- Re: Dmitry Orlov: Greta and the Deep Green State Archived Message
Posted by Thomas Newfield
on November 8, 2019, 10:04 pm, in reply to "Re: Dmitry Orlov: Greta and the Deep Green State"
|
No it's a characterisation of G.T., a media celebrity on whom an agenda is hooked, based on what is known about her: young, idealistic, bourgeois, Swedish, autistic, etc. I don't see smear or innuendo: the intention of the piece is as explicit as a question-response dialogue piece can be with Dmitry responding to Greta's questions and assertions. If you don't want to read it (you haven't, have you), then don't. Your "climate emergency" and "corporate interests" remarks: It's as if we need to close our eyes and ears to real hypocrisy, real co-option; egotism no less real for it's naivety and passion; and to scientific falsities and speculation becoming unquestionable dogma "because it's an emergency" and presumably uncomfortable critical engagement should SHUT UP (or be shut up clever and virtuous overseer chaps), Anyway here's a paraphrase of the piece you have to - shock - pay to read: - Nice trip by boat across the Atlantic. Though you'd have saved CO2 emissions / other damage if you'd flown there and back! (carbon fibre yacht, kevlar - etc.) - you seem bitter and angry rather than happy and carefree - rel: Asbergers, OCD. That's not healthy especially in one so so young. Why are you angry? - "Science crystal clear" - science subject to tides of fashion; and climate science even more so, due to the huge no. of variables only few of which are measurable - Scientific agreement a social rather than a scientific effect: If you make dire predictions, you'll garner funding. Say "it's too complex" - you'll get nothing. Groupthink. Experimental data takes 1000s of years! - 1000s of papers do not mean it's crystal clear science. Clear science has NO recent papers - because no need. - Confusing chain reactions with +ve and -ve feedback loops - a loose thread that's tuggable - "1.5° rise in temp.... from pre-industrial levels.": what we need to prevent. What were these levels? We do not know. - Projection of climatic change using computer models is nonsense. It's much, much too complex. - EG: fudged science: eg: clouds: may reflect heat back up or may heat up air with the cloud - i.e. may be +ve or -ve feedback, depending on the composition of the cloud - such things make climate models untrustworthy. - Another ex.: the gulf stream. This is an anomaly in the history of the earth's climate. More usual is: glacial periods, caused by warming which makes icecaps melt: the motor of the gulf stream fails and we get long ice ages. That's fudged too. - Can't predict solar output either - so we don't. - Ditto volcanic eruptions which mean "say goodbye to the sun" - What we can count and model is CO2. So that's what we do. But does atmospheric CO2 create global warming - or vice versa? And what about the other much more potent greenhouse gasses that humans don't create? - Plan: blame humans; phase out fossil fuels and replace with "green tech." Except the latter require high fossil fuel inputs and require backups (fossil fuel) because they're intermittent, unreliable... as much back up as currently exists without wind and solar! - Painting a happy face on a sad [for most] truth: fossil fuels are running out and there will be a lot less energy around [there's nothing you can do about it] - Except in a way there is: you can make the youth feel so guilty about existing that they won't rise up and rebel [against YOUR sponsors, Soros, Rothschild clan, Obama, Gore and others] when they realise the life they are offered in the West is shitty, unable to marry, start families, have a home of your own, have pets]. - But don't feel bad... "Take care of yourself, and let the Earth take care of itself in its own sweet interglacial time." ----- Nice to re-read that. |