Delingpole: From Hitler and Stalin to Greta Thunberg — Time Loves to Celebrate Totalitarian Icons

Adolf Hitler 1938
Joseph Stalin 1939
Joseph Stalin (again) 1942
Ayatollah Khomeini 1979
Greta Thunberg 2019

Yes, you’ve got to hand it to what’s left of Time magazine: it hasn’t lost its unerring ability to put its finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, invariably managing to name a Person of the Year who sums up perfectly the madness of the age.

In the 1930s, it was the twin evils of Nazism and Soviet Communism.

In the 1970s, it was militant Islam.

Today, it’s Environmentalism.

That screeching noise you can hear, by the way, is the sound of a gazillion greenies squawking about how unfair it is to pick on a 16-year old child whose only crime is to want to make the world a better place:

you are attacking a kid who tries to do good; that's principally questionnable

— Sacha Gortchakoff (@S_Gortchakoff) December 11, 2019

But this ‘she’s only a kid, leave her alone’ defence was precisely why the Climate Industrial Complex chose Greta the Climate Puppet as its pin-up.

Remember, Greta Thunberg is a teenage school drop out. It’s not for her scientific expertise that she has been selected as the current figurehead of the global environmental movement but for her youth.

Part of her function is to represent the ‘future generations’ that the green narrative tells us are most threatened by climate change. But her main role is to close down debate.

There are countless legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change movement. You’ll find a range of them in this talking points report prepared by Marc Morano for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

And we know — as one of the world’s leading physicists, Dr. William Happer, told Breitbart in Madrid, Spain, last week — there is no credible evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem.

Still less is there any evidence that the trillions of dollars being spent on combating this non-problem are anything other than a massive waste of money.

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician, has shown a typical example of this monumental waste: a plan by Sweden to cut its transport emissions by 2030. At a cost of $5 billion a year (one percent of Sweden’s GDP), it makes virtually no difference to ‘climate change’ but will cost almost twice as much as Sweden spends on its universities.

(And if we’re talking about ‘future generations’, aren’t universities kind of important?)

Bad climate policies proliferating:

Sweden to cut transport emissions by 70% in 2030

Will cost $5bn (1% GDP loss) per year by 2030 if done *most* effectively

Will cut 10.1MtCO₂e, so $500/tonne. Damage reduction is $31/t so

$1 will deliver 6¢ of climate benefits

Congrats

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) December 11, 2019

The cost of this ineffective climate policy is almost twice the entire cost of Sweden's universities (0.6% of GDP)https://t.co/Pv3yQrLX9F

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) December 11, 2019

This example — from Greta’s native country — is but one example among many of the kind of economic, social, and environmental damage being done all around the world by idiotic environmental policies based largely on the hysteria that Greta is used to promote.

Unlike Greta Thunberg’s airy prognostications of future climate doom, the damage being done by climate policy is already clear and present.

But by choosing Thunberg as its figurehead, the Climate Industrial Complex is hoping to duck these awkward issues.

“Never mind the facts. Look at the kid with pigtails. See how powerfully she feels the impending planetary disaster!” they want to tell us.

No actually. Let’s ignore the kid in pigtails. She has already had far, far too much time in the sun.

Let’s look at the cold hard facts, all of which point to an inconvenient truth the environmental movement would prefer to ignore: catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax. It exists only in dodgy computer models and a frightened 16-year-old schoolgirl’s overactive imagination.