St. Greta of Thunberg: Why Do People Listen To Her

St. Greta of Thunberg was in the news again yesterday.  Why anyone pays attention to this silly young woman is anybody's guess.  She is. like so many so called "activists" today, famous for being famous.  But shouldn't we expect that people who want to influence society have some actual training and experience in the things they speak about?  Would you take her advice on a health issue, for example?  No?  Is that because she is not a doctor and knows next to nothing about your health?  Then why would world "leaders" listen to her on climate issues?

It turns out that...surprise!...St. Greta was wrong about fossile fuels. According to Gabriella Hoffman at the Washington Examiner:

Climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted five years ago that catastrophic climate change will wipe out humanity unless the world forgoes fossil fuel usage and ceases consumption.

But to Thunberg’s dismay, her prediction didn’t exactly pan out. On the contrary, realizing this, she quietly deleted her tweet in March in anticipation of Wednesday’s anniversary. While gone, it forever lives in our hearts as a reminder not to fret over reactionary, alarmist predictions.

As Hoffman points out in her article, modern civilization depends on fossil fuels to survive. Quite frankly, the idea of so called "renewables" like wind and solar filling the place of fossil fuels is a pipe dream. It will never happen. Similarly with electric vehicles. Ain't gonna happen. If we were to end fossil fuels, the world would be plunged back into the 1800s. Basically everyone would have to grow his or her own food, because there would be no way to ship produce and fresh vegetables over long distances. Are you prepared to plow up several acres of land with a mule and hand plow to plant crops to see you through the winter? Oh, that's right, you don't own several acres. Are you prepared to raise and slaughter your own beef and pork, raise your own hens for eggs? My grandparents did this on roughly 100 acres. Do you own one hundred acres of rich farm land? Didn't think so.

Most of the "activists" haven't thought any of this through, haven't done or read any of the research, and are just mouthing the words they have been taught. The sad fact is that they are Vladamire Lennin's useful idiots, and will be disposed of when they are no longer useful. Hoffman continues making the point that if we want to continue of current standard of living, we must continue fossil fuels.

Let’s begin with oil, which is often blamed for our societal woes. Despite being assigned a dirty image by preservationist environmentalists, it’s the lifeblood of civilization and an essential resource here in America. Could you imagine our first-world society without oil? Life would be miserable, uncomfortable, and harder. Petroleum and its byproducts are ubiquitous in our daily lives. We fuel our cars, boats, and homes with it. Our clothes are derived from it, as are our cellphones and computers. It’s inescapable. Why get rid of it?

...snip...

Another unappreciated energy source is natural gas. It’s arguably a clean-burning fuel that produces lower emissions. During the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of liquefied natural gas (dubbed “molecules of freedom”), propelling our nation into energy independence while continuing to lead the world in overall emissions reductions.

Natural gas stoves, for example, are found in over 40 million homes and are preferred by 90% of chefs. Why? They boast faster conduction rates, make meals tastier, and are more economical to use compared to electric stoves. But these benefits, sadly, haven’t stopped many elected Democrats — along with the Department of Energy and the Consumer Product Safety Commission — from trying to phase them out through unrealistic “electrification” efforts.

Last but not least is coal, a common scapegoat of environmentalists despite it being an abundant domestic energy source.

Coal is undoubtedly reliable for heating and powering homes. Globally, it remains the top source of electricity generation and will remain one for years to come despite nations, including ours, closing down plants and curbing its mining. Additionally, there are myriad nonenergy uses, such as cement production, medicines, and carbon fibers. Metallurgic coal also happens to be a key component to steel, a popular building material.

The inconvenient truth is that coal is and will be essential for alternative power sources to flourish. Like oil and gas, it supplements clean energy sources when they fail to work as promised. And electric vehicles are primarily charged using coal-powered energy.

At the same time that the "activist" say that we must give up fossil fuels, they are absolutely against something that can supply all our electricity for the forseeable future without carbon emissions: nuclear. Once again, their knowledge of nuclear power hasn't advanced since around 1950. They are also under the impression that they can have it all with no risks. But life is all about risks, and everything is a trade off. I don't think what the people who are destroying precious art works and raising a ruckus here at home want is to live like a medieval peasants.