Perhaps Greta Thunberg’s amazing global reach is understandable when we consider that Greta’s rapid emergence upon the World stage didn’t just ‘happen,’ but rather appears to have been carefully coordinated by grown ups.
Her initial protest fortuitously coincided with the publication of her mother’s book. Greta’s mum, the opera singer Malena Ernman, worked with PR man Ingmar Rentzhog, who promoted her publication.
Rentzhog, coincidentally, launched his climate change social media campaign group “We Don’t Have the Time” the same day that Greta first started her protest. Making a tidy sum along the way.
Greta’s father, Swedish actor Svante Thunberg, said that the family knew nothing about Rentzhog’s use of Greta’s campaign to bring attention to his new lobby group.
Surprising that Rentzhog never mentioned it to him when he was promoting his wife’s book. However, Rentzhog skill in public relations, and status as one of multi-millionaire venture capitalist Al Gore’s ‘climate network leaders,’ possibly helped to get Greta’s message out.
Just like all the other hundreds of thousands of children involved, I have absolutely no doubt that Greta is genuine in her concerns about the planet being destroyed by human beings’ CO2 emissions. How could she believe otherwise?
She is among the millions of schoolchildren who have been brought up to believe this scientifically illiterate gibberish.
The problem is, at the time, Greta was a child who was predominantly reliant upon what she was told by her parents, the media and her teachers.
Greta seems like a very intelligent young lady, so I am sure she is more than capable of critical thought.
However, unless she has access to information, she has no hope of ever exercising any. That basic human right appears to have been stolen from her.
Greta, and millions of children around the world, have been more or less compelled to accept that the ‘science is settled.’ There is no debate and all the world’s leading climate scientists agree that CO2 emissions are the main contributor to global warming.
They have no chance of ever knowing this is complete tosh, because no one will ever tell them about the thousands of scientific papers which disagree.
This is because children are not being educated, they are being indoctrinated. They are not encouraged to explore all available evidence, ask searching questions or form their own opinions.
They are simply being inculcated into the new religion. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW.) CO2, which is plant food, must be abolished.
Who Coordinated the Strike?
The mainstream media promoted the children’s day of action as if it were some sort of spontaneous upwell of youthful activism, inspired by Greta’s lone struggle.
This suggestion was complete nonsense. You don’t launch a coordinated global event in a matter of weeks simply by posting a few memes on Twitter.
The Youth Strike for Climate was backed by a network of environmentalist and radical political lobby groups. Fridays For Future which is pushing for implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, widely promoted the strike.
They claim to be a ‘grass roots’ movement inspired by Greta. This doesn’t appear to be true. Further investigation reveals a network of powerful interest groups behind the organisation.
Addressing the issue of children absenteeism from school, the Friday’s For Future website states.
“Why are kids striking?
School children are required to attend school. But with the worsening Climate Destruction this goal of going to school begins to be pointless.
– Why study for a future, which may not be there?
– Why spend a lot of effort to become educated, when our governments are not listening to the educated?”
The message being rammed into the children’s minds by schools, media and even parents is clear. Unless the world does ‘something’ about climate change, they are going to die. There’s no point going to school because it won’t be there.
On its Facebook page ‘Fridays For Future’ states:
“The world is finally waking up. Millions of young people are realising it’s now or never and are looking to take direct action on the climate crisis.”
So come on all you terrified 5 year olds, It’s time you took up arms against your oppressors. You need to save the planet by pushing pensioners into fuel poverty.
In turn, ‘Fridays for Future’ is partnered by the UK Student Climate Network (UKSCN) who are linked to a number of organisations including Green & Black Cross and Greenpeace.
Green and Black Cross have provided the children with some excellent advice.
For example they advise them how to respond to the police, what to do if they get arrested and discuss the legitimacy of stop and search powers. Essential knowledge when you’re swatting for exams.
Similarly Greenpeace, renowned for their ‘direct action’ approach, supported the children’s militancy.
The original founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has been keen to point out that the modern agenda of the environmentalist lobby is based upon sensationalism, misinformation, anti-humanism and fear, which is why he left the organisation he helped to create.
Of course Greenpeace don’t accept this, though they are keen to send panic stricken children on forced marches to protest against climate ‘inaction.’
What Were The Children Marching For?
The Greta Thunberg complex, via their various media outlets and extensive list of international pressure group partners, are lobbying for the world’s governments to fully implement the Paris Agreement.
This is essentially what hundreds of thousands of children marched to promote.
The Paris Agreement emerged triumphant from the United Nations’ Conference of Parties (COP21) summit in 2015.
Based upon the ‘science’ pumped out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) the unelected UN and EU bureaucrats stood shoulder to shoulder with the virtue signalling political class to announce how much more money tax payers must give them.
Because, regardless of the questionable scientific justifications, the Paris Agreement is all about hoovering up peoples’ earnings.
Continuing the long standing neoliberal tradition of transferring wealth from the people to privately owned corporations.
Or, as the COP21 committee put it: “making finance flows consistent with a low GHG (Green House Gas) emissions and climate-resilient pathway”
Based upon the questionable notion that human beings can control the temperature of the Earth (perhaps there’s a solar dimmer switch,) the Paris Agreement commits nation states to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s).
Through these, countries submit their plans on how they are going to reduce GHG emissions and move towards a low carbon economy.
Which, unsurprisingly, requires both a tremendous amount of investment and increasing energy costs. Thereby hiking up the energy providers profit margins.
This is entirely understandable because the climate change agenda has always been driven by two globalist principles. Firstly to steal as much money as possible from tax payers and secondly to hand central control of all Earth’s natural resources to privately owned corporations and their major shareholders.
Impressionable minds like Greta’s can then be convinced by the horrific propaganda of the IPCC to clamour for the imposition of climate taxes.
Macron’s tax is an example of the way in which climate ‘mitigation initiatives’ will be financed. This is the €36bn annual expenditure that Jean Claude Juncker is so enthusiastic about.
Has anyone ever told Greta that the Oil Tycoon and Rockefeller protégé Maurice Strong convened the first Rio Earth summit in 1992? Or that the oil / energy industry, through Strong and his corporate connections, were key in the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP?) Does Greta know the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC,) from which the Paris Agreement emerged, was formulated by globalist, venture capitalists? Probably not.
Along with the World Health Organisation (WHO,) UNEP, under Strong’s leadership, also created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) Greta’s, along with the other child protesters, faith in the IPCC, as a scientific body which supposedly researches the causes of climate change, is woefully misguided.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. However, this isn’t the children’s fault. They are being deliberately misled.
As pointed out by climatologist Dr Timothy Ball (PhD,) when the Rockefeller backed oil tycoon Maurice Strong wrote the IPCC terms of reference, he stipulated that this supposedly objective scientific organisation could only consider AGW.
No consideration of natural drivers, such as solar activity or electromagnetic variance, can possibly be investigated by the ‘worlds leading experts on climate change.’ Strong’s terms of reference stated:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”
Strong further ensured IPCC research was strictly limited to “human induced climate change” through the way he established the system of IPCC ‘working groups.’
Each group is required to write an assessment report (AR.) Working Group 1 (WG1) scientific findings are tightly controlled by Strong’s terms of reference then Working Group 2 (WG2) takes ‘the science’ from WG1’s assessment and tries to predict the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to AGW.
However, because the science is extremely limited, their ‘computer model’ based predictions are based on little more than assumption.
Working group 3 (WG3) then adsorbs the drivel created by WG2 and uses it to imagine nonsensical ways of mitigating the impacts of AGW. They state:
“Climate change mitigation is achieved by limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and by enhancing activities that remove these gases from the atmosphere.”
A definition of immeasurably expensive ‘mitigation’ which completely ignores all the evidence to the contrary.
Objective science cannot be limited by an agenda. If it is then it is neither scientific nor objective. Each working group’s Assessment Reports are solely focused upon AGW. If the objective is to understand the process of climate change, this makes no sense whatsoever.
There is a wealth of evidence that the Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system which is determined by innumerable factors. Making predictions based upon a predetermined assumption of ‘cause’ is ridiculous. Something which the IPCC admit.
For example, recent research by a team led by Professor of Mathematics Valentina Zharkova (PhD in Astrophysics) was able to accurately predict solar cycles and demonstrate the potential impact of an approaching Grand Solar Minimum on climate.
However, because the IPCC consider AGW to be the only possible cause of climate change, they have nothing at all to say about the impact of the Sun on the Earth’s climate. Which renders their opinion on climate utterly meaningless.
Claims that the IPCC represent the world’s leading experts on climate change are risible. All they represent are the world’s leading proponents of anthropogenic global warming. An unproven hypothesis which doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.
Greta has no doubt been alarmed by the world’s media who, after being issued with the IPCC’s various ‘Summary For Policy Makers,’ unhesitatingly report the IPCC’s catastrophic predictions. They then leap upon any ‘science’ they can find which supports the summary. Usually with farcical results.
For example a recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature, by researchers from Princeton University, claimed alarming ocean warming, further heating the climate and causing sea level rises. This was widely reported as further evidence of the impending doomsday. I’m sure Greta was scared witless.
However, unlike the MSM, who’s ‘science correspondents’ never seem to check anything related to climate alarmism, when interested scientist Nic Lewis decided to actually review the Princeton paper he discovered they had got the basic mathematics wrong. The average temperature rise appeared to be less than previous increases, not more.
Suggesting a reduction of the energy uptake in the system. While MSM outlets prominently splashed the dire prophecies everywhere, the few who bothered to issue retractions relegated them to the obscurity of the minor pages. Thereby ensuring Greta, and thousands of other schoolchildren, remained both misinformed and fearful.
If the process of arriving at the various assessment reports, and the alarmism which follows, lacks scientific credibility, the Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) is completely devoid of any basis in science. It is decided by a committee of politicians called a ‘plenary panel.’
Supposedly based upon evidence, which is itself irrationally constrained, the political representatives of the world’s governments decide on the wording of the report.
In other words, the IPCC is a political lobby group designed to promote one concept, AGW, to the exclusion of all others. An approach which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Greta, and the hundreds of thousands of protesting children inspired by her PR team, had absolutely no idea at all that they were marching to promote an economic agenda, designed by multinational corporations.
This agenda is based upon spurious scientific evidence, is advocated by compliant political puppets and aims to increase taxation and consolidate control of resources.
Very far indeed from ‘saving the planet.’
You can read the entire article at this link, where it first appeared: In-this-together.com