- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,291
- Reaction score
- 62,730
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta. Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces “climate alarmism,” calls climate consciousness “a despicably anti-human ideology,” and has even deployed Greta’s now famous “How dare you?” line to take on the mainstream German media. “She’s a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.
In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as “the star” of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming. “Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: whom should we trust?” asked Heartland in a digital video. Later this week, Naomi is set to make her American debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, a high-profile annual gathering just outside Washington of right-leaning activists. . . . Brookie added: “The tactic is intended to create an equivalency in spokespeople and message. In this case, it is a false equivalency between a message based in climate science that went viral organically and a message based in climate skepticism trying to catch up using paid promotion.”
[Cont.]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...outuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/
Now, do you think the AGW deniers who dishonestly attacked Greta by trying to suggest she has no agency - that she didn't think of activism on her own but was manipulated into it by shadowy liberal forces - are going to say the same thing about Ms. Seib?
:thinking
Nope. They'll be saying some version of "you should listen to her because you listened to Greta. But because we always need to have our cake and eat it too, we will simultaneously REFUSE to explain why our prior refusal to listen to Greta should not also require us to ignore Seibt."
As for Seibt herself....
"Naomi said her political activism was sparked a few years ago when she began asking questions in school about Germany’s liberal immigration policies."
She didn't like immigrants, so she glommed onto the right. Then she got pulled into other right wing ideas. After all, if you find yourself saying "the left is wrong about this and that", you might lazily decide that the left must be wrong about everything. Or maybe just pretend it is for imaginary political points.
It just so happens this is similar to how American denierism showed its mug. Left-lean politicians were the first to start listening to climate scientists about AGW specifically, and start considering policies. Gore made himself a focal point AND had the temerity to run for POTUS, making it inevitable. The GOP had swallowed Gingrich's "Permanent Republican Majority" poison pill. They had already embraced the ideal of always obstructing the left for the sake of power. So naturally, when the left started listening to climate scientists, the right made a show of not listening.
Denierism is purely political.
In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as “the star” of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming. “Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: whom should we trust?” asked Heartland in a digital video. Later this week, Naomi is set to make her American debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, a high-profile annual gathering just outside Washington of right-leaning activists. . . . Brookie added: “The tactic is intended to create an equivalency in spokespeople and message. In this case, it is a false equivalency between a message based in climate science that went viral organically and a message based in climate skepticism trying to catch up using paid promotion.”
[Cont.]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...outuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/
Now, do you think the AGW deniers who dishonestly attacked Greta by trying to suggest she has no agency - that she didn't think of activism on her own but was manipulated into it by shadowy liberal forces - are going to say the same thing about Ms. Seib?
:thinking
Nope. They'll be saying some version of "you should listen to her because you listened to Greta. But because we always need to have our cake and eat it too, we will simultaneously REFUSE to explain why our prior refusal to listen to Greta should not also require us to ignore Seibt."
As for Seibt herself....
"Naomi said her political activism was sparked a few years ago when she began asking questions in school about Germany’s liberal immigration policies."
She didn't like immigrants, so she glommed onto the right. Then she got pulled into other right wing ideas. After all, if you find yourself saying "the left is wrong about this and that", you might lazily decide that the left must be wrong about everything. Or maybe just pretend it is for imaginary political points.
It just so happens this is similar to how American denierism showed its mug. Left-lean politicians were the first to start listening to climate scientists about AGW specifically, and start considering policies. Gore made himself a focal point AND had the temerity to run for POTUS, making it inevitable. The GOP had swallowed Gingrich's "Permanent Republican Majority" poison pill. They had already embraced the ideal of always obstructing the left for the sake of power. So naturally, when the left started listening to climate scientists, the right made a show of not listening.
Denierism is purely political.
