Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Unstable Child Throws Temper Tantrum At the United Nations

...read no headline ever.

But here's the reality:




Related reading: End the Children’s Climate Crusade.  It's child abuse!

98 comments:

  1. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem ... it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jez!

      As a Christian, I find what you are insinuating to be highly offensive -- some might say blasphemous.

      Delete
    2. ...and absolutely no one has been "astonished at her understanding and answers."

      Its all theatrics and histrionics.

      Delete
    3. @always: I intended to warn against our propensity to dismiss youth out of hand. I didn't realise it could be offensive to use the bible to make contemporary points -- I'm sure I've heard people do that quite often. I should have quoted Kurt Cobain instead: "The duty of youth is to challenge corruption."

      @silverfiddle: She is not sophisticated (nor does she pretend to be) but those who find her impressive are struck by her clarity of expression, including emotional expression. Good luck impressing anyone with "understanding and answers" these days -- facts are disposable, to be tolerated only as long as they confirm our prejudices! (This reality is offensive beyond blasphemy imo... is that thought blasphemous? Is meta-blasphemy worse that just out-right saying "Jehovah?")

      Delete
    4. Its all emotion and Little Red Book platitudes and groupthink chanting.

      Its alarming that tens or hundreds of millions of people in a supposedly advanced society are impressed and swayed by such propaganda, but here we are. Government schools and the Infotainment Media Complex have done a good job propagandizing entire generations.

      Delete
    5. Jez,
      I didn't realise it could be offensive to use the bible to make contemporary points

      Don't be obtuse. I would not have objected had you quoted "And a little child shall lead them."

      Delete
    6. I didn't know that one -- my christianity did not survive contact with much of the OT.
      I shouldn't have dropped the quote with no explanation, but honestly I thought I'd earned enough trust & goodwill that you would understand implicitly that I wasn't claiming divinity on Thunberg's behalf or anything funky like that.

      Delete
    7. You probably didn't know that the Church of Sweden decided that she was appointed as the successor to Jesus Christ. ( No joke )

      Delete
    8. Are you sure it's not a joke? Although it's a genuine church, its twitter feed seems fairly goofy.

      Delete
    9. I posted this at WUD a few days ago whn the Saint Greta phenomenon was then discussed. My opinion has not changed –– nor is i likely to:

      Remember the tragedy of the Children's Crusade?

      It didn't work in the Middle Ages, and it's not going to work now.

      That poor idiot child from Sweden, –– whose arrogant, puffed up, self-righteous,quasi-theatrical posturing makes her desperately unattrative –– is being EXPLOITED to serve the nefarious poltical aspirations of globalist would-be TYRANTS.

      Delete
    10. What is this obssession with rating everyone's attractiveness?

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. That the girl "looks like a little girl that Adolph Hitler posed with" is not a particularly constructive argument against her idiotic performance at the UN.

      Delete
  3. I blame the adults, not the girl.

    Focusing on "climate change" is guaranteed to cause hysteria, psychosis and noisy arguments on a global scale. The climate is always changing. Deserts were not always deserts, etc.

    The science is not settled, and people creating this panic are global terrorists attempting to herd opinion and corral us so the World Controllers can impose their tyranny on the masses, while the rich and powerful continue a luxurious fossil-fueled life.

    We should be addressing concrete concerns like pesticides, herbicides, potable water, pollution, habitat loss. And we should focus on helping impacted communities adjust to local changes.

    Many places the propagandists scream are being impacted by "rising oceans" are in fact, sinking. Miami is one example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      I blame the adults, not the girl.

      Sure, but she is 16 years old -- not exactly a child.

      Besides, she is the face of today's environmental fascism.

      Delete
    2. Silverfiddle: do you doubt that the sealevel is rising?

      Delete
    3. If 97% of climate scientists agree that sea level is rising and that our coastal cities will be underwater in just a decade or so, why is no one, absolutely not one single voice, saying that we should be working on plans to move those cities inland?

      Delete
    4. "The navigational prowess of Marshall Islanders is legendary. For thousands of years, Marshallese have embraced their watery environment, building a culture on more than 1,200 islands scattered across 750,000 square miles of ocean.

      But powerful tropical cyclones, damaged reefs and fisheries, worsening droughts, and sea-level rise threaten the coral reef atolls of this large ocean state, forcing the Marshallese to navigate a new reality.

      In a moment of reckoning, Marshall Islanders face a stark choice: relocate or elevate. One idea being considered is the construction of a new island or raising an existing one."


      Delete
    5. Miami Battles Rising Seas
      In 2017, voters agreed to finance adaptation efforts through property taxes. Now the first phase of those projects is underway.


      'Climate change is not a distant threat for Miami; it’s a daily presence in people’s lives. The city has been fighting to stay above water for decades. It knows that its future as a vibrant international hub for business, tourism, arts and culture depends on making the city more resilient to the impact of global warming."

      Delete
    6. From "Science News":

      "How the 5 riskiest U.S. cities for coastal flooding are preparing for rising tides
      Of the urban areas most at risk, some are further along than others"


      Delete
    7. I'm no tree hugger or butterfly chaser but I don't think mother earth is particularly begging for more fossil fuel emissions. The idea of breathable air and a glass of clean water to drink does have a certain appeal to it.


      So-called conservatives (or perhaps, liberal haters) can't differentiate because of the binary political polarization they've allowed themselves to be indoctrinated to by the special interest donors.

      Delete
    8. Ronald,

      Is your drinking not clean now? Is you air not breathable? These two phenomena are local issues. China is a pollution nightmare. The US is not.

      Delete
    9. Miami sits in Florida, which is and always has been a swamp.

      Cities built on swamps will inevitably sink.

      Delete
    10. I don't see that anything in her testimony has been coerced. Her address to the U,N. was articulate and moving. She's stood up well to the cheap personal smear.
      Meanwhile President "Precious bodily fluids" attacks the very problems Silverfiddle mentions. A recent example would be his threat to California to block their enforcement of the state's automobile mileage regulation. His repeal of pollution control and land use regulation are myriad and damaging.
      Yet Republicans turn a blind eye to it alll and attack an adolescent with the courage to speak cogent truth to power.

      Delete
    11. "Speaking Truth to Power" is trite and misused phrase.

      Can't you moldy old lefties come up with new propaganda?

      "...according to Michel Foucault, only the courageous may pursue the truth-to-power course, as they risk losing their friends (as Winston Churchill did in the 1930s,) their liberty, even their lives (as Liu Xiaobo did)."

      Get over yourselves already.

      Delete
    12. "Is your drinking not clean now? Is you air not breathable? These two phenomena are local issues. China is a pollution nightmare. The US is not."

      So, let's all dance, follow the piper, and rejoice in the momentary "I got mine" fallacy as we kowtow to the corporate whims.

      Delete
    13. Ronald,

      You missed the point completely, but in this age of arguing in bad faith and deliberate feigned ignorance, its no surprise.

      Clean water and clean air are distinct issues from "climate change."

      Delete
    14. Silverfidddle, are you comparing contemporary climate science to the unregulated ad industry of the 40's and 50's?
      Weak.

      Delete
    15. It is easy to draw comparisons between the behaviour of polluting industries and countries and that of tobacco companies in the '70s.

      Delete
    16. Kinda like the change of weather vrs climate change?

      Delete
    17. Ducky and Ronald,

      I am pointing out the laudable improvements we have made in the US in our water and air quality, thanks in much part to liberal ecologists of the 1960's.

      Air and water pollution is independent of "climate change."

      I am also with you that left to their own devices, corporations would despoil land, air and water for a few extra dollars.

      I am not an anarchist. I have always been no more of a libertarian than Friedrich Hayek. As with most things, there is a golden mean to government regulation.

      Delete
  4. It is CLEAR there is plenty of propaganda to go around.

    Unsettled science. Maybe so. But the current scientific data sure ain't encouraging. And as long as the climate change deniers are in charge there is little chance for sensible discussion and responsible action.

    If only there was a hot line to the great creator eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      All the climate change deniers whom I personally know are good stewards of God's creation.

      Delete
    2. But if you mostly know good people, that isn't a fair test. *I* know very few arsonists, for example.

      Former Nsstle chairman Peter "no right to water" Brabeck is a prominate climate change denier. Is he a good steward of Creation?

      Delete
    3. AOW... I don't know a single person personally who doesn't claim to love the environment or tries to be a good steward of God's creation.

      But Jez's question brings something to the front. There are people who are at best benign to being good stewards, preferring instead to favor business expansion and profit over good stewardship.

      It's no secret that the beliefs of Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard would not be so radical were it not for the proliferation of PG & E folks of Erin Brockovich fame.

      Perhaps as Les said, much is unsettled. But as companies reap record profits year after year here in the US, wouldn't it be prudent policy to require them to prioritize, over those profits, preserve clean water and air for future generations?

      Delete
    4. Enlightening. Scratch a climate change argument, and demonization of those outside the hive is just below the surface.

      Delete
    5. Brabeck doesn't need me to demonize him.

      Delete
    6. ...and isn't it convenient to put everyone you disagree with into his company? Guilt by association.

      Delete
    7. Not doing that at all, I'm sure Always knows some deniers, and I don't contest her appraisal of them. I'm just offering a vividly obnoxious counter-example.

      Delete
    8. Guilt by association. Seems to be plenty of that going around as well.

      Delete
    9. Right Les, and you're leading the maoist vanguard, blaring propaganda that everyone who disagrees with you are "deniers" incapable of "sensible discussion and responsible action."

      You should try thinking for yourself.

      Delete
  5. Non-uniformity of measurements of surface temperatures are just one question mark in all of this.

    I doubt most people understand the complexity of the models used by scientists who are paid to find evidence of "global warming" or "climate change."

    They must choose a set of variables, some of which are grounded in pretty solid science, others speculative, and then you have the extrapolations that must be predicated upon a posited trend.

    Meanwhile we have other evidence that increased temperatures preceded increases in carbon dioxide, which does not preclude more carbon dioxide increasing temperature. Both are possible. We are in the realm of scientific theory.

    Meanwhile, here in the real world, US carbon emissions have flatlined, and we have done a great job cleaning up our air and water, thanks mostly to improving technologies powered by economic growth.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But sea-level rise is a fairly direct satellite measurement. Do you doubt the levels are rising?

      Delete
    2. When large volume of ice are melting into the oceans, how can levels not be rising?

      Delete
    3. @ jez,
      The sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. How could it possibly be otherwise as glaciers have been in retreat for thousands of years?
      Is the rate increasing? Possibly, ice melts faster as it's mass decreases. when you build a city on an ocean shore, expect it to sink as the Ejyptians and Romans found out.

      Delete
    4. What Warren said.

      This is equivalent to the bygone era paranoid hysteria stirred up by witch doctors insisting they need to throw virgins into the volcano to appease the angry gods.

      It's all about Power and Control.

      Always has been, always will be.

      Delete
    5. Well it's a question worth asking, because it's not that hard to find "climate skeptics" who claim that sea levels are not rising -- I'm glad you and Warren don't find them credible.

      Delete
    6. I don't deny the "climate" is "changing."

      Delete
    7. At the beginning of "this" climate scare, some were saying that the ice at the North Pole was going to melt and the oceans would ride 100 meters or more. The problem is that the North Pole ice floats on top of the ocean. Like a glass full of water with ice floating on top, the water level cannot rise because ice and water have the same mass.
      when that fact was pointed out they quickly switched from the North Pole and cited the ice of Antarctica and glaciers of Greenland. The metric keeps changing.

      Delete
    8. See, we can each find foolish proponents of our respective opposing views. Wouldn't it be more informative to seek out their best proponents instead?

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. But much of the melte ice is on land not floating.

      Delete
    11. Scientists Silverfiddle are scientists. They are driven by curiosity, the burning desire for knowledge, the drive to understand the environment and what affects it. Including human activity, both and negative. Few, if any, do what they do to "find evidence of climate change". That is the cynical view of the climate change denier.

      Having said the above, if there are scientists who are functioning as you seem to believe then well, they ought to change their discipline. I mean they could always become republican politicians!

      Delete
    12. @ Nostradumbass:
      Do you need a lesson in grade school science or is your reading comprehension sorely lacking? --hint-- The narrative was changed to reflect something that could actually cause the sea level to rise.

      Delete
    13. @ RN:
      Bless your pointed little head.
      I'm afraid your 1930s comic book view of scientists is laughable. Once, phrenologists were given such accolades. They are merely human and suffer from all foibles of us mere human beings including greed, peer pressure and unhealthy egos.
      Science is a process not a proclamation.
      Question: What should the average temperature of the Earth be?
      In view of the fact that the Earth has seen many periods of much cooler and much hotter temperatures, I find it impossible to believe that there is any warming or cooling that could be accounted for by the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Add to that, the records of past temperatures are constantly jiggered to appear the temperature is rising and data has only been recorded globally for a minuscule period of time.

      Delete
    14. That's an invalid inference: the fact that it happened before humans does not preclude the possibility of humans causing it this time.
      The answer to your question is, the temperature doesn't matter so long as it changes slowly enough for us to adapt to it without going through major suffering or mass extinctions etc.

      Delete
    15. The figure often bandied about claiming that 97-98% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human behavior is pure BS. The survey that resulted in this figure, oft touted by Barack Obama and John Kerry, originated from the University of Illinois by a professor and a graduate student. They sent out a two minute/two question on-line survey to 10,257 earth scientists. They received 3,146 responses. Of those, 79 respondents were earth scientists. 79 people out of 10,257—or .0077%—were qualified to respond to the two questions. Of respondents, 0.25% were qualified climate scientists—a long way from 97-98%.
      Does human behavior affect the climate? I think the answer is yes. Large cities of asphalt and blacktop highways does reflect the sun’s heat back into the atmosphere. Will electric cars solve this problem? Hardly. So I first think that the global warming community ought to stop lying to citizens. Second, let’s begin relying on real science rather than junk science. From scientific data (as opposed to dishonestly manufactured data) we can develop policies and programs that make sense for our earth. Absent valid data, the only result is a rape of the world’s taxpayers.

      Delete
    16. "this figure ... originated from the University of Illinois by a professor and a graduate student."

      Weird detail to pick on. What do you think research teams look like? Sure, this was a fairly minor project (a masters thesis I believe), but it got peer reviewed so we know it's borne at least some scrutiny.

      "Of those, 79 respondents were earth scientists."
      OK, and what was the balance of opinion within that qualified cohort?

      Other surveys have been conducted, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

      I believe the evidence is strong that anthropogenic gas emissions have affected climate, but I agree with you that electric cars are not a panacea, and are routinely oversold as an environmental solution, simply because personal transportation is not responsible for a large enough slice of greenhouse emissions for that to be the case.
      However, electric cars are geologically inevitable (oil production is orders of magnitude slower than consumption), so we might as well get the hang of making good ones. (And they come with the side benefit of furnishing every car-owning household with a large battery which can be helpful to manage peak demand on the grid).

      Delete
    17. Scientists Silverfiddle are scientists. They are driven by curiosity, the burning desire for knowledge...

      BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

      Delete
    18. @ jez:

      "That's an invalid inference: the fact that it happened before humans does not preclude the possibility of humans causing it this time."

      True, but you can't prove that humans are causing it either.

      "The answer to your question is, the temperature doesn't matter so long as it changes slowly enough for us to adapt to it without going through major suffering or mass extinctions etc."

      That's not an answer at all and seems to smack of hysteria. Without a goal there is no plan.

      Delete
    19. Disagree about hysteria. Ultimately any climate target is based on the kind of biosphere we want it to support, there's no intrinsic value to one temperature over any other (within reason).
      Iow, your grace is asking the wrong question. Your humble and obedient servant etc.

      Delete
    20. But what range is (within reason)?
      The assumption is that the average temperature is rising in an unprecedented fashion and ignoring that said average is only a very narrow slice in geologic terms, with out a definite or approximate starting point or range.
      --We do not expect pretentious use of titles outside of the presence of the royal court. Inside the royal chambers you may address us by our given name, Warrren. ;^)--

      Delete
    21. I had in mind the range of temperatures which support liquid water :)

      (his majesty's affibility and condescention are greatly appreciated)

      Delete
  6. Much Ado About Nothing!

    HOGWASH!

    HORSE PUCKEY!

    BOLLOCKS!

    BALONEY!

    BULLSCHIFF

    ESS-AITCH-EYE-TEA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it? Franco is a Huge climate change denioer.

      Delete
    2. @ RN:
      "Climate denier", is only an epithet that the intellectually challenged use to defame their intellectual superiors. In your case, that could be almost anyone.
      PS I assume you meant "denier", I don't know what the hell a "denioer" is.

      Delete
    3. I have a bit of a problem knowing what to call them. I don't like "denier" because I think the holocaust connotation is a touch overwraught; but "skiptic" doesn't work either, because their skepticism is so selective. What's your preferred label?

      Delete
    4. @ jez:
      My preferred label, if I must be labeled, is "Your Highness". But there is no need to genuflect when addressing me in written correspondence or kiss my ring as I don't wear one.

      Delete
    5. Ever experience "fat finger" Warren?

      Intellectually challenged? That's rich by any measure.

      Delete
    6. BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!

      BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!

      BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      BLA bla bla BLA, bla BLA bla BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!
      Bla bla bla bla BLA, bla bla BLA BLA BLA!



      Delete
    7. @ RN:
      The urban dictionary defines "fat finger syndrome" as
      "Symptoms include having fingers so fat you're unable to type correctly, and never ever getting laid. 2. Caused by tiredness and laziness."
      Seems they know you!

      Your comments are stupid, snarky and never seem to address whatever you're blabbering about. That leads me to believe you are mentally defective, on drugs or suffer from some form of aphasia that leaves you incapable of communicating with normal people.

      The other administrators and I have grown weary of your bullshit. You are on notice.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. Let's all send her a letter after the dems have gotten everything they want form her, letting her know the democrats and liberals around the world used her as a tool and she won't be hearing from them anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cindy Sheehan?

      You mean The BITCH in the DITCH, Silver?

      I've been trying to FORGET her for many years, but lii a "bad penny" she keeps turnng up –– and her partcular form of Mind Cancer very sadly has METASTASIZED and is now spead throughout the nation

      PITIFUL!

      Delete
  8. Anyone that believes in man-made climate change is a moron with a serious mental deficiency problem. Don't bother trying to fix it, probably beyond hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the wholeClimate Brouhaha is obviusly a COMMUNIST PLOT designed to acieve World Domination, Kid.

      YOU know that, and I know it.

      Leftists know it too, but wull never admit it,because it furthers THEIR grasping, always wold-be-tyrannical ends.

      Delete
    2. "YOU know that, and I know it."

      The trouble is, you know so many things that aren't so.

      Delete
    3. Jez,
      Ahem. The same could be said about you.

      Delete
  9. The phrase... speaking one's own truth comes to mind... reality is an allusive thing for the young. It starts with fairy tales and hopefully at about 25 the brain has completed its journey of development.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did this hysterical female say, "We need to eat the babies"? Listen at time marker 1:00-1:04.

    Good Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the BBC:

      "Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is questioned by an audience member who says that 'eating babies' could be the solution to climate change.
      The far-right group LaRouche PAC claimed responsibility for the stunt."

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Yeah,I realized that it was a parody once I had seen the full tape.

      Still, some of what she spouted is indeed the logical end if one adores the Extreme Environmentalism, which is what AOC spouts much of the time.

      Delete
    3. That was some solid gold trolling.

      Getting the braying ninny AOC to nod in agreement: Priceless!

      Delete
    4. SF,
      My woman's intuition tells me that AOC hates children.

      Just sayin'.

      Delete
  11. The Birdbrain Poultry frequently plays word games. The critics of Thunberg never mentioned coercion. People who are brainwashed dont need coercion. This was a staged performance with far less skill than Siegfried and Roy.

    The failed Marxist academic who trains mediocre aspiring videographers knows all about staged performances. Thunberg is made up to look younger. The speeches are prepared and rehearsed as a team effort. The kid is brainwashed and treated like a human muppet by her parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Beak.

      I do one, however, why none of the "rlbirds" has suggest that YOU know things that aren't true? ;-)

      The Leftist bastards just love to mock "us" by throwing our best lines back in our faces while pretending the sentiments apply to US.

      Irksome pricks the lot of them!

      Delete
  12. When my 45-year old stepdaughter was in high school she exhibited the same emotional-reactive symptoms to the cause celebre of her day - nuclear power. Mention the word and she reacted reflexively as her cohort had been trained, just as some of the children speakers recently have. Yes, it's child abuse.

    That gal said one true statement: "I should be in Sweden now." Yes, she should have, had irresponsible adults not fed and financed her hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In the Bubba Era, bombs were dropped on Bosnia area;
    Molosivich-Followers used a young girl to explain how
    all their houses and farmland were destroyed by the un-
    caring USA. She never stumbled her speech or words - with
    a perfect monologue. Speaking perfect English,
    with a little dialect to prove she was a local girl.
    And then there was Ballzy Ford speaking to the Dems in Congress; an old woman speaking with a voice and word phrasing of a teenager standing by Bret's spiked
    Punch Bowl.
    In the end there will be volcanoes and earth quakes
    and flooding [Climate Change]. Propaganda used that the
    Elect could be TRICKED.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

!--BLOCKING--