Conservative group hires German teen Naomi Seibt to rival Greta Thunberg’s climate views

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Yaron Steinbuch - The New York Post


https://i.imgur.com/nb2xyCv.jpg

A 19-year-old German YouTuber is being dubbed the “anti-Greta.”

A US think tank with ties to the Trump administration has tapped Naomi Seibt, 19, who touts “climate realism” over “climate alarmism,” to represent its views, according to the Washington Post.

“Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: whom should we trust?” the Illinois-based conservative and libertarian Heartland Institute asked in a video, referring to the 17-year-old Swedish climate activist.

James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the institute, called Seibt a “fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” the newspaper reported.

During the UN climate conference in Madrid in December, Heartland headlined Seibt at its forum, where Taylor described her as its “star.”

And in January, the institute hired her to represent its climate skepticism campaign about global warming, according to the news outlet.

Thunberg, who was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” last year, has excoriated world leaders for their failure to stop carbon emissions.

“I want you to panic,” she said at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last year. “I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.”

But Seibt says in a video posted on Heartland’s website: “I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think.”

She has also invoked Thunberg’s famous line, saying, “To the media, I have a few last words: How dare you?” — but has disavowed the “anti-Greta” moniker.

“The reason I don’t like the term ‘anti-Greta’ is that it suggests I myself am an indoctrinated puppet, I guess, for the other side,” she says in a video titled “Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: Whom Should We Trust?”

“It is important that we keep questioning the narrative that’s out there instead of promoting it,” Seibt said. “These days, climate change science really isn’t a science at all.”

She told Insider she’s “not this evil opposite of Greta — she might be a really nice girl and I would love to talk to her someday.”

Seibt, who is a former “climate alarmist” herself, said that watching people joining Thunberg-inspired “Fridays For Future” helped spark her opposition to climate change activism.

“I get chills when I see those young people, especially at Fridays for Future. They are screaming and shouting and they’re generally terrified,” she told the Washington Post. “They don’t want the world to end.”

https://i.imgur.com/vFdbnb2.jpg

Seibt, who will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, this week, said she does not dispute that the Earth is being warmed by greenhouse gas emissions — but that their impact has been overstated by many scientists and activists.

“I don’t want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all,” she told the paper. “Are man-made CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate? I think that’s ridiculous to believe.”

Through her reps, Thunberg declined to comment to the Washington Post.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIzY12D2Z0

[RBP]

And I LOVE how this girl is intensely vilified as a disgusting example of how the right wing deniers are willing to abuse a child to make their point. Will they stop at nothing?

Wait, what?

https://i.imgur.com/5LctznN.jpg?1

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Haha we got the hawt one

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And I LOVE how this girl is intensely vilified as a disgusting example of how the right wing deniers are willing to abuse a child to make their point. Will they stop at nothing?

Wait, what?

https://i.imgur.com/5LctznN.jpg?1

:-k

[RBP]

:-k

Did I stutter?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Did I stutter?

Maybe? :-s

I read it over and over and I'm lost :lol:

[RBP]

Maybe? :-s

I read it over and over and I'm lost :lol:

Because they have the opposite opinion of Greta, the great "organic star" who isn't being used or abused by anyone, she's just correct and brilliant. :roll:

The headlines were typical...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Because they have the opposite opinion of Greta, the great "organic star" who isn't being used or abused by anyone, she's just correct and brilliant. :roll:

The headlines were typical...

Ah, gotcha :tup:


This girl is 19, she's fair game :hand: Burn the climate change heretic! :villagers:

[Muddy]

Now we have 2 kids that don't know jack shit other than what they were programmed by their handlers.

[lost in melb.]

1 or 2? :razz:




https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/naomi-seibt-index.jpg?quality=80&strip=all

[RBP]

Definitely 1.

[lost in melb.]

Definitely 1.

Can we try that again, except this time I make a million-dollar bet that you'll select 1?

[RBP]

Can we try that again, except this time I make a million-dollar bet that you'll select 1?

Are you betting with me or with a bookie?

If bookie: Enjoy your cash.
If with me: I'll bang the annoying snaggle-toothed autistic child abuse victim for a cool million.

:tup:

[Muddy]

:lol: nice descriptors.. ^^

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Are you betting with me or with a bookie?

If bookie: Enjoy your cash.
If with me: I'll bang the annoying snaggle-toothed autistic child abuse victim for a cool million.

:tup:

:rofl:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Because they have the opposite opinion of Greta, the great "organic star" who isn't being used or abused by anyone, she's just correct and brilliant. :roll:

The headlines were typical...

Like these....?

The Guardian: Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

France 24: German teen Naomi Seibt, the darling of climate change deniers

WashPo: Promoting the ‘anti-Greta’ only serves to unsettle settled science

[RBP]

Like these....?

The Guardian: Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

France 24: German teen Naomi Seibt, the darling of climate change deniers

WashPo: Promoting the ‘anti-Greta’ only serves to unsettle settled science

Exactly. There was a massive headline slam exactly like those. It's disturbing.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Exactly. There was a massive headline slam exactly like those. It's disturbing.

The Daily Kos: New ‘Anti-Greta’ Naomi Seibt Already Denying Her Role As Funding Pawn By Heartland Institute

The Daily Mail: German teenage climate change denier, 19, known as the 'anti-Greta' will speak at Republican CPAC convention this week to promote 'climate realism' (notice they call her a 'denier' and that they put climate realism in quotes)

[RBP]

It's endless. There is no room for heresy. Same comment I made about racism.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It's endless. There is no room for heresy. Same comment I made about racism.

Yup, flip those around and make them about Greta and you are vilified.

[lost in melb.]

Are you betting with me or with a bookie?

If bookie: Enjoy your cash.
If with me: I'll bang the annoying snaggle-toothed autistic child abuse victim for a cool million.

:tup:

https://i.imgur.com/5LctznN.jpg?1

[lost in melb.]

Like these....?

The Guardian: Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

France 24: German teen Naomi Seibt, the darling of climate change deniers

WashPo: Promoting the ‘anti-Greta’ only serves to unsettle settled science

Well I'd say those titles explain what the article will be about pretty well. You know she's on the payroll of Heartland, right?

[RBP]

Well I'd say those titles explain what the article will be about pretty well. You know she's on the payroll of Heartland, right?

Okay, and? Whose payroll is Greta on? This notion that one is an organic "movement" and the other is a cynical ploy by wealthy henchmen is completely laughable.

[RBP]

And it didn't take like a day(?) to declare her a Nazi sympathizer. I can't make this shit up. :lol:

[lost in melb.]

Okay, and? Whose payroll is Greta on? This notion that one is an organic "movement" and the other is a cynical ploy by wealthy henchmen is completely laughable.

Ostensibly Greta gives her profits to charity... I honestly don't think she was in for the money. But obviously she has had her rounds supported, electric cars, people letting her start for free etc

[lost in melb.]

And it didn't take like a day(?) to declare her a Nazi sympathizer. I can't make this shit up. :lol:

I haven't read much about the other chick. Now I'm curious

[RBP]

Ostensibly Greta gives her profits to charity... I honestly don't think she was in for the money. But obviously she has had her rounds supported, electric cars, people letting her start for free etc

Somebody is spending millions. And you have no way of knowing if the charity story is anywhere close to true, because you don't know what deal her parents cut for her. It's all bullshit.

She took a boat from Europe with an entire team of people who then flew back if I remember correctly. I mean, c'mon. This is a game.

[RBP]

I haven't read much about the other chick. Now I'm curious

But again, the coverage is so wildly partisan, you have no idea what's truth and fiction.

[RBP]

Find the mysterious rape sticker story too! Oh no, not in Canada! The horror!

[lost in melb.]

But again, the coverage is so wildly partisan, you have no idea what's truth and fiction.

I could watch her YouTubes, that could give me a more genuine idea of what she's like.

[RBP]

I could watch her YouTubes, that could give me a more genuine idea of what she's like.

Until someone tells me that cow farts aren't the problem, that scientists aren't funded based on whether they give the funders the answers they want, and a tragic prediction actually happened, I'm tuned out and laughing at the sucker's game for the hysteria money.

I'm going to try and transcribe a book excerpt for you... explain pretty well how I feel about it.

[RBP]

I'm going to try and transcribe a book excerpt for you... explain pretty well how I feel about it.

https://i.imgur.com/3ViHkfx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kC4iBRT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TzE4wLD.jpg

[lost in melb.]

Until someone tells me that cow farts aren't the problem, that scientists aren't funded based on whether they give the funders the answers they want, and a tragic prediction actually happened, I'm tuned out and laughing at the sucker's game for the hysteria money.

I'm going to try and transcribe a book excerpt for you... explain pretty well how I feel about it.

Or until climate change affects you or your family personally. That's how it tends to go with conservatives ;)

[DemonGeminiX]

Until someone tells me that cow farts aren't the problem, that scientists aren't funded based on whether they give the funders the answers they want, and a tragic prediction actually happened, I'm tuned out and laughing at the sucker's game for the hysteria money.


Or until climate change affects you or your family personally. That's how it tends to go with conservatives ;)

This reminds me of the Faithful's "God exists" argument to the Atheist who argues that God doesn't exist.

"Would you really want to find out that you were wrong all along after you die and you have to spend all eternity in Hell?"

Trying to strong arm someone to your side with an implied threat that can also be neither proven nor disproven. It's a callous and tacky tactic, and quite frankly, beneath someone of your intelligence.

[RBP]

Or until climate change affects you or your family personally. That's how it tends to go with conservatives ;)

Which is exactly the response expected when the specific points mentioned can't be contradicted. Your position is no more defensible than mine or anyone else's. The woke/enlightened thing doesn't play with me.

[lost in melb.]

Which is exactly the response expected when the specific points mentioned can't be contradicted. Your position is no more defensible than mine or anyone else's. The woke/enlightened thing doesn't play with me.

I can contradict them, or put more gently come up with some counter arguments. I was just being lazy. I think it's not a completely foul move on my behalf, though. Conservatism is fundamentally about the close inner circle, self-sufficiency, moral strength, self discipline (combined with a great love of nation and a generous spirit and ((selective)charitability). This lends itself to a natural caution about pacifism, helping those who "can't" help themselves, universal cooperation, internationalism, universalism, the left interpretations of "right to equality",...or too much self introspection or reflection. (Doers, not comtemplators)

So it's absolutely understandable that there is a suspicion of climate change or global warming motives or whatever you want to call it which is an absolute planet wide thing that requires planet wide cooperation.


my suggestion was going to be, and I keep saying it but you never acknowledge it ...don't worry about predictions or specialist scientists greenies and politicians, just go for the common larger organisations like meteorological organisations, or NASA. See what the data that they have supports. Does it support a warming planet, more weather extremes, or not?

but you won't do that, apparently on the basis of the whole thing being some big conspiracy. (but do you know anyone at NASA or the meteorological society. Have you visited them and ask for a rundown on the issue?) So, the only way I see that you're going to come around is when it affects you. I can't think of any other process.. .But forgive me if I am wrong, what would what would persuade you RBP to accept that the phenomenon of climate change is real and is unfolding more or less as predicted? I'm genuinely curious?

[lost in melb.]

This reminds me of the Faithful's "God exists" argument to the Atheist who argues that God doesn't exist.

"Would you really want to find out that you were wrong all along after you die and you have to spend all eternity in Hell?"

Trying to strong arm someone to your side with an implied threat that can also be neither proven nor disproven. It's a callous and tacky tactic, and quite frankly, beneath someone of your intelligence.

That's fine, except I'm not callous. We've been through a bit here, and I think my belief is a bit more based on fact than talking about god. Actually I feel it to be equally callous when people laugh and laugh about this notion of the Earth warming, or the climate changing, when year by year we are more more affected by it. Absolutely measurably.

Agree nothing is proven yet. but I feel I have it the right to strong arm a little when the trend for last 15 years is towards something bad going to happen in the future. And quite frankly bad things happening now. So yeah the gloves are off a bit.

[DemonGeminiX]

That's fine, except I'm not callous. We've been through a bit here, and I think my belief is a bit more based on fact than talking about god. Actually I feel it to be equally callous when people laugh and laugh about this notion of the Earth warming, or the climate changing, when year by year we are more more affected by it. Absolutely measurably.

Agree nothing is proven yet. but I feel I have it the right to strong arm a little when the trend for last 15 years is towards something bad going to happen in the future. And quite frankly bad things happening now. So yeah the gloves are off a bit.

I didn't say you were callous, I said the tactic was. There's a difference.

I've said this before: it's unreasonable to believe that the climate will remain the same forever. Maybe we're in the tail end of a golden age, maybe we've hastened the change, and maybe at this point in time there's nothing that can be done about it.

I keep harking on this but you have more deserving targets elsewhere. If you can't convince the other countries to cease and desist then bitching at the people who are actually trying to meet you halfway isn't going to do much good, now is it? Go pick on some Chinese people for a change.

It doesn't matter anyway. We're all going to die from this doomsday virus that the idiot Chinese have unleashed on the world by playing God without the adequate infrastructure to contain it. Live it up now. Between the apparently changing climate and Covid-19, we're in for one helluva wild ride.

[RBP]

I can contradict them, or put more gently come up with some counter arguments. I was just being lazy. I think it's not a completely foul move on my behalf, though. Conservatism is fundamentally about the close inner circle, self-sufficiency, moral strength, self discipline (combined with a great love of nation and a generous spirit and ((selective)charitability). This lends itself to a natural caution about pacifism, helping those who "can't" help themselves, universal cooperation, internationalism, universalism, the left interpretations of "right to equality",...or too much self introspection or reflection. (Doers, not comtemplators)

So it's absolutely understandable that there is a suspicion of climate change or global warming motives or whatever you want to call it which is an absolute planet wide thing that requires planet wide cooperation.


my suggestion was going to be, and I keep saying it but you never acknowledge it ...don't worry about predictions or specialist scientists greenies and politicians, just go for the common larger organisations like meteorological organisations, or NASA. See what the data that they have supports. Does it support a warming planet, more weather extremes, or not?

but you won't do that, apparently on the basis of the whole thing being some big conspiracy. (but do you know anyone at NASA or the meteorological society. Have you visited them and ask for a rundown on the issue?) So, the only way I see that you're going to come around is when it affects you. I can't think of any other process.. .But forgive me if I am wrong, what would what would persuade you RBP to accept that the phenomenon of climate change is real and is unfolding more or less as predicted? I'm genuinely curious?

As long as you frame this as the enlightened fact holders versus the ignorant deniers and conspiracy theorists, there's nothing to discuss. I don't begrudge your position. You've come to your conclusion and I respect that. I happen to be more cynical of the motivations and the funding driving the things you accept as incontrovertible. I also don't have the same confirmation bias that says every natural disaster is automatically global warming. The California fire problem, for example, is significantly a land management problem and has been for a long time. They don't clear the underbrush because the same environmentalists who blame everything on global warming also oppose "destroying habitat" that used to be called being a good steward of the land.

But you assume I am operating from an intellectually dishonest place, devoid of consideration... "boy if he just had the facts". Is there a warming trend? Sure, okay. Does it mean anything? Maybe, maybe not. Is it predictive of hurricane season? Nope, they fuck that up every year. The part that makes me laugh is that when someone points that out, the get "OMG. So dumb. You don't know the difference between climate and weather! :x" (did you read that in a valley girl voice?) To which I reply, I'm not the one predicting disastrous hurricane seasons. :lol: Is it predictive of Florida disappearing? Al Gore got that one wrong 14 years ago. I'm not sure any large scale predictions have come to fruition to date, but I'm sure there's a spin chart to force fit it. And another spin chart that shows quite the opposite. So yes, if wanting to see actual outcomes before committing to wholesale changes in society and economics makes you react with "how selfish", that's on you, my friend. Doesn't bother me in the least.

[RBP]

And it's also very likely that my perspective is driven by what I grew up with versus today. Cities were terrible. Air pollution was bad. The rivers used to catch on fire for god's sake. :lol: The EPA in it's origin was needed and did a great job. Industrial emissions massively cut - nearly eliminated, eliminated ozone depleting chemicals (some question mark there) because "the hole" THE HOLE WAS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!! Yeah, no more hole now. Thank god, right? Vehicles are like 99% more efficient, thanks initially to catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, now just to better cars. So 40 years later we are basically making the same argument with no large scale pollution. So yes, my lived experience doesn't mesh with the gnashing of teeth by people driving clean vehicles on a clear day with no smog.

Smog
https://i.imgur.com/IheNCD9.jpg

River fire
https://i.imgur.com/ib5srM0.jpg

But then it started going overboard, over regulation, increasing requirements, business impacts because the environmentalists always demanded more more more. That's how it works for social movements. For every social movement.

Edit: Here's a pro EPA article from your side of the aisle. Note the inherent fear mongering - TRUMP IS TRYING TO KILL US. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2017/03/five-reasons-to-love-the-epa-before-it-disappears/518199/

[Muddy]

Greenhouse gasses are real.. core ice samples clearly show the effect we are having.. its incredible science.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And it's also very likely that my perspective is driven by what I grew up with versus today. Cities were terrible. Air pollution was bad. The rivers used to catch on fire for god's sake. :lol: The EPA in it's origin was needed and did a great job. Industrial emissions massively cut - nearly eliminated, eliminated ozone depleting chemicals (some question mark there) because "the hole" THE HOLE WAS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!! Yeah, no more hole now. Thank god, right? Vehicles are like 99% more efficient, thanks initially to catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, now just to better cars. So 40 years later we are basically making the same argument with no large scale pollution. So yes, my lived experience doesn't mesh with the gnashing of teeth by people driving clean vehicles on a clear day with no smog.

Smog
https://i.imgur.com/IheNCD9.jpg

River fire
https://i.imgur.com/ib5srM0.jpg

But then it started going overboard, over regulation, increasing requirements, business impacts because the environmentalists always demanded more more more. That's how it works for social movements. For every social movement.

Edit: Here's a pro EPA article from your side of the aisle. Note the inherent fear mongering - TRUMP IS TRYING TO KILL US. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2017/03/five-reasons-to-love-the-epa-before-it-disappears/518199/Because only the scientists that agree with "The Sky Is Falling" doctrine are telling the truth and ANYONE that questions it or disagrees with it is a literal lying Nazi science denier :hand:

[lost in melb.]

And it's also very likely that my perspective is driven by what I grew up with versus today. Cities were terrible. Air pollution was bad. The rivers used to catch on fire for god's sake. :lol: The EPA in it's origin was needed and did a great job. Industrial emissions massively cut - nearly eliminated, eliminated ozone depleting chemicals (some question mark there) because "the hole" THE HOLE WAS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!! Yeah, no more hole now. Thank god, right? Vehicles are like 99% more efficient, thanks initially to catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, now just to better cars. So 40 years later we are basically making the same argument with no large scale pollution. So yes, my lived experience doesn't mesh with the gnashing of teeth by people driving clean vehicles on a clear day with no smog.

Smog
https://i.imgur.com/IheNCD9.jpg

River fire
https://i.imgur.com/ib5srM0.jpg

But then it started going overboard, over regulation, increasing requirements, business impacts because the environmentalists always demanded more more more. That's how it works for social movements. For every social movement.

Edit: Here's a pro EPA article from your side of the aisle. Note the inherent fear mongering - TRUMP IS TRYING TO KILL US. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2017/03/five-reasons-to-love-the-epa-before-it-disappears/518199/

Damn, I'm so busy today. Working on a Sunday!

I greatly appreciate the effort you put into the posts and it does give a context in terms of how much better the world is in the west in terms of pollution. Technology is amazing!



I also don't have the same confirmation bias that says every natural disaster is automatically global warming. The California fire problem, for example, is significantly a land management problem and has been for a long time. They don't clear the underbrush because the same environmentalists who blame everything on global warming also oppose "destroying habitat" that used to be called being a good steward of the land.

That's fine. as is the thing about mass hysteria. That's interesting, and I think does apply to many things, in particular the stock market and all that sort of stuff. Recession and depression.... it's all about the collective human mind.

But I'm going to get to my point quickly.
.Industrial emissions massively cut - nearly eliminated, eliminated ozone depleting chemicals (some question mark there) because "the hole" THE HOLE WAS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!!

I think, at least I hope what you're saying is that this disaster was recognised and averted. the entire world put in a massive and costly effort to get rid of nasty fluorocarbons and whatnot.

I'm at pains to break this to you though..
the ozone hole is not nearly repaired. And won't be until past the end of the century. Australia's UV levels are highly elevated to this day. Extreme levels most days of summer. Severe burning in a half hour during the middle of the day. that's not an absolute disaster, you just put on sunscreen and be careful. But can you imagine if we just keep pumping out cfcs? that's equivalently what's happening with the CO2 now. C02 production is not only the maximum it has ever been now ...it is going to increase much further!. even with the most conservative assessment, the elevated levels are affecting the world even right now. And the effect and implications of this issue are going to be far far beyond what the ozone level even could be.

Let's compare notes in 10 years!

But I still maintain that you and other conservatives like you (not all conservatives are sceptics) will be saying the same stuff until it affects you everyday that you step out the door. it doesn't make your selfish. It's just that, exactly like the pollution issue that you pointed out in your home town, it's all just a bunch of dots and numbers on a computer screen until it affects you when you walk out the door, breathe and move. Peace.

[lost in melb.]

Because only the scientists that agree with "The Sky Is Falling" doctrine are telling the truth and ANYONE that questions it or disagrees with it is a literal lying Nazi science denier :hand:

I just don't understand why it needs to be so black-or-white. Scientists have a wide spectrum of projections for the future.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I just don't understand why it needs to be so black-or-white. Scientists have a wide spectrum of projections for the future.Who says it's black and white? Oh yes, that would be the Chicken Little squad that keeps saying the planet and all of humanity will be dead in 10 years if we don't immediately stop using fossil fuels. They're the ones that have made it a black and white issue.

Like I said above, you are a stupid Nazi science denier if you even dare question what they say (HOW DARE YOU!). Whereas most of, if not all of us here on the other side take that proclamation with a healthy dose of skepticism. No one is denying the fact that we as humans are probably contributing to the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gasses, but to declare undeniably that it's humans fault 100% as to the changing weather, that's just ludicrous. I mean look, they already went from there's an ice age coming in the 1970's to it's runaway "global warming" to now again changing to "climate change" because, like it's done throughout the planet's existence, the weather changes.

Like DGX said, go after the Chinese and the Indians, they are the ones that are polluting the planet. The United States has already lowered emissions output significantly. I am not going to believe these alarmists and let them cripple our economy based on conjecture and supposition.

Remember, it's the "climate change" side that has unilaterally declared that they are right. You guys are the ones that dismiss out of hand any kind of research that says even anything slightly deviating from the "we're all dead in 10 years" narrative.

I'm more than open to debate, but one side refuses to have that debate in good faith, because we're all "uneducated science deniers".

[RBP]

I just don't understand why it needs to be so black-or-white. Scientists have a wide spectrum of projections for the future.

Including projections that say it's not catastrophic.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/lJ9TG4ol.jpg

[Pony]

Including projections that say it's not catastrophic.

Those don't get as much funding.