Saturday, 27 July 2019

I'll probably get righteous grief for this...

15 comments:

Sackerson said...

Children's Crusade. Did you see Miliband's face listening so-respectfully to her? He looked as though he'd had some drastic cranial intervention.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, I didn't see him specifically, but I know how others pander to her, so I think I can guess.

Sobers said...

One looks back at similar events from history, such as Joan of Arc, and wonders how people could be so gullible, and yet here we are, doing it all over again.......so called 'educated people' falling all over themselves to prostrate themselves in front of a child.

One wonders what these fawning politicians really think, are they true believers or are they just going along with it either because it suits their ideological aims, or they fear going against the Establishment flow?

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, I think that the whole Greta/school strike thing is a stroke of marketing genius by the Alarmists, it makes it all the more self-perpetuating. And infuriating.

Sobers said...

" I think that the whole Greta/school strike thing is a stroke of marketing genius by the Alarmists, it makes it all the more self-perpetuating."

I disagree, I think its very dangerous for the Alarmists, because it puts them in Emperors New Clothes territory. Previously the argument (such as it was) was an argument among adults about a (potentially) real problem, between people who genuinely believe they are correct. No one was arguing entirely hypocrictically. Now its incorporated a principle that deep down everyone knows is wrong, even if its not politic to admit it, namely we shouldn't be organising global society on the say so of a child with an mental disorder. So we have politicians and the Great and Good kneeling before her, even though they think privately, even if only in their own heads 'This is nuts'. Thats Madness of Crowds territory, that can invert in an instant, because all it takes is one crack in the dam for the whole thing to collapse, because everyone knows the truth, just can't admit it for social reasons. Rather like the Carl Beech situation - whereby everyone NOW is saying 'Well he was an obvious nutter, why did anyone listen to him?' but were shouting 'String them all up!' only a year or so ago.

Using GT as a front for Alarmism is the work of an movement that is rolling the dice, going for broke despite the risks. It exposes their weakness, not their strength. They know there is only so many times you can cry wolf, declare X years to catastrophe before you become a laughing stock. They NEED to get significant power soon, or the whole thing is going to just fade away. Hence the ramping up of the stakes with GT - they need a win, and fast.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, 'they' are in power, they cried wolf once too many about ten years ago. I'm hoping it all dies down and goes away, like burning witches or the cold war.

The Stigler said...

didn't turn out too well for Joan of Arc and my guess is that it won't for Greta Thunberg, either. When she hits 18 and no-one can throw around the "it's mean to go after kids" excuse, and her private life becomes open etc etc, she's going to be destroyed by the media.

Sobers said...

" 'they' are in power,"

Yes and no. The politicians in power today are in thrall to Alarmism, but they aren't true believers, they are just floating with the wind. Voters make positive noises about 'the environment' so politicians follow. But the converse applies too - there's only so much they can do before the Green nonsense starts impacting the voters in ways they can directly attribute to the eco-loons. So far they haven't realised how much extra they are paying for energy for example. But once you start attacking the minutiae of people's very lives - their cars, their central heating systems, their food choices, their holidays etc etc then you will rapidly come up against a wall of voters saying 'NO!'

Thats what the eco-freaks want to get beyond. They need to get the voter out of the loop, they need to get power moved to supranational bodies that the voters can't vote out. Thats what all this is about - bypassing democracy.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, yes, that is true. But depressing.

Ted Treen said...

Whatever the rational foregoing arguments, I still say her eyes are too close together for comfort.

George Carty said...

Why haven't more environmentalists embraced nuclear power? That would seem to be the best way to reduce our CO2 emissions without risking a yellow vest style backlash. In fact, if the anti-nuclear-power movement hadn't become powerful, climate change may not have become such an urgent problem in the first place!

Sobers said...

"Why haven't more environmentalists embraced nuclear power? "

Simple - nuclear power would allow people to continue life as now, OK slightly different maybe in that cars would need to be electric, as would all household heating and cooking etc, but there would be no need for people to experience a drop in lifestyle. Consumerism could continue, as could capitalism. Thats exactly what the Greens don't want - they want to destroy capitalism, destroy freedom, reduce people's standards of living and control every aspect of their lives. All the name of 'saving the planet'.

If nuclear fusion were suddenly available tomorrow, limitless free energy with no environmental concerns whatsoever Greens would oppose it. Many have already admitted as much. They don't want a solution that allows us to continue as we are, just not emitting CO2, they want power over everyone. Thats the true aim of the eco-freaks.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TT, well done. You are first to notice that I doctored the picture to make her eyes and mouth smaller.

GC, maybe because of the historic link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Plus nuclear power stations are BIG and controlled by LARGE CORPORATIONS. As apposed to friendly and accessible local windmill.

S, there is an element of that as well.

George Carty said...

What do you think of the notion that the mainstream environmental movement is anti-nuclear because is just as much in Big Oil's pocket (albeit laundered through various philanthropic foundations) as the climate change deniers which they profess to stand against?

The story of Hermann Muller (the geneticist responsible for popularizing the notion that there is no safe dose of radiation) may be instructive here: in 1932 he had been fired from his academic position in Texas for working on an underground communist student newspaper. He took a position in Germany (and fled the Nazi takeover the following yet), then moved to the Soviet Union (and fled there 4 years later when he got embroiled in the Lysenko affair) and then took a position in Scotland, taking time out to serve in the International Brigades in Spain before returning to the United States in 1940.

By 1945 he was in financial dire straits: he was 56 years old with no pension (due to his frequent moves) or savings, he was about to lose his job, and he had a young wife and a 2-year old daughter. In other words he was ripe to be suborned by the Rockefeller Foundation, so that family of oil tycoon could use him to try to strangle in its cradle the future rival energy source of nuclear fission...

Bayard said...

"they want power over everyone. Thats the true aim of the eco-freaks."

Added to which, of course, is the fact that a lot of them are Neo-puritans. They don't want to encourage the virtuous, they want to punish the sinners.