16 yr old performance activist backed by some of the richest capitalists to ever walk God’s earth. Rather, I believe we should pursue clean or sustainable energy because it makes sense, it’s healthier, and will serve us better in the long run, and we should address REAL immediate threats to humanity and nature like nuclear radiation, toxic waste, petro chemical and organophosphate poisoning of our water, food, soil, biosphere and bodies – on a mass scale, and EMF radiation which is doing God knows what to our DNA. Conversely, genius billionaire Bill Gates just announced he wants to spray chemical clouds in the upper atmosphere to repel sun rays. Bill Gates is also backing St. Greta of Thunberg. There it is in a nutshell. As usual, western ‘civilization’ has got it ‘ass to front’.

I’m just curious, Patrick Henningsen, if she is indeed a distraction, what is she distracting from?
If human-made climate change is even 1% probable, shouldn’t we act just in case?
Also, are you seriously saying that the ‘human-made climate change deniers’ are also not running on a probability and are not also funded and propagandised heftily?

One thing is to be convinced of one side’s faults but are you so sure the other side got waterproof evidence that human-made climate change is not a thing we should concern ourselves with?

I’m especially saying this as one of the biggest polluters is the military industrial complex, are you actually on their side in this way on this topic?Hide or report this

  • Patrick Henningsen Dee LJ As a general rule, acting on a 1% chance of everything isn’t a very wise approach. The core question is whether or not man-made C02 is causing the planet’s atmosphere to heat up, aka ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (which is not the same as plain global warming). Even if the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then the next question would be: to what degree is man-made C02 driving up the earth’s temperature (which is not the same thing as ‘how much has the earth’s atmospheric temp risen?)? This question would be followed by: how exactly will said ‘green’ policies (in the case of Greta and Co, this would be carbon tax, carbon credits, green bonds and derivatives) alter the earth’s temperature? We’re not talking about pollution here is this question- because C02 is not a pollutant, we are primarily talking about man-made C02 emissions. One could easily argue that to date, the answer to all of those fundamental questions is effectively nil, or near to it, IOW – there is no proof at all that man-made C02 is driving up earth temperatures. There is only theory and computer modeled projections, programmed with a set of assumptions by academics seeking certain results. If that is ‘science’, then I am Santa Claus. These scientists are omitting the biggest variables that influence planetary temperature and climate, namely: the SUN, geothermal, oceanic and atmospheric oscillation, instead constructing all theorem (and corresponding policy) around the smallest trace gas: man-made C02 – is not scientific at all – it’s tantamount to fraud. I’m all for saving and protecting our precious environment, but not because of some constructed apocalyptic doomsday theory being rammed through on the back a 16 yr old performance activist backed by some of the richest capitalists to ever walk God’s earth. Rather, I believe we should pursue clean or sustainable energy because it makes sense, it’s healthier, and will serve us better in the long run, and we should address REAL immediate threats to humanity and nature like nuclear radiation, toxic waste, petro chemical and organophosphate poisoning of our water, food, soil, biosphere and bodies – on a mass scale, and EMF radiation which is doing God knows what to our DNA. Conversely, genius billionaire Bill Gates just announced he wants to spray chemical clouds in the upper atmosphere to repel sun rays. Bill Gates is also backing St. Greta of Thunberg. There it is in a nutshell. As usual, western ‘civilization’ has got it ‘ass to front’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.