Greta to the World: Immediately and Completely Divest From Fossil Fuels

Mish

Greta Thunberg is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, spewing more climate change nonsense.

House Still on Fire

Climate activist Greta is back on stage asking people to panic. Her message is ‘Our House Is Still on Fire

Here's some pertinent snips from Greta's List of Demands.

  1. One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic. I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do. But don’t worry. It’s fine. Trust me, I’ve done this before and I can assure you it doesn’t lead to anything.
  2. Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.
  3. We demand at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments: immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.
  4. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.
  5. Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour. And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else.

Greta a Pawn in Someone Else's Game

Telling people to panic doesn't work for the simple reason there is nothing to panic over.

A huge percentage of the world's populations lives day to day struggling with food, medical, housing or debt-related issues. Their concern, and rightfully so, is surviving the next week.

Excellent Video on Climate Nonsense

Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

Please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

Fearmongering Lesson

None of the above tops AOC who says World Will End in 12 Years: Here's What to Do About It

Here's a lesson for you climate fearmongers: Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will be ridiculed until you die.

Greta Demands Action Now!

Even if you are still convinced man and not the sun is the overwhelming force in climate change, the idea that we can immediately divest from fossil fuels an have "real" zero" emissions is economic nonsense.

Such statements do not merit praise, they merit ridicule. And her parents deserve scorn for putting her on stage to be used in this way.

The media treats her like she is some sort of saint. Actually, she is nothing but a pawn in someone else's game on a fool's mission to achieve the impossible.

Ironically, Greta's message is so absurd that if we did what she asked, there would be panic and a global economic collapse.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (172)
No. 1-33
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus

This site would do better if it avoided the idiot crowd's obsession with a teenage twit turned saint.

Latkes
Latkes

Greta is a marketing gimmick. She does not think for herself. She is the equivalent of a hologram popstar, like Hatsune Miku.

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett

"she is nothing but a pawn in someone else's game on a fool's mission to achieve the impossible."

...

Pawn? Absolutely.

fool's mission? Not so fast.

The "fools" are looking at skimming $billions (likely $trillions) if there is a mad dash to go Green (renewables, carbon credits, etc).

bradw2k
bradw2k

What disgusts me is how lefty educators hold up whining, demanding "activists" as heroes to their students. Such activists do not appeal to your reason, they do not expect you to make up your own mind, quite the opposite they intend to shame you into me-too-ism. Being such an "activist" is not a productive use of a life and should not be emulated.

SMF
SMF

We had people over to our house a couple weeks ago. One guest informed me how his little cousin in Canada is freaked out over the world ending in 12 (11 now?) years.

We may have a little more understanding than adolescents, but wow, how can anyone justify kids freaking out is beyond me.

Webej
Webej

We should stall and delay, spend trillions on military gear to blow up humanity instead, deplete the rest of the finite supply of fossil fuels driving the biggest vehicle we can borrow, and if turns out scientists were right to warn us of the risks, we will all just go to Mars or Venus.

Jojo
Jojo

You climate deniers are on the wrong side of history. You should realize this by now. Like Trump and Don Quixote, you can keep titling at the windmills of climate change forever but it is not going to change anything. There are simply too many who DO buy into climate change an who WILL continue to keep it in the forefront of political and business discussions.

Realist
Realist

Realist Point of View

  1. Global Warming is indeed a man-made problem.

  2. Greta is well-intentioned and idealistic.

  3. However, very few governments and institutions will do anything significant to slow or stop global warming. They will instead let future generations absorb the pain.

  4. The consequences of global warming will continue to get worse over the coming decades.

  5. The economic and human cost of inaction will eventually become so great that solutions will be found. But we have not reached that point yet.

  6. I expect mankind to develop the means to partially control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and partially control the average temperatures on earth sometime in the next century.

  7. Until then, we will just have to accept the consequences of our inaction.

42 Replies

Jojo
Jojo

Or the future could turn out like some related SF books predict with a decimated population living underground and growing food hydroponically because the surface of the Earth is mainly an arid, overheated wasteland like the planet Venus.

bradw2k
bradw2k

Underground we'd drown. Haven't you seen Waterworld?

Realist
Realist

Hi Jojo. How bad it will get is an unknown, as it is difficult to know when mankind will begin to turn things around. Obviously, the longer we wait to fix it, the worse it will get.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

First Greta, Gloria Steinhem; The child who tried to save the world... in 1992

This nonsense is going on at least from The Club of Rome first report , The Limits to Growth, Published in 1972.

Realist
Realist

She means well. She is young. At least she recognizes that there is a problem.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Yes real believer.

Environmentalism as Religion by Michael Crichton
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die.

Stuki
Stuki

“Until then, we will just have to accept the consequences of our inaction.”

And, much more problematically, “our” action. That pesky Bastiat and all.

“At least she recognizes that there is a problem.”

Which is exactly the problem...

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Global warming hysteria is indeed man-made. However, if you still have the capacity to think critically, look up solar cycles before you buy into politicized nonsense. You will surprise your unthinking friends with your knowledge of science.

JanNL
JanNL

Sofar the "consequences" have all been benificial.

truthseeker
truthseeker

Agree with much of what you said. I might add that don’t you think that as America’s culture has really begun to resemble that of Sodom and Gomorrah, America’s and the world’s environment has begun to experience the withdrawal of protection from Divine Providence as evil continues it’s advance?

Mish
Mish

Editor

comment of the day IMO

michiganmoon
michiganmoon

Greta's handlers should take her to China and India...China ranks #1 in CO2 emissions and India 3rd. In methane, which is far worse than CO2, they rank 1st and 2nd respectively. In other damaging gas emissions China and India also rank at the top.

In fact, by one estimate in terms of relative damaging greenhouse gas emissions China and India alone have done 60% of the damage during Greta's lifetime. Yet her handlers haven't taken her to either country. Why?

kram
kram

Climate has been changing for millions of years. And many times much worse han now. So?

Realist
Realist

Moronic comment of the day IMO.

Realist
Realist

Yep. And scientists understand and can explain all the past climate change history. How is it that YOU are even aware of past climate change history? Because of the work of scientists. So you accept their work in one instance , yet not in another. You can’t “cherry pick” science. Reality is reality. Scientists understand and can explain the current global warming. And suddenly, because you don’t like it, you refuse to listen to scientists. LOL. What a moron.

Realist
Realist

Hi MM. I would assume that she hasn’t been to China or India yet for many reasons:

  1. There are many places to go. Perhaps she intends to go there eventually, but hasn’t gotten around to it.

  2. She does not like to travel because of the impact on her personal carbon footprint and she wants to set an example.

  3. She is aware that it would be a waste of time, as they will not listen to her anyway.

  4. She believes she can be more effective in achieving her goals in other ways.

Could be another reason entirely.

Having said that, as well-intentioned as Greta is, I doubt she will be able to make much of a difference in the current pace of global warming.

I expect global warming to continue for many decades simply because societies today are unwilling to sacrifice anything today in order to provide a better tomorrow for future generations.

Instead, we will continue to carry on as normal, and let future generations deal with the problem.

That is the sad reality.

KidHorn
KidHorn

You're the classic example of a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Like almost everyone who thinks they understand the science, you don't. You remind me of my neighbor, who tells people he's a climate scientist, and he may actually have that title. Whenever I talk to him, he clearly does not understand the science. Why not pass some graduate level classes in radiant heat transfer at the top of your class, at a top university, like I have, before making an fool of yourself.

Realist
Realist

The fact that I am a scientist does not matter at all. All that matters is that you understand the science. You do not need to be a scientist to understand science.

As always, you attempt to discredit others by saying they don’t know what they are talking about. Yet when I ask you to explain the science to back up your claim, you run away.

So here again is your chance to explain to me your knowledge of the science.

Answer one simple question:

The earth and the moon are the same distance from the sun (150 million km, or 93 million miles). The sun shines on both, yet they have vastly different climates. The temperature on the surface of the moon that is facing the sun is as hot as 127C (260F). The temperature of the opposite side is as cold as -173C (-280F). The hottest recorded air temperature at the Earth’s surface was 58C (138F) in the Libyan desert.The coldest recorded temperature was -88C (-126F) in Antarctica. The average temperature on earth is a comfortable 15C. There is no life on the moon and plenty of life on Earth. Science can explain the difference in these climates. Can you?

Go on kidhorn. Prove to me that you know something about science.

As always, I eagerly await your scientific explanation. Why don't you surprise me this time and actually man up.

Realist
Realist

What a surprise. Did you run away again? Please come back. I didn't mean to scare you. Come back and educate me with your vast scientific knowledge. Explain global warming and climate to me, since, as you say, I know nothing.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

H. L. Mencken:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

Cargo Cult Science

by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.

Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right.  Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory.  And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work.  And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Your people are not scientist there are Statistician

Realist
Realist

Hi Max. Thanks for your reply and attempt at insults. Is that the best you can do? Pretty sad actually. If you would like to really impress me, perhaps you can take up my challenge to kidhorn. Why don’t you explain your understanding of the science of global warming? My question to kidhorn is in the comment above. Come on. Give it a go. I’m still waiting for one you morons to actually say something scientific, or logical. Why don’t you explain global warming or “not” global warming scientifically. Ken kam wanted to debate me. He was very confident that he could “wipe the floor” in a debate with me. So I agreed and I put a few statements in a post. Just like kidhorn, he ran away like the coward he is. How about you? Another coward?

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Richard P. Feynman
We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous ...

As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.
That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

On the first Earth Day in 1970, environmentalists warned that we faced a new ice age unless the government took immediate and massive action. Today, using much of the same data, they claim we are endangered by global warming. These are the same climatologists who can't tell us whether it will rain next Friday, but who are certain that the earth's temperature will be x degrees Celsius higher in 2100 than today.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it's a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.
It never was really true, of course, that "the scientific method" guarantees objectivity, that scientists work impersonally to discover truth, that scientists are notably smarter, more trustworthy, more honest, so tied up in their work that they neglect everything else, don’t care about making money . . . But it is true that for centuries scientists weren’t subject to multiple and powerful conflicts of interest.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

There is no "scientific method." Science is done by people; people aren’t objective. Scientists are just like other professionals – to use a telling contemporary parallel, scientists are professionals just like the wheelers and dealers on Wall Street: not exactly dishonest, but looking out first and foremost for Number One.

During the 19th century, "scientist" became a profession, one could make a living at it. Research universities were founded, and with that came the inevitable conflict of interest between truth-seeking and career-making, especially since science gained a very high status and one could become famous through success in science.

Since those who pay the piper call the tune, research projects are chosen increasingly for non-scientific reasons; perhaps political ones,

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

"Science Is a Sacred Cow"

scientists, and especially teachers of science, tended to have inflated egos, certain of their superior wisdom and virtue. In reality, he asserted, they are mostly dull and pompous and should by laughed at now and then. Unfortunately in his view, the general public stood in awe of them even when they talked Latinized nonsense.

Scientists are convinced that they, as scientists, possess a number of very admirable human qualities, such as accuracy, observation, reasoning power, intellectual curiosity, tolerance, and even humility.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

"In this day and age it can be fairly dangerous to ones career if you are a climate scientist and express some vociferous objection to the concept of dangerous global warming."

Herein lies the problem. Research scientists survive on grants and grants will only be given to scientists who find evidence to support the concept of dangerous global warming. This is why the science is questionable and unreliable. The science of DANGEROUS global warming is more propaganda than science.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Being educated does not mean you are smart or wise. The wisest people are the ones with the most experience in one particular field. Those who focus on everything cannot get enough experience in one thing to be an expert on anything.

“there is no University in the world that offers even a half credit in common sense.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Mr. Hillaire Belloc has pointed out that science has changed greatly, and for the worse, since it became popular. Some hundred years ago, or more, only very unusual, highly original spirits were attracted to science at all; scientific work was therefore carried out by men of exceptional intelligence. Now, scientists are turned out by mass production in our universities, and ... they are very ordinary professional men, and all they know is their trade.

Realist
Realist

Yep. Not one single scientific argument from you to show me you understand the science. How long did it take you to gather that useless tripe; “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” etc etc.

Come on genius. You are just like kid horn. The guy who passed a class in radiant heat transfer at a “top” university. He declined to show me the science as well. Show me what you got.

Explain global warming. Explain why I am wrong. Answer my earlier question. Otherwise, you just proved what a complete fool you really are. And a coward.

djhowls
djhowls

Mars is globally warming too ergo it is the sun

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

You are claiming that there is problem called The anthropogenic global warming.
And you need to give us a proof.

Richard P. Feynman:

If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"
It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." 


Who did experiment?
How?
Where?
Who did replicate that experiment?

Ken Kam
Ken Kam

I'm here Realist. I replied to you saying this is not a forum for a proper debate. In person, with a neutral moderator, yes, you'd be the laughing stock of the audience.
We can just wait for real facts to unfold over the next few years which will make a joke out of people like you.

Ken Kam
Ken Kam

@Realist, if you consider the wisdom of Richard Feynman "useless tripe", any reader will know who is the "useless tripe" here. There's no need to argue with braying donkeys.

Realist
Realist

How nice of everyone to respond; I will get back to everyone as soon as I can. Very busy right now. Feel free to call me names while you wait.

Indiguy
Indiguy

You're really full of yourself.

Realist
Realist

Okay Ken

If you are afraid to debate me here, just keep using that as your excuse. I understand.

Realist
Realist

Hi inidiguy. Sorry this reply took so long. I have been quite busy lately. Plus it took time to respond to a couple of other commenters.

Anyway, other than telling me that “I am full of myself”, perhaps you would like to explain something about global warming? Perhaps you can explain why CO2 levels are going up (along with other greenhouse gasses), or why surface temperatures and ocean temperatures are rising. Or why the ice is melting and oceans are rising? Or why some coastal communities are being abandoned. Or why the climate is changing. Or why the earth and moon have such different climates?

Anything to add other than “full of yourself”?

Realist
Realist

I understand how embarrassing it must be for you to not debate me here. Particularly since you will “wipe the floor” with me. In fact, I’m not sure how you can possibly resist the opportunity to put me in my place. Such self restraint!

Realist
Realist

Hi again Max. Here I am, answering another of your questions. Yet you will never answer any of mine. Why is that Max? Why is it that I am the only one who has to show the proof. When are you going to show me your proof? Is that because no such proof exists to back up your claim?

“”You are claiming that there is problem called The anthropogenic global warming.
And you need to give us a proof.
If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"
It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." 


Who did experiment?
How?
Where?””

Okay. Who discovered that CO2 was a greenhouse gas?

In 1862, John Tyndall discovered that gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane help trap heat from escaping the atmosphere. This experiment has been repeated tens of thousands of time since then and is a standard experiment done in a grade school science class. Yet somehow you don’t know this or believe it after it has been well established for over 150 years. Look it up online if you don’t believe me.

Who first suggested what we now call “global warming”?

In 1895, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius observed the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water and in the atmosphere and postulated that since carbon dioxide levels were increasing in the atmosphere, because of the burning of coal, that the planet would get warmer as time went forward. At the time, he also believed that this would be beneficial for plants, agriculture and colder climates. This theory has been proven many thousands of time since 1895 through both experiment and real world data.

So we have known these things since the 1800s. They have been proven experimentally over and over again. They have also been proven by real data that has been gathered since the 1800s. Yet somehow, incredulously, you ask me for proof. It’s exactly the same as if you ask me to prove that gravity exists, or to prove that the earth is a sphere. It is all so well known and established, yet you are completely ignorant of these facts.

So now it is your turn. I need you to provide me with the name of the person who first proved that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What experiment did they do and when did it take place and has it been repeated thousands of time to prove it?

Then I need you to provide me with the name of the person who first proved that that there is no such thing as global warming. What experiment did they do and when and has it been repeated thousands of times?

I will eagerly await your scientific reply.

CautiousObserver
CautiousObserver

Global Warming activists would gain more traction if their speeches focused on the energy sources the world should transition to rather than what we should transition away from (and nobody better say use "solar" and "wind" unless they also show how energy storage is going to be implemented and also what the costs and environmental consequences of that whole system is).

Making demands that everyone in the world must accept less individual freedom, a higher cost of living, and a lower quality of life is a tough sell.

Bam_Man
Bam_Man

Anybody care to take a guess at what the carbon footprint of the US military is?

crickets

JohnH
JohnH

Excellent Mish!

The "Global Warming Fraud Basics" chart is blurry when I click to enlarge - is there a better one available?

Sechel
Sechel

Making a 17 year old the world's bogeyman now? I thought I was watching FOX. There's an agenda here. She's not a political leader. She controls nothing.

rum_runner
rum_runner

Mish why don't you also share your opinions on prenatal care and home repair and other things you are UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED to opine on.

Tony Heller is a widely ridiculed clown. That he's your go-to guy says it all. I'll bet you haven't spent 5 hours educating yourself on the basics of climate change and climate science. Instead you continue to spread lies and disinformation based on your personal bias and gut feeling. It's pathetic.

I saved this quote of yours from a while back:

Mike Shedlock - "There is no "proof" of man-made global warming. There is data to support a THEORY, much of it fake, but some of it not. The time-frame analysis is clearly insufficient and there are thousands of factors. It is likely, we do not yet know the biggest cause of what's happening. Moreover, as LaCalle pointed out, the free market will take care of this problem anyway, assuming there is a problem"

Mish believes we don't even know what's causing climate change and don't worry, a planetary transition to a hothouse state is no big deal, the market will fix it.

Moronical to the extreme.

Realist
Realist

Hi Mish. One question. You used to say the that global warming was real but not man-made. Now it sounds like you are saying that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is all a fraud. Which is it?

Winn
Winn

Hi Mish,
You might be right.
Greta might be right.
We shouldn't fight who is right.
Actually we have only one world to live.
We can't afford to lose our world to man made disaster.
The world is for us and for our kids.
More trees.
Low carbon emission.
That's it.

Zardoz
Zardoz

No can do, Greta. Jesus is coming, and we're supposed to have the world on fire for him.

Scooot
Scooot

Even if there wasn’t any man made global warming it’d still be better to stop polluting the planet, and that’s what we should strive to do. We don’t like walking around our streets if they’re full of litter so why would we like our air and oceans littered in the same way.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

We'll know if TPTB take it seriously when they cancel a jamboree like Davos to reduce C02 and massively tax private jets.

Until then it's do as we say, not as we do.

Start with a massive reduction in carbon fuel based global travel and let's see what happens. Lot less C02 if none of us have a job.

Greggg
Greggg

Let's sum this up with the verified geological data from the last 17,000 years: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/clip_image0021.jpg

Winn
Winn

Hi Mish,
One question.
I really like to hear your answer.
Here is the scenario.
We have a patient with dying of cancer.
We have only one controversial expensive treatment. You might even think stupid treatment.
But we do know the treatment won't make the patient adverse effect.
Will you treat the world dying of cancer with that treatment?
At least you'll have some hope he might recover.
Or will you watch the world dying of cancer?
The patient is our priceless world.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Unfortunately, for the advocates of man-caused Global Warming/Climate Change, the vast majority of recent/current global climate variation is caused by solar activity--for example the number of solar flares/sun spots.
Solar cycle 25 began in 2019, and NASA indicates it will be minimal compared to previous years. While no one knows for certain, it is likely the Earth is entering a long-term minimum similar to the Dalton Minimum at the beginning of the 19th century. Less likely, is a Maunder minimum. In either case, the planet is entering cooling phase, in which case solar power will NOT cut it. Without energy, millions will freeze and die of hunger. BTW, this is science, not global climate change religion.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy
April 18th, 1977

We are all doomed if you do not give us money.
And yes, it is all based on scientific recommendations

Sechel
Sechel

To me Greta is a smoke screen. She's speaking to an ideal. I want what's practical and achievable. We can use more solar and wind. It looks cost effective and getting more so. Looks like a no-brainer. Light bulbs that last longer and use less electricity another no-brainer. There's more of these. And coal seems to be an energy source that not only pollutes more than others , its not even cost effectives which is why its being turned off. I don't even take that 100% off fossil fuels seriously but its a good challenge to scientists and engineers. Even the fossil fuel industry says we can do a better job of reducing flaring. This from the engineers employed in the industry.

TumblingDice
TumblingDice

For those who dabble in stocks, two oil company stocks are down the last two days. Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX). I added to my Exxon position today, buying the stock at $67.50 a share.

Exxon is trading at 5 year lows. Dividend is $3.48 or 5.15%.
I figured why not everything else seems to be trading at all time highs.

Anda
Anda

Spain has gone crazio bonkers also over this. The new socialist government just declared a climate emergency

no doubt with a lot of spending planned. They are really on a roll there, raising minimum wage by 29% over the next two years to the second highest in EU , telling parents they don't own their children and comparing them with jihadis for wanting to opt their children out of extracurricular activities ( diversity of all kinds) . Much more besides, the country has gone completely nuts.