Swedish child climate activist reportedly a tool of Al Gore–linked corporate green hucksters

From my fb post:
"I TOLD you someone or something was using or controlling her, and some of you people made hateful comments and called me a Conspiracy Theorist, as if that was a bad thing! Read it and weep, and STFU and NEVER attempt to shame me again!"

"We didn't know because MSM controls what you see and tells you what to think! I only share information of interest to me, you can take it or leave it, believe it or not, I don't care, but don't try to shame me for knowing something you do not!"
-PB

Greta Thunberg aboard the Malizia II TWITTER/@GRETATHUNBE

Swedish child climate activist reportedly a tool of Al Gore–linked corporate green hucksters
By Monica Showalter  - August 19, 2019

Kids are great tools for big money and major powers lurking in the shadows, attempting to enact a political  agenda.  The latest instance, and it's a doozy, is young Greta Thunberg, the Swedish child climate activist who's coming to the states (with a big carbon footprint, according to today's piece by Thomas Lifson) to persuade us all to jump in on the global warming cavalcade of green laws to restrict our own freedoms — which, as it happens, will just coincidentally make the green elites even richer.


No wonder they're the shadowy forces bankrolling her peregrinations.  According to a report that ran in The Times (subscription only), titled "Greta Thunberg and the plot to forge a climate warrior," green corporate energy companies looking to turn a profit from green contracts were behind the young Greta's much ballyhooed rise from the beginning.  Far from being some persuasive and charismatic kid out to save the Earth, as the press is reporting, the Times found that:

[T]he Greta phenomenon has also involved green lobbyists, PR hustlers, eco-academics and a think tank founded by a wealthy former minister in Sweden's Social Democratic government with links to the country's energy companies. These companies are preparing for the biggest bonanza of government contracts in history: the greening of the western economies. Greta, whether she and her parents know it or not, is the face of their political strategy.

Someone's looking for a payday, and sure enough, that someone found exactly the useful fool he wanted for a get-rich-quick scheme to line his own pockets.  Young Greta, as the narrative in the press goes, was "discovered" by social media entrepreneur Ingmar Rentzhog of a social media site called "We Don't Have Time."  He got her name from another activist who had been auditioning for "fresh green faces."


Rentzhog, it turns, was trained by Al Gore's green energy groups and wanted to make money the way Gore did on green energy contracts.  And just coincidentally, Greta's mom wanted to sell a book about how green activism "saved her family."  Rentzog put it all together, and bango: Greta just spontaneously appeared out of nowhere to sell the world on global warming.



Here's what the Times reported on who Rentzhog really is:

Trained by former US vice-president Al Gore's environmental group, the Climate Reality Project, Rentzhog set up We Don't Have Time in late 2017 to "hold leaders and companies accountable for climate change" by leveraging "the power of social media".


He and his chief operating officer, David Olsson, have backgrounds in finance, not environmental activism: Rentzhog as the founder of Laika Consulting, an investment relations company, and Olsson with Svenska Bostadsfonden, one of Sweden's biggest property funds, whose board Rentzhog joined in June 2017. The platform's investors included Gustav Stenbeck, whose family control Kinnevik, one of Sweden's largest investment corporations.


In May last year, Rentzhog became the chairman and Olsson a board member of a think tank called Global Utmaning (Global Challenge). Its founder, Kristina Persson, is an heir to an industrial fortune.

The list of corporate luminaries and green hucksters that follows in the background to this Global Challenge angle is stunning.  These people are all looking to make a buck on the Al Gore model.  They saw how Gore became a green billionaire, and they want a piece of that action, too.


How very useful to have a little spearhead for this project in the persona of young Greta.


It's about par for what's going on these days with kids.  Corporate and foundation and even global superpower interests use them by selling them as "stars" to the low-information voters as spontaneous talent sensations.  It's been going on a while, but the pace seems to be now accelerating with social media, and it's becoming a template.


We saw an early instance of this phenomenon pioneered by the Soviet Union in 1982, when young Samantha Smith wrote a letter to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, a former KGB chief, and got invited to the USSR to serve as a Soviet propaganda tool at the nadir of the Cold War, at a time when President Reagan was applying the heat.


Children of illegal aliens are easy tools for the open-borders industrial complex out for state funding for "services."  I wrote about that here and here.  When you're here illegally and you'd do anything to not be sent back to your homeland, you become putty in the hands of activists.


The Parkland Kids, high-schoolers organizing against guns in the wake of a mass shooting, became easy tools for Soros front groups.  Money made.  Harvard admissions secured.


As The Times concludes:

For energy titans in Sweden, as elsewhere, saving the planet means government contracts to print the green stuff. Green energy lobbyists are using populist scare tactics and a children's crusade to bypass elected representatives. But the destination is technocracy, not democracy; profit, not redistribution. Greta, a child of woke capitalism, is being used to ease the transition to green corporatism.

Kids don't rise to massive fame on their own, with huge media coverage, without big corporate money or powerful special interests there first. The Greta phenomenon is as fake as all the other instances of child manipulation. One day this kind of exploitation for dollars will be denounced in the history books as a particularly disgusting kind of child abuse practiced in the late 20th, early 21st century by avaricious and backward robber barons. But right now, it's just moving toward peak-exploitation from money men in the background, another bubble that will eventually burst.



Image credit: Twitter screen shot.

Liked this article?

Donate to American Thinker to support more articles like this.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/swedish_child_climate_activist_reportedly_a_tool_of_big_green_corporate_energy_interests.html#ixzz61dB0i5s6


Source:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greta-thunberg-and-the-plot-to-forge-a-climate-warrior-9blhz9mjv?region=global



Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I do not deny climate change.  It's real.  However, before anyone gets angry at the title and dismisses this as "climate change denial" please read it to better understand that the causes include BOTH human impact and increased solar activity in recent decades.  Science always updates our knowledge based on new studies, as new facts coming to light. If we are to resolve the issue, we first must understand the cause, which is not just one thing, but several. We cannot deny new science!  ~PB

A iceberg floats in the sea near Qeqertarsuaq, Disko Island, Greenland, on July 21, 2011.
(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Viewpoints

How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

Nir Shaviv

11 Comments September 24, 2019 Updated: September 25, 2019

Share

   

Commentary


Political and corporate leaders gathered for the climate week in New York City have urged significant action to fight global warming. But, given the high costs of the suggested solutions, could it be that the suggested cure is worse than the disease?


As a liberal who grew up in a solar house, I have always been energy-conscious and inclined toward activist solutions to environmental issues. I was therefore extremely surprised when my research as an astrophysicist led me to the conclusion that climate change is more complicated than we are led to believe. The disease is much more benign, and a simple palliative solution lies in front of our eyes.


To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning. We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.


However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2—none. Mind you, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degrees C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.


In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.


Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.


In 2008, I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans, in sync with the 11-year solar cycle, is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected simply from changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so-called radiative forcing on the climate.

Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling).


In the decade following the publication of the above, not only was the paper uncontested, more data, this time from satellites, confirmed the large variations associated with solar activity. In light of this hard data, it should be evident by now that a large part of the warming isn’t human, and that future warming from any given emission scenario will be much smaller.


Alas, because the climate community developed a blind spot to any evidence that should raise a red flag, such as the aforementioned examples or the much smaller tropospheric warming over the past two decades than models predicted, the rest of the public sees a very distorted view of climate change—a shaky scientific picture that is full of inconsistencies became one of certain calamity.


With this public mindset, phenomena such as that of child activist Greta Thunberg are no surprise. Most bothersome, however, is that this mindset has compromised the ability to convey the science to the public.


One example from the past month is my interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.


Evidence for warming doesn’t tell us what caused the warming, and any time someone has to appeal to the so-called 97 percent consensus, he or she is doing so because his or her scientific arguments aren’t strong enough. Science isn’t a democracy.
 

Whether the Western world will overcome this ongoing hysteria in the near future, it’s clear that on a time scale of a decade or two, it would be a thing of the past. Not only will there be growing inconsistencies between model and data, a much-stronger force will change the rules of the game.


Once China realizes it can’t rely on coal anymore, it will start investing heavily in nuclear power to supply its remarkably increasing energy needs, at which point, the West won’t fall behind. We will then have cheap and clean energy-producing carbon-neutral fuel, and even cheap fertilizers that will make the recently troubling slash-and-burn agriculture redundant.


The West would then realize that global warming never was and never will be a serious problem. In the meantime, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would even increase agriculture yields, as it has been found to do in arid regions in particular. It is plant food after all.



Professor Nir Shaviv @nshaviv is the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us