Greta Thunberg sees her book as a tool for all those who are committed to saving the planet.

From Klimanachrichten Redakteur

by Michael Kalisch (Diplombiologist)

On 27.10.22 a new book was published – by Mrs. Greta (Arrhenius) Thunberg… with S. Fischer. (They have come a long way, down…) The standard allowed us a tasteful feces sample in advance (you should not be allergic to misprints): “Industrial revolution and plastic seas…” is a subheading. That’s the way it is.

What did the publisher expect from this?

If I eat the food(!) I realize: There is nothing new in it.

We know all the claims and figures of thought. It is a cross-section of the SFPs of the last 6 IPCC reports.

Everything we have heard from PIK can be found there. Am I mistaken that this institute provided a considerable part of the “more than a hundred scientists [who contributed to the book]”?

Nothing new, except maybe a profile shot of Greta from the left, which shows her succinct “cheeky nose”. New arguments? No. Only the usual text modules:

1.5° …, absolutely cemented residual budget, most of which has already been used up, … the CO₂ with a residence time of “many centuries” in the atmosphere …, and the wisdom from the Potsdam crystal ball “that we reach numerous tipping points during this time and trigger feedback effects.”

Sophisticated – the Ghost Author Collegium behind Greta does not commit itself to which form of feedback…: whether it is a positive or a negative! Because that’s what makes all the difference! But it just sounds worse that way.

If Greta were to say clearly that she actually criticizes the thin membrane of the self-declared “elite” who have fabulous wealth (and thus power), while others (the rest of the billions of people, of whom Mr. Harari already considers a larger part “superfluous”) are allowed to work so that an added value can be skimmed off afterwards, which, like the cream fat, almost by itself upwards. – then I would agree, at least with this part of the criticism. 

But then the following paradox would also have to be pointed out: the biggest drummers for RE, emission certificates, Green New Deal, “Great Transformation” or Great Reset –: it is precisely those members of the elite (starting with Al Gore, who has made himself through one of his companies CO₂certificates, up to Bill Gates, who earns practically everything – plague and cholera and the supposed cures against them, climate pollution and climate protection, meat and vegan artificial meat, fertilizing and poisoning, information and disinformation that are getting closer and closer).

And if one were completely honest, one would also have to make transparent who, for example, sponsored this book; And who the “more than 100…” who have souffled. I hope that this will also be shown in the book. 

The only question is why to buy it. After all, the printer’s ink is a product based on fossil carbon.

I find a few points in the text excerpt particularly questionable – they are worth seriously asking yourself whether it is seen correctly:

To claim that “not all people cause emissions and consume the earth’s resources, but only some people”, is in my opinion not true to the facts and it is a bit in one’s own (green cape) bag (jute instead of plastic) lie.

Because it is precisely through globalization that people around the world can now use at least certain “blessings”, even in poor countries, even in the farthest corners of this earth.

A smartphone in the hand of a rainforest Indian, a moped in the Siberian steppe… electric lighting, diesel-powered water pumps, plastic packaging, cooling (à shelf life, less losses).

Or clothing (synthetic fiber, not hand-woven), cheap shoes (China, plastic).

Or medicines, chemicals for everyday life.- I am by no means saying that all this is unproblematic, only: for most people such things are available and they make life easier, they can also facilitate heavy physical work, they give more security.

They enable mobility.

But for the most part they are so self-evident that you would have to ask the FFFs and Greta if they have already made this clear? 

With each of these billions of products sold, they also participate in the “emissions”. Also by the many valuable raw materials that were processed in Greta’s tablet, smartphone, PC, etc. and which are in the wind turbines. 

Their wings become hazardous waste, because they are not only made of balsa wood (which, by the way, is a precious resource).

Secondly, there is the insinuation that puts the oil companies in a very bad light and is supposed to put it in a very bad light: They had “known” “all this” since the 1980s, because Rio took place in 1992 and then the IPCC was founded, and they had “nevertheless” continued to produce and process oil – and thus “climate-destroying CO₂” is produced.

This is a deliberate rewriting of history. On the one hand, even the scientists invited to the IPCC did not “know” exactly and definitively whether – to what extent – climate change has been “anthropogenic” since when; they did not know and still do not know exactly what the absolutely central indicator “climate sensitivity” is, which is decisive for all further speculation; only the thesis(!) has been around for a long time, at least since Arrhenius. But there have also been critics and scientists for decades who question the greenhouse model and point to other factors.

And, of course, these are the points to which the producers and processors of crude oil could and can also refer: it is anything but “secure knowledge”; not even that is certain whether oil is really of “fossil” origin.

In doing so, Greta and the “Ghosts” who wield her hand falsify history (one of Stalin’s favorite methods – certain social transformations require drastic measures, sometimes you even have to change the past to justify the desired future).

This is done for moral purposes – more precisely: for the purpose of moral condemnation for a “crime“, which, however, exists only in the world of the plaintiffs and at the same time judges, the sale of fossil fuels and their products “despite” of the knowledge(?) about the harmfulness of the “waste” water vapor and CO₂. For this “crime” one tries already in the real world to sue corporations – e.g. a German car manufacturer is to blame if an earth wall breaks through in front of a glacial lake in the Andes – “because of climate change” (which he may have done 2-3 times on his own in the last 3000 years).

And this perfidious “legal” insinuation – “They knew exactly what would do what they were doing!” – is in turn closely connected with the green shoulder bag lie that they (the FFFs, the farmers in Bangladesh, etc.) are all innocent like the newborns, they never needed all this; indeed, they would have been forced to consume oil and all its derivatives just so that Exxon could “make a profit.”

Actually, this crosses the line of ridicule, it seems to me an infantile way of arguing – “I didn’t want this sweet cake, I was forced by the window display to buy it, and then I had to eat it!”

Have we all really been deceived by being promised to make life easier?

If we had not been tempted with deceptive advertising, we would have liked to stay in the pleasantly cool Little Ice Age, because it would have continued (allegedly) without “overheating”…. Really?- As a contrast to such historical illusions, I recommend the two-part film “Die andere Heimat” [Edgar Reitz” (The Other Home) [Edgar Reitz] for schools that seem to run out of curriculum on Fridays, which realistically depicts how people still lived in the Hunsrück in the middle of the 19th century, without coal, gas, oil, without paved village roads, without fertilizer.

This (self-righteous) claim of innocence is not tenable, because it would only have any substance at all if one could show that all these products and energies 1) were actually never really needed and 2.) that there have always been alternatives and these 3.) also work.

We have been seeing for years that they do not work, but it is also no longer good for seeing, many people seem unable to draw the right conclusions from observations – the FFF may simply look at diagrams of power curves of German wind energy and open up the term “nominal power” – in order to learn purely by looking at these diagrams, that in some years wind power reached only 16% of its nominal output. And it will never be much more, as one could also see from atlases that show the geographical distribution of average wind speeds.

But of course we invested for 100%. Well, but then surely there has been a technique for years to bridge such gaps, right? The existing electricity capacity of pumped storage plants in Dtschl. is sufficient for about 1/2 hour in the event of a dark doldrums.- An alternative?

For what? – Note: An Internet search with the terms “Luisa Neubauer Stromspeicher” resulted …: Zero hits, from which I gather that she has never addressed this problem of emergency storage, perhaps never been addressed. But I found at least a dozen entries about news from her recent love life.

Why not! May she live as one lives at her age – and leave energy policy to those who really understand it.

As far as the apparent lack of knowledge in everyday knowledge is concerned: a telling symbol of our highly mobile oil age is of course the “eight-lane highway cloverleaf” that Greta mentions in the book.

But what about the sailboat with which Svante Arrhenius’ great-granddaughter (?) crossed the Atlantic in a “climate-neutral” way (“pure wind power”): How many of the materials and materials are only available thanks to petroleum processing?

Or had she constructed it herself from papyrus and bamboo poles, of course without metal rivets and the like, without glues, without varnishes, only with palm fibers, which of course she had turned into ropes herself, and lubricated all joints only with tran from stranded whales, with which she also made light in the dark?

What did the canned food look like: cemented clay pots?

Stockfish?

What did she navigate with?

How did she cook?

There is not only a serious error of reasoning here, but also a sloping cliff that leads to the radicalism of this view – to an inevitable and no longer correctable “black and white”, as the book itself says* – making this “movement” itself extremely unfair in its condemnations.

It wants to accuse the oil magnates and companies, the elite of billionaires (without naming them) is spared, and it acts as if they themselves were all just victims of the “fossil madness”, as it is now called.

Or all people in the Third World are the victims. (Is this fairy tale perhaps the justification for efforts to dissuade Third World countries from interest in fossil fuels and instead make “renewable energies” palatable to them?).

The joke about these demonized energy sources is precisely this: If there were not billions of customers for 150 years, worldwide, who had used the countless petroleum products and fossil fuels – then Rockefeller would still be a newspaper deliverer today.

Shell would perhaps be the manufacturer of a product in pharmacies, called ‘Ligroin’, with which you can even operate small vehicles – just as the courageous Bertha Benz did in 1888, who had to stop at a pharmacy about three times to refuel.

The core message of the book is: “The science is settled.” For those who do not speak English, I like to translate it into simple words: 

The discussion is now over. That’s what we decide. Just shut up! No further requests to speak will be allowed. We simply say that immediate action must be taken now and that the “rich nations” bow to the fate of receiving their “punishment” in the form of disproportionately high “climate justice indulgences” [it was now about the “elites”, or rather about dismantling the large economies, which also export for the world market, which is regularly overlooked when the “immensely high per capita emissions of CO₂” is summed up?]. But do you also relate the consequences of these tough demands to yourself?

Where did the first FFF-My-Smartphone-is-offline-Tag take place again?

Where do the active efforts to rebuild tropical mangrove belts begin?

Where are the FFF courses “Soil Science, Plant and Microbiome” announced, where the foundations are laid for a youthful enthusiasm for agricultural or horticultural work?

Also: “The insect decline – What part does intensive mobile phone radiation have?”

This would also be interesting: which truly state-free NGO is currently funding the large-scale program “Youth learns history: cultural history and cyclical climate change” (a provisional working title)?

Which SMVs nationwide (finally) take care of the topic of waste prevention during the lunch break, since growing into the age of “FFF maturity” is by no means automatically associated with a surge of awareness for senselessly generated civilization waste and carelessly discarded food?

Unfortunately, I do not know the newspapers (also online) in which these events were noted.

But now almost every day a new absurd “glue drama”, which in its statement (!) stands in strangely irreconcilable contradiction to the moral claim with which they appear (or stick on): It is for me a multiple demonstration of contempt, once for the people you hinder (climate fight is more important than emergency doctor), then for your own physique (what does superglue do to the skin?), and as far as mashed potatoes on the Sistine Madonna and similar “action art” are concerned, it is again a double contempt: for these works of art (what, for heaven’s sake, do Raphael, Klimt, Van Gogh and others have to do with the alleged “fossil madness”?) and – also for the mashed potatoes.

Because supposedly it is about “protecting Mother Earth”. Or have we misunderstood?

Side question: Can one expect something else from people who – in order to demonstrate their will, behind which there is a certain conviction – are existentially stuck to one point on this earth, than that they are just as immovably cemented in their thinking and therefore incapable of discussion?

I fear so.

And I fear that this book has a specific purpose: to exacerbate the radicalization of the FFF, to “escalate” (which is also a war), to poison the atmosphere for discussion. Because that’s what the book does explicitly:*

*) Controversial views discuss: “… that’s how science works.

This argument can be made to countless topics of discussion, but no longer in relation to the climate crisis.

This train has departed.

The scientific evidence is as reliable as it can be.”

Again, this is a numinous sentence as in the “feedback” – one can only kneel down in awe (especially fear) and bow one’s head to renounce one’s own thinking: “The train has left! I have nothing left but pure faith!”

But what do these sentences really say? When I hang a bridge on a cobweb, this bracket is also “as reliable as it can be“! And what “scientific findings” does she mean? 

Are these all hemp ropes and even steel ropes, or just cobwebs?

This is a non-scientific approach to solving an unsolved scientific problem, the open problem of which should not be admitted by either party; That’s what I would say.

The motives come from outside – not from science, at most from certain scientists. The book could also be called: “The New Book of Revelation: Greta Speaks the Hopefully Last Word of Power”. Hopefully.

At least as far as Greta spiritism with the hand-carrying or table-backing Ghosts is concerned.

As for the issue itself, the end of open discussion would be the definitive beginning of climate totalitarianism.

How does this fit into S. Fischer’s publishing program?

Maybe a pusher?