Doesn't sit right with me. Yes, she could have handled it better or answered the questions instead of sticking to the contemptuous giggling but it's obvious the questions weren't asked in good faith, with the first one angling for the hypocrisy accusation over her 'carbon footprint' for travelling to davos. Dore makes some reasonable points about the necessity to speak to the other side and convince them, but he doesn't make any effort to find out if she has in fact addressed these points (Stef at one point comes on to say that she doesn't fly to these meetings) and is content to let this interview be the only thing that represents her. A smear, in other words. Maybe she was having a bad day? Maybe she was fed up of getting the same questions she's had 100x before? Fine, she's a woman now as Dore says, and has an influential position in the world and shouldn't be insulated from challenges. But at least try to present her side of the story.
I can't help thinking that JD is going to segue from covid skepticism (much of it legitimate in my view) into climate change skepticism, just cos WEF bad. I've seen him mention a couple times already how finding out all the lies in the covid narrative has made him start to wonder if they've been lying about climate change too. Shows the danger of mixing science with authoritarianism. Now lots of people don't trust anything the experts say (rightly so in many cases, and even as a default stance as long as you remain rational and open to persuasion from the evidence, and with due respect shown to people who have studied a subject in depth for a long time). But just because the rich and powerful were manipulating covid towards their own ends, doesn't mean there wasn't a pandemic, and it's the same with climate change, except with far worse consequences.
'I haven't followed Greta Thundberg or however you say your name, Tunberg. I don't know how to say her name even, I haven't followed her [...] I didn't have the bandwidth to look into her, I was looking into other stuff I don't know anything really about her, er, but it seems weird that she won't answer these questions. Now, I don't know if this has anything to do with her being autistic but maybe... [interrupted]'
FFS Jimmy, you didn't have the bandwidth to look into her or this teensie little problem that's coming our way called climate change? (The only time I see him mention it is when he's calling out the hypocrisy of US democrats supporting the oil industry.) I guess I shouldn't shame people for ignorance or not getting involved in activism on this issue when they're doing good work in other areas, but this looks like targeted ignorance to me. Especially if he's going to do a hit job on Thunberg, air out all the right wing talking points against environmentalists with no response, and freely admit that he hasn't even bothered to find out what she's said and done. F* me, at least watch a youtube video of one of her speeches or something...
I had been starting to think Jimmy might have been getting better just of late; he had seemed to be having more obviously leftist content and guests and doing segments that would alienate a lot of the audience he had attracted but it seems that must have been a coincidence.
I saw an interesting segment with Chris Hedges on his show the other day but was put off by the bits JD had edited so he could rattle off talking points to various issues Hedges mentioned, as if he was doing that during the interview but they had clearly been inserted later so there was no correction or pushback by Hedges.
The "bandwidth" excuse is pathetic and it seems to be the kind of thing he comes out with when he wants to push a line that he thinks feigning ignorance of the subject will somehow excuse....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Do you pay for his content? I think the free stuff is excerpted. Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
I think the fact that Tunberg has been embraced by the BBC, is telling. This effectively means she's been 'vetted' and found to be 'sound'.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has also compared her to an Old Testament prophet. So he, an ex oil company executive, approves of her.
I prefer to think of her more as a modern version of Joan of Arc. That is, she's been lifted up by powerful people who use her to push their agenda and views.
Jimmy's piece raises some pertinent and relevant issues in relation to Tunberg.
Personally I'd like her to challenge the carbon footprint of the US military, which is horrendous, and cutting vast military expenditure and transferring the resources, the colossal waste, towards combating climate change.
Maybe she recognised the "reporter" was from Rebel News, a far-right Canadian version of Breitbart and were asking the questions about as far away from in good faith as you can get? They later twist themselves in knots trying to pretend that Rebel News aren't an incredibly dubious organisation.
Then there's all the smeary shit from Kurt ####ing Metzger; "she's just a puppet, you're not supposed to listen to what she says" and Jimmy chiming in with his bit about her German arrest being a "photo-op".
"Greta it's getting quite cold in Davos, when can we expect some global warming?", "Are you a child actor? How would you describe yourself?". And their only issue is "Why won't she answer?" ...these incredibly stupid, bad faith, shock jock clippable questions.
And as for the other reporters "answering for her" they were actually getting pissed off with these far-right idiots wasting time on inane gotcha questions.
"You think this is gonna get it done on climate change?" asks Jimmy over and over again. Does he think shitting all over Thunberg and amplifying Rebel News arseholes is going to get it done?
Sorry, this is transparently utter bollocks.
Her being "embraced by the BBC" is more interesting and I think it's clear that she is seen as the acceptable face of climate protest to some extent. That doesn't excuse this kind of garbage coverage....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
I do not pay for any of his content. It wasn't a matter of part of the interview being behind a paywall it was segments inserted as if they were live but that had been put in post. The effect was to have no Hedges pushback on the points Jimmy read (because he didn't actually ever hear them) and thus the idea of Hedges' implicit agreement with them. It's a bit dishonest.
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
I believe that if you catch it live (early hours of the morning) then you can watch it for free but
I'm not suggesting he did that but he inserted pieces that look like he's responding to things Chris Hedges says but there is no further response from Hedges; not even a grunt, an "uh-huh" or the other sort of audio responses you get on a live interview. it feels fairly obvious that these pieces have been tagged on later.
Here's the video. I will watch it again later and try to tag the times where I think the inserts take place. Hedges is always worth listening to anyway.
[url=
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Gotcha Questions are a key component of Australian "journalism."
JD made an assumption that GT is like him or any other celebrity and is therefore fair game and dishonestly (imo) selected those clips of reporters and their questions to make the point and smear her.
The reporters questions were, on balance, quite good e.g. 'why do we have dozens of private jets at this event' and 'how did you get here' etc.
She has not been properly trained to handle these off the cuff questions and has been probably coached (by her dad I believe) not to say anything.
It would be ideal if those same questions were put to her in a controlled environment i.e. in a prepared interview. At the end of the day, climate change and it's effects/implications is a very complicated issue.
From some bits I clocked she is now questioning capitalism. It would be good to see where she is going with that although I don't expect to see miracles.
I don't know what it is with these middle-aged guys who insist on 'hitting on' Thunberg. She may be 20 now but she's also autistic - give her a break.
As for the crap about wasting an opportunity to convince 'sceptics' by not answering questions. Well, we should be far past that now. The evidence for climate change happening now is overwhelming. These people are a lost cause. Either stupid or dishonest.
Does not mean Thunberg hasn't been effectively co-opted by the elites, though. Helping them to push the false - and lucrative - 'bright green' alternatives.
All very moot now, anyway. The world is so divided that it's never going to get together to solve the 'climate change' problem equitably. Which itself is only the most egregious part of a much broader problem.
Re: Jimmy has a pop at Greta Thanks for your contribution, Raskolnikov, it was excellent.
Sorry Raskolnikov, I wrote all this before I read your contribution Thank you for it, you express yourself much better than me, I totally concur with you. This is what I've been writing
1. How did she get to Davos? She giggled because she's always asked this question - she thinks it's funny because it's totally irrelevant, they'll know how she got there, and she finds this funny .
2. Private jets? She's been waylaid on her way to somewhere, why should she answer in this situation.
3. Who's the unpleasant dismissive baldy twerp in the inset picture?
4. The questions are designed to diminish her and her activism, to make her seem like a hypocrite - she's deigning to ignore this ignorance and the obvious agenda of these questions and the questioners. She gets this ALL THE TIME. She's treating them with the contempt they deserve.
5. Why is it so cold in Davos. ?It's winter, and of course the question is utterly ridiculous as the Alps have been basking in an unprecedented winter heat wave.
6. Are you a child actor? Got the the laugh this ridiculous and crass enquiry deserved. Jimmy, did you not get this. Greata's IQ is pretty high, and she knows perfectly well how to handle such stupidity.
7. Posing with the police? Another well deserved giggle.
8. Yes, she could have said "Please leave me alone" and that might have been a solution.
9. What does condemning OPEC energy mean?
Anyway I won't go on - this dissection by Jimmy Dore of this particular incident is just unkind and .mocking The baldy is horrible and all Jimmy can do is laugh at him? Hold on wasn't that what Greta was doing.
I think she was treating the whole thing with total contempt. She was right to do so. But Jimmy needs to up his moral and human perspective and understanding. Jimmy, they are not legitimate questions because she knows the questioner is asking them in bad faith.
And Jimmy is presenting a very unpleasant and non-insightful side to his nature.He even admits he doesn't know much about her, perhaps he should make the effort to find out.
I trust the tens of thousands of stressed mums and dads who have been bringing up their autistic children, and often struggling to do so, note how a grown man like Jimmy Dore can react to a young person with this disorder, any one slightly different. This episode reflects very badly on him. Is he himself a climate change denier? Difficult to tell - I suspect so.
I don't know if he is a 'denialist' but he certainly seems to feel the need to appeal to that section of his audience who are.
I don't know if he is ignorant about climate change or if he is feigning it. If he is ignorant, he ought to do a bit of research. After all, aside from the nuclear threat, it is the most important existential threat facing us.
Re: Jimmy has a pop at Greta Thanks for your contribution, Raskolnikov, it was excellent.
Dore is, first and foremost, an entertainer and comic, who also happens to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions. There's a great deal of satire in his style. I don't think one can demand that Dore, a kind of court jester, follows the strict journalistic rules some people on the left think are appropriate. That, surely, is found elsewhere.
Also, I think one needs to separate Thunberg the individual young woman with a... condition, and the massive media personality she has willingly become. That giant media persona needs to be examined and analysed, because she occupies an important space and is rather influential. What is she even doing in Davos, among the people who rule the world?
I think her role is multifacited, but primarily it's about creating the impression that the ruling class of the world, is willing to listen and can, in fact, empathize with her views, and would like to do more, but, well, it's difficult, you see? Is a real dialogue possible between climate activism and industrial capitalism? Is some kind of 'compromse' between the needs of the economy, welfare, and the 'free market', doable?
She's become, in the affulent West, a 'vetted' and 'santioned' activist. The pure and innocent voice of a child, who occupies the moralisitc role of a 'saint' and therefore appeals to liberals, precisely because she understands almost nothing about economics and power relationships under global capitalism. Liberals don't want to hear that capitalism is at the core of our problems and has to be drastically, structurally, changed. They prefer the conversation to focus on 'moral questions' about why individuals are unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for climate change. Simply put, Thunberg is demanding that people wake up and become good and virtuous and do what is right to stop the climate catastrophe.
This is ridiculous and childish,a nd completely ignores the central structure of capitalism and the inescapable rules and function of the 'class struggle.' This stance and ignorance, is prescisely why the BBC adores her and why she's so harmless.
Re: Jimmy has a pop at Greta Thanks for your contribution, Raskolnikov, it was excellent.
I must admit I haven't closely followed GT's pronouncements; my criticism was of that show segment.
Does she really never talk about systemic change (capitalism and its massive role in the climate crisis)? If that is so then it does look very much like your last paragraph.
It doesn't change how bad the Dore clip was mind you ...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Greta Thunberg has lashed out at the West's obsession with capitalism in a scathing rant during a sit down chat in London to promote her new book.
The 19-year-old Swedish activist called on everyone to help tear down the system that she believes is responsible for the climate crisis we find ourselves in today.
Thunberg said the Western world is in need of a 'system-wide transformation'.
The teenage activist said: "We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis.
"What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet.
"It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order."
Thunberg added that if economic growth is the only priority of our global leaders, then 'what we are experiencing now should be exactly what we should be expecting'.
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Any claims that Greta is happy to deal just to global warming and ignore the underlying ecological vandalism of capitalism are incorrect. She has often railed at the economic system that is bring us to ruin, she has done so for some years, She is not going to Davos to attend the meeting, she wasn't invited, but went along with another group of protesters to demand oil and other corporations stop greenwashing and stop their business of burning fossil fuels..It's just that bleeding heart liberals can happily accept her invective against global warming, they just ignore the other part of her argument because that's a bit more inconvenient. It's not her, she isn't cozying up. .Her partaking for the protest against the coal mine in Germany is part of that. As for Jimmy Dore just being a lampooning comic, maybe, but I seemed to detect something just a bit more personal in his attitude to Greta, and he certainly didn't do anything to correct the moron that was contributing, Jimmy seemed to find him frightfully amusing. .
Colbert is a court jester. So are Trevor Noah, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, Seth MacFarlane, John Oliver [1], Jimmy Kimmel, Lewis Black, Jerry Seinfeld [2], Frankie Boyle, Sacha Baron Cohen [3], and any of the equally unfunny drones that appear on HIGNIFY and that show with Rachel Riley.
New Zealand also has a raft of these mirthless but useful drones. [4] It's been a dismal situation for a long time now.
Hope you don't mind. I did spend an odd year or so in the oz, lacky me. Did you hear about that story about the kiwi guy and the budgie in oz? Meanwhile, it is nice to see that there is an intellectual pushback from antipodes, which you embody. Kudos.
Thanks for the kind words, Tomski. No, I don't know about the Kiwi and the budgie.
Only watched about 30 seconds of it and already it answers a load of Rebel News & Dore's questions/accusations:
Greta Thunberg Warns Davos Elite Will Throw Humanity 'Under the Bus' for Profits
"As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to invest in fossil fuels," the Swedish climate activist said. "We need to build and create a critical mass of people who demand change, who demand justice."
Jessica Corbett Jan 19, 2023
Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg took aim at those profiting off of the climate emergency Thursday on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum's annual summit in Davos, Switzerland.
The Fridays for Future leader has previously attracted global attention for delivering impassioned speeches at earlier summits, urging the Davos elite to "act as if you loved your children above all else" and calling on policymakers to stop "basing your 'pledges' on the cheating tactics that got us into this mess in the first place" and start to "implement annual binding carbon budgets."
Early into a panel discussion Thursday with fellow climate activists and an international energy expert, Thunberg said that "we are right now in Davos, where basically the people are who are mostly fueling the destruction of the planet, the people who are at the very core of the climate crisis, the people who are investing in fossil fuels... somehow these are the people that we seem to rely on solving our problems when they have proven time and time again that they are not prioritizing that."
"The changes that we need are not very likely to come from the inside, rather I believe they will come from the bottom up."
"They are prioritizing self greed, corporate greed, and short-term economic profits above people and above planet," she charged. "We seem to be listening to them rather than the people who are actually affected by the climate crisis, the people who are living on the frontlines, and that kind of tells us the situation, how absurd this is."
"The people who we really should be listening to are not here," she said of the yearly meeting that brings people from around the world to the Swiss resort town. "Instead, we are bombarded with messages from people who are basically the people who are causing this crisis."
After the moderator asked Thunberg—who was detained at a protest against coal mining in Germany earlier this week—why she is talking "outside" the summit rather than with high-profile figures "inside" as she has before, she said that "there are already activists doing that, and I think that if there should be activists inside speaking to these people, it should be those on the frontlines and not privileged people like me who are not experiencing the firsthand consequences of the climate crisis."
"I think that right now, the changes that we need are not very likely to come from the inside, rather I believe they will come from the bottom up," the 20-year-old added. "Without massive public pressure from the outside—at least, in my experience—these people are going to go as far as they possibly can."
"As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to invest in fossil fuels, they will continue to throw people under the bus for their own gain," she stressed. "We need to build and create a critical mass of people who demand change, who demand justice."
Thunberg—who twice has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for climate activism that has included global school strikes—said that "we know that the changes we are advocating for are not going to happen overnight, and that is why we have to stay strong during a longer period of time" and grow the movement of people demanding an end to the fossil fuel era.
"The people standing up and raising their voices against all that is happening—that's the hope right now. The hope comes from the people," Thunberg concluded—a sentiment echoed by the other young climate activists on the panel, Vanessa Nakate of Uganda, Luisa Neubauer of Germany, and Helena Gualinga of an Indigenous community in Ecuador. They were joined by Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, which has also highlighted the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
Thunberg, Nakate, Neubauer, and Gualinga are also spearheading a "cease-and-desist" letter demanding that fossil fuel CEOs attending the summit in Davos "immediately stop opening any new oil, gas, or coal extraction sites, and stop blocking the clean energy transition we all so urgently need." As of press time, it had been signed by over 921,000 people.
The activists aren't the only ones taking aim at the fossil fuel industry and their corporate and political allies in Davos this week. As Common Dreamsreported, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also did so in a speech Wednesday.
"This insanity belongs in science fiction, yet we know the ecosystem meltdown is cold, hard scientific fact," he said of continuing to burn fossil fuels despite the catastrophic consequences. "We must act together to close the emissions gap. To phase out coal and supercharge the renewable revolution. To end the addiction to fossil fuels. And to stop our self-defeating war on nature."
She's right that change is not going to come from the elites who have too much invested in the present system.
If you are going to get a critical mass, you need to get it globally. XR couldn't even get a critical mass in Britain (Didn't Hallam estimate a CM at about 3% of population?)
It's right to link action on climate change to action on inequality and poverty. That would get more purchase in the poorer countries.
The elites are willing to play lip service to the 'green agenda'.
What they are not going to do is countenance any systemic change that involves a massive redistribution of resources.
Capitalism and its growth agenda and western consumerist lifestyles (especially of the top percentiles) are not to be challenged.
'No to fossil fuels' and 'Just stop oil'. And then what?
It's all very well going for green energy - which is not as clean as it's made out to be - but renewables can't replace fossil fuels and maintain present lifestyles. They can only ever be an add on.
"...No to fossil fuels' and 'Just stop oil'. And then what?"
Well for the working people in the UK a shortage of oil and gas means increased transport charges to get to work, rocketing food prices because production and transportation prices have gone through the roof and getting home to find a freezing welcome and no cooked dinner because the power's been disconnected as they couldn't afford the last heating bill.
- Its more than just "a big ask": its suggesting they volunteer cheerily for very real and unending misery to support an abstract idea. The wealthy and ruling classes certainly wont be suffering: they will make sure of that.
This argument has been used in one form or another for eternity. We, the elite, are organising our system for your benefit, it keeps you alive, it feeds and clothes you, if we don't continue what we're doing you'll all suffer.
It's fallacious reasoning which seem to indicate you're actually then supporting the system that is causing the problem and you cannot see any alternative. That fallacy is that of "TINA" or a "false dilemma"
There must be a hundred ways of ensuring sufficient affordable housing, heating and food in any society. It's just that none of them are being investigated or planned presently.
There also appears to be a problem of a misattribution of blame. The "big ask" you mention is "volunteering cheerily to support an abstract idea" No, the big ask is accepting the system of control that brings them to this pass in the first place. It doesn't have to be anything to do with global warming, having enough food on the table comes to mind or obtaining health care in a timely and effective fashion. (Your opinion also seems to indicate a degree of climate scepticism but perhaps I'm reading too much into this?). .
"Your opinion also seems to indicate a degree of climate scepticism but perhaps I'm reading too much into this?)."
It's not my "opinion": I'm merely stating what seems unremarkably factual to me.
Rapidly shrinking the present levels of oil and fossil fuel use will result in an energy shortage that will impact the lives of working people dramatically. Asking the people who have the least to be happy with even less is no motive for a revolution or even popular support amongst working people.
And yea, it would be the first time I've ever been accused of being a climate sceptic but accusations of "unbeliever!" are a get-out for avoiding the huge element of denialism and the quite massive blind spots in the green movement itself.
On that, righteous sloganizing: "...No to fossil fuels' and 'Just stop oil' simply butters no energy Pasnips for the ordinary folk when the consequence for following such demands is simply penury because there appears to be no serious plan for replacing that energy. When a set of alternatives are proposed: however questionable, like Europe's replacement with renewables using gas as an interim less polluting alternative in a move towards wind turbines and solar, they are thrown into a bonfire at the drop of a hat by the European elite to ensure that the US: the most consumptive and wasteful country on the earth merely remains militarily /economically the top dog over Russia and China. (Remember all those Greens championing Ukraine and supporting this including Greta?)
Aside from sanctioning Russia to effectively destroy their own interim plan, the Europeans (with the support of the Greens) are furthermore keen on sanctioning China: the major world producer of Wind Turbines Solar panels and Battery technology. That's of course without discussing the serious problems these proposed alternatives bring with them, which aside from the energy and environmental destruction involved in getting the the raw materials (Do we even have enough extractable copper in the earth to replace more than a fraction of our energy consumption with wind turbines? ) then provide only intermittent power requiring storage, requiring more energy and mining.
Reducing energy usage and thus CO2 production is imperative but punishing people by the direct economic removal of their energy supply without apparently any real (and massive) plan in place to mitigate the effect (as you note "...none of them are being investigated or planned presently.") when many are already living hand to mouth might get you a class revolution, but it will be one intent on stringing Green politicians up for helping impose even more poverty on them without any regard for what that means for their lives.
Unless you are a Malthusian Green intent on some form of genocide in order to save the planet: and there are indeed a number about, you simply can't have a Green revolution without a class revolution. That would mean CO2 reduction policies which came hand in hand with others offering ordinary peoples the means to maintain and indeed enhance the quality of lives: not ones to immiserate them further.
It's a pure malarkey to think otherwise. Perhaps you had a few strands of that comprehensive argument of yours hanging around, but, nevertheless, I am absolutely certain you could have followed up with any clarifications adequately, and as needed. Again, outstanding, bravo.
Unless you are a Malthusian Green intent on some form of genocide in order to save the planet: and there are indeed a number about, you simply can't have a Green revolution without a class revolution.
Well said, Ken (again!). I feel like those who focus on 'climate justice' would do well to consider these aspects of class in the debate over emissions reduction. It often seems to only look at 3rd world countries and take into account the imbalance of global wealth that resulted from European/western colonisation of their countries and the 'prior accumulation' that resulted from the rapid industrialisation of those same colonising nations. Thunberg touches on it fairly typically (and with some deftness, proving that she can in fact respond to tough questions) in the above Davos vid from around 30:00, shifting the questioner's framing from 'under-developed' countries to one of them being 'over-exploited' and then admitting her privileged position in one of the exploitative countries and saying it's not for her or any other westerner to decide the path the exploited take.
Of course, a full accounting should look at the exploited groups within western countries and attempt to remedy the historical (and ongoing) injustices they face from the same system, even though they benefit in some ways from others further down in the hierarchy, and from access to the fruits of industrialisation, as much of a two-edged sword as that has been... This, for me, is where Dore has a point with his 'try to convince those who disagree with you' bit, and where many environmentalists fail, especially when caught in the middle class liberal trappings you identify. Maybe the justice and equality angles would be the best to emphasise for reaching those people rather than the 'just stop oil' slogan (though that is still fundamentally what has to happen if we're to stop the planet frying).
Anyway, I'm pretty solidly middle class, so probably am missing a bunch and don't really know what I'm talking about, so feel free to educate me if I'm talking rubbish.
cheers, I
PS: I've posted this XR video before where founders Roger Hallam, Gail Bradbrook and others discuss the challenges of articulating and enacting a working class environmentalism. I'm not convinced they're quite as salt-of-the-earth as they make out, but the points raised seem valid:
Thunberg will be challenged, and rightly so, and some of the questions in the video are legitimate. But Rebel News is a garbage platform. Part of their schtick is to ambush people. They regularly make money from getting into confrontations and getting injured or arrested, then soliciting money from their viewers for their defence in the lawsuits that result.
Jimmy says 'She has a chance to answer questions, people who she has to convince ... she would want to reach these people and people who watch them'. Those people can't be reached and certainly not by Great Thunberg.
Ezra Levant is the founder and owner of Rebel News. He is a major promoter of oil and gas. He wrote a book about how mining the oil sands in Canada should be supported because that oil is more ethical than oil from dictatorships in the Middle East & Venezuela. In fact, it takes huge amounts of energy to get the oil out of the tar sands and the environmental devastation makes the area look like Mordor.
Levant blocked me on Twitter long ago, I assume for criticizing Israel. It was certainly not about abuse because I don't do that. He and others like him are very careful to protect their echo chambers. They go on about free speech but they don't allow any dissenting messages on their platforms.
Thanks J for clarifying. Agree that tar sand are an absolute last gasp for fossil fuel extraction. Quite obscene etc. I hope it doesn't come to that, goddesses forbid.
Thanks particularly for info ref Ezra Levant. Dore seems hopelessly outclassed by right wingers. I am appalled that Grayzone guys are not coaching him here. It's a nothingburger, this instance, as far as I am concerned, but. Just indicates that Dore is not researching his material. Shame.
Sorry folks, but Jimmy Dore in entitled to question The Golden Child and ask why indeed she is at DAVOS, which, lets be honest is just a annual neoliberal/wanton warmongering 'wantfest' for the global elite, and, to ensure their notions of a Fourth, Green Industrial revolution have a veneer of respect engage with corrupt NGO's and the likes of the Golden Child.
So, if Greta was serious, instead of posing for photo shots with heavily militarised police she'd engage in the activities that protesters in Seattle in 1999 engaged in, which is directly taking the buggers on instead of journeying all over the World whinging about ecological issues, whilst actively engaging with the enemy, regardless of whatever lame critique she makes.
In a nutshell, and as with Monbiot fraud, this poster don't blow smoke up the woman's backside:
on January 24, 2023, 10:52 pm
