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.

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

20 Replies

Scooot
Scooot

In Central Greenland?

Scooot
Scooot

Here’s another timeline.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Gregg's graph makes a great deal of sense when compared to known solar cycles. Russian scientists pointed this out about 20 years ago. The west is still in denial.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Are you serious? This chart is sophomoric, and purports to be science.

Realist
Realist

The chart Scoot provided is an accurate global temperature record with words and pictures added for amusement. The chart Gregg provided is not an accurate record of global temperatures. It is a record of temperatures in Central Greenland. It would appear that you two are trying to fool people. It is clear that you are the ones who do not understand science. I suggest you concentrate your efforts on your flat earth meetings, and leave global warming to the scientists.

Realist
Realist

Perhaps you are referring to Milankovitch cycles. Milutin Milankovitch was a “Serbian” scientist who discovered the orbital cycles that have long term effects on Earth’s climate around “100” years ago. I have commented on these cycles many times on this blog. They are not responsible for the current rapid warming. In fact they are currently in a cooling phase. Scientists “everywhere” understand these cycles, including Western scientists. I have no idea why you say Russia and 20 years.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

current rapid warming -- you mean -- hokey stick ala Mann

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Wow, just wow. Look what the Bureau of Meteorology has covertly done to February? Something like one third of a degree has been added to the average Australian summer maximum anomalies over the past few years according to the “expert” data from the worlds-best-practise equipment.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Here are the links to the hot days that were recorded but don’t exist
History down the memory hole: Links go to the newspaper article of the day:

Realist
Realist

Wow. Another denier ”proof” of no global warming. The equivalent of ”It still snows in Houston”. Then you give a big smile, thinking you just proved something, and say something brilliant like ”so there”. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Data gets adjusted all the time when more accurate information becomes available. It’s why companies adjust their financials as more accurate data comes in. No different here.

The fact that the data was updated to be more accurate gets jumped on by deniers (either way). If the updated data had shown ”less” warming, deniers would have jumped all over it to say, ”See. It is not as bad as they say. It’s all a fraud.”

Since the updated data actually showed ”more” warming, the deniers jump all over it to say, ”See, its all being rigged and manipulated, in a giant conspiracy”.

Either way, the deniers will look for any tiny anomaly to ”prove” that it is all a fraud. The fact that a minor adjustment was made to less than 1% of world temperature data to make it more accurate, is seized upon by deniers to try to discredit all the data.

This is being done over and over and over again by deniers. When average global temperatures go down for one or even two years in a row; the deniers use that as proof that global warming is over, or never existed in the first place. When average global temperatures go up, it’s all a fraud.

Instead of providing scientific proof to bolster your argument, you resort to focusing on one item you can twist, compared to thousands that you can’t twist to prove your point.

Sorry, but this is not proof of anything, except that deniers will say anything to discredit the data, rather than provide any alternative proof of their position.

By the way, I am still waiting for YOUR scientific proof of why temperatures keep increasing. Come on. Dazzle me with your extensive scientific knowledge.

Oh. And it was pretty cold when I woke up this morning. Brrrr.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Realist
Realist

Hi Max. I will reply to your graphs.

Thanks so much for looking them up. These graphs are a compilation of a lot of effort by a lot of scientists over many decades to give us an understanding of the Earth’s climate history.

I will focus on your last chart.

Notice the long term decline in temperature over the last 55 million years. The planet has been cooling for 55 million years. This is well understood by science.

Now go back to 55 million years ago. This time period was known as ”hothouse earth”. There was no ice anywhere, turtles and palm trees at the north pole, equator too hot for most animal life. Sea levels were 200m (600 feet) higher. Florida was under water, as are many other current coastal regions. This created conditions for plants and mammals to thrive all over the planet, where it wasn’t covered by water or too hot. CO2 levels were over 1700 ppm compared to 412 ppm today.

From 55 million to 35 million years the earth began cooling again. The land masses (continents) kept moving around to roughly where they are today. Antartica moved into position at the south pole and began forming glaciers as the earth continued to cool. India slid into China and formed the Himalayas, which were so tall that they affected climate further, causing more cooling. The exposed Himilayan rock, sucked a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, causing even more cooling. With the formation of glaciers, the earth began a new Ice Age, which we are technically, still in today.

Also, notice that throughout this chart, that even though the long term temperature trend is down, there is a lot of up/down movement within the overall trend.

Focus on the black section from 5 million years ago to 1 million years ago. Notice the up/down variability. These are the Milankovitch cycles I always refer to. There are 4 cycles of different lengths. The dominant cycle used to be the 41000 year cycle. However, the 100000 year cycle has been the dominant cycle over the last 2.5 million years.

Now look at the last million years. You can see the last 10 Milankovitch cycles of roughly 100000 years each. Notice the quick jump in temperature that takes ten thousand to twenty thousand years, is then followed by a cooling cycle that lasts about 80000-90000 years. By the end of each cooling cycle there is a lot of ice over what is now New York.
Now notice the warm peak at 122000 years ago. At that time the Earth was 2 degrees warmer then today and the oceans were 20 feet higher. For example, half of Florida was underwater.

Then the next cooling cycle began. The temperature dropped, ice formed and the oceans dropped.

This cycle ended 18000 years ago and there was a mile of ice over New York. You can see this in your chart in the blue line, 18000 years ago.

At which point the next warming cycle began. The planet warmed for 10000 years, as you can see in the chart from 18000 to 8000 years ago. The ice melted.

Then the next cooling cycle began. The planet has been cooling for the last 8000 or 6000 years. In your chart, this is represented by the red line which is drawn to smooth out the blue temperature record.

However, the cooling stopped 250 years ago and the planet has been warming rapidly for the last few hundred years, which is hard to see in the chart. Look at the little red uptrend at the very end of the chart. If you could look up a chart for the last 250 years, or even the last 100 years, you could see it much better.

Of course this rise in temperature should not be happening because we are now at least 6000 years into the current 80000 year Milankovitch cooling cycle.

We know why this is happening. It is man-made global warming. If we keep raising greenhouse gasses like CO2, we will quickly get back to much warmer temperatures, much less ice, much higher sea levels etc etc

Thanks again for looking up the chart. As I say, science can explain it perfectly. It actually is great proof of everything I keep saying. So glad you looked it up.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

You really believe that all this numbers and this chart is 100% accurate?

Man all this are guesses with plus and minus thousands of years.

When is this going to happen I do not see any problem know.
When?

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Richard P. Feynman: there Is science and there is cargo cult pseudoscience — —and that is what global warming is, a religious cult.

No1.Earth is not green house

A greenhouse (also called a glasshouse, or, if with sufficient heating, a hothouse) is a structure with walls and roof made chiefly of transparent material, such as glass, in which plants requiring regulated climatic conditions are grown.

No2. There is no experiment, and can not be replicated
No3. It was colder or warmer before humans
No4. Why do you assume that warmer is bad.

There are 200 different computer models —that is not science

You do not need to be scientist to know that someone is trying to rip you off.

When Politicians say there is problem you should learn by know that is A Pack of Lies.

When Pope say same you should know by now it is A Pack of Lies.
When crying children telling you it is true you should know it is A Pack of Lies.

When paid scientist whose jobs depend on global warming, tell you it is bad —you should know it is A Pack of Lies.

Realist
Realist

As usual. No science. No explanation. Just a lot of contradictory statements and conspiracy theories.

First: You posted the chart, not me. I merely explained it. Now you say ignore the chart. LOL

What was the purpose of posting the chart? What were you hoping to explain or prove? And now, why are you telling me to ignore the chart?

Second: “the earth is not a greenhouse because a greenhouse has glass and walls and a roof”. LMAO! Do you think that making such a stupid statement helps your argument? It just makes you look like an idiot. The proper term is “greenhouse effect”.

Third: it was colder or warmer before humans. Absolutely true. And how do you know this? Not because you were there, obviously. Because of the hard work of many thousands of scientists who have done all the research, and can explain it all. I bet that was what you were hoping to prove with the chart. So is the chart useful or not? It was produced by science, and is explained by science. I suspect you are now rejecting it because you seem to reject science that has been established for over a hundred years.

You don’t even understand that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses, a well known scientific fact first discovered over 150 years ago.

Where is your science? You keep asking me to show you the science, and prove the science. I keep doing that and then you simply reject it and say you don’t believe it. But you offer no proof as to why.

Show me your scientific proof.

Answer my questions that you keep ignoring. Explain why the earth and moon have different climates.

Tell me the name of the scientist who proved that CO2 and CH4 are not greenhouse gasses. What was their experiment? When did they do it? Has it been reproduced over and over?

You keep saying that I’m the one who doesn’t understand the science. Clearly, you know zero science because you can’t make a single scientific statement.

You argue like a child. Everything you say, sounds like this: ”It's not true, because I don't want it to be true! So there!”

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

"Now you say ignore the chart. LOL"

Man chart is a guess/estimate of the past with + and -
meaning maybe right maybe wrong.

You are basically saying, we stoped new ice age and saved the world, save North America and north Europe from becoming inhabitable -- but in your opinion this is bad.

Man there is Science and than there is statistic and your baloney are not science.

People like you do not have any integrity and honest just hubris.

Richard Feynman:
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.

Realist
Realist

I’m still waiting to see you explain the science. Obviously you can’t. You simply refuse, because you don’t know anything.

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.

charlly
charlly

create debates!

Stimpson
Stimpson

Hi Mish,

thanks for the story. your last story made me curious about the use of different time lines, so I checked the IPCC report that I could found. Admittedly, there are many publications so I may have looked at something else but in the report most graphs are starting around 1850. I did not see the use of cherry picked starting dates. Can you please provide the link to the study that did?

Sechel
Sechel

Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard is a climate denier and a conspiracist. He basally claims NASA and the National Weather Service have been fudging weather data with malicious intent. Tony Heller is also a birther(see a pattern).

So what's going on?
Goddard's accusations that NASA's peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to fake global warming. Unfortunately this non-sense gets picked up by FOX news and promoted.

Realist
Realist

Fascinating. Mish would rather follow conspiracies on global warming instead of science. Just like flat-earth advocates. I can only assume that’s because it must be good for his blog. Otherwise I would think he was an idiot.

WildBull
WildBull

Greta is being exploited by her parents.

SleemoG
SleemoG

Sometimes doing nothing is the correct course of action, especially if no one knows what to do, as is obvious from this "discussion."

Herkie
Herkie

Really too bad that this brat jetsets around the globe burning fossil fuels at 525 miles per hour and 35,000 feet just to tell us we need to bankrupt the petroleum industry, without which we could not even survive with going on 8 billion people in the world today. Because our food like it or not is grown with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, all PETROCHEMICALS. And the dumbassed vegan Nazis that say we should all just go vegan and organic, first of all might I suggest they shove their tofu right up their collective butts? Second, organic farming takes about 50% more land than non organic farming to produce the same crop yields. Man employs about one billion acres of land now to grow food, so sure, we will just have to find another half billion acres of land to keep agriculture at the same level it is now.

What really pisses me off about all this is that it is utterly false. Nothing we can do is going to change what is happening. All the angst and resources spent are wasted. Yes the "house is on fire" because clearly something has changed, I notice for example I have not seen a squirrel in years, or walking sticks, or several other types of bugs that used to be common, now just gone, butterflies and bees getting rare. But that just is not from higher temperatures, it is another cause but they will not even try to figure it out because well they already have it all figured out don't they? Man made global warming is a myth and a religion. And man will die chanting it's creed and catechism.

RPTIII
RPTIII

Would somebody pls fwd a mailing addy to me for Greta. Going to send her a ticket to Paris so she can gleefully skip in front of a speeding Parisian bus


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY