Thursday, December 12, 2019

The Bigots and Misogynists Come Out in Force Against Thunberg

Sure enough, the bigots showed up to denigrate and smear Greta Thunberg for being chosen as Time magazine's Person of the Year. Here's Eric Worrall at WUWT:

with a picture of Thunberg mocked up to show a halo around her. Of course there are vile comments from vile commenters, whom 99% are cocksure global warming is false, is a hoax, is about to end, has ended, etc (despite the fact that it keeps getting warmer).

This guy thinks he knows just what's wrong with her:

This guy thinks the real problem is that she's...talking. He just wants her to shut up:

Here's a real women-hater:

And finally, there's this inevitable, unoriginal comparison:

The misogynists at Gateway Pundit gang up to denigrate her, and for good measure Chelsea Clinton too:

and of course the Misogynist-in-Chief can't handle losing to a 16-year old girl, gives her advice that he himself should take:

This is about all the hate I can handle right now....


Thomas said...

Success is measured by what kind of enemies you get. This was revolting even by WUWT standards.

Victor Venema said...

You missed this tasteful response by WUWT on Twitter. Comparing Greta with Adolf Hilter, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Ayatullah Khomeini.
Somehow I doubt they published that list when their ignorant lazy climate hoaxing president was Time person of 2016.

That they moved to AOC is telling. How weak must these men be that they are so triggered by women having a voice. The most ignorant group I know calling women ignorant. I hope I will not end my life in such a miserable state.

George Montgomery said...

Since she first appeared on the scene, the increase in wasted anger with Greta Thunberg across the conservative media and denialist blogs has provided us with another example of a hockey-stick graph.
Prior to their publication, Time should have put out a warning to keep a close eye on any Greta-Thunberg-hating family members and acquaintances. It was going to be a difficult time for them.

David in Cal said...

I no longer have any sympathy for Greta Thunberg. She chose to be an activist. Now she is calling for the murder of people who disagree with her. She voluntarily got into the kitchen, so she will have to stand the heat.

Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they do not tackle global warming


Layzej said...

Back against the wall: In a hard-pressed situation; also, without any way of escape. For example, In the closing few minutes, our team had its back to the wall but continued to fight gallantly, or The bank has him with his back to the wall; he'll have to pay up now.

Layzej said...

DiC is among the triggered. Once again sides with the bigots and misogynists. Disappointing.

David in Cal said...

Layzej - Having one's back against the wall means being in a hard-pressed situation.
Putting a group of people against the wall means lining them up and shooting them. Here's the Top Definition from the Urban Dictionary

'First against the wall'. Refers to an outgoing elite who will face the firing squads 'when the revolution comes'.
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall" Radiohead - Paranoid Android

OTOH it's possible that Greta may not have understood the implication of what she said. English is not her first language. If she meant only what you think, then my my criticism is withdrawn.


David in Cal said...

I think the comment at this link is fair.


Ned said...

DiC writes: "I no longer have any sympathy for Greta Thunberg."

Like you ever had any sympathy to begin with.

You're not the least bit troubled by all the hate being directed against Thunberg. Instead, you rush to re-post propaganda attacking her.

This "story" is entirely a result of language barriers, exactly as expected. Thunberg was not in fact advocating violence:


Thunberg told the crowd in Turin that world leaders were running away from their responsibilities to fight climate change.

“We have to make sure that they cannot do that," she said. "We will make sure they, that we put them against the wall, and that they will have to do their job and to protect our futures."

The expression “putting someone against the wall” in Swedish describes a situation when someone is forced to address difficult questions or a difficult situation.

But some right-wing voices on social media interpreted her comment as a call for violence against politicians.

Thunberg tweeted that she and the youth movement she inspired is against all forms of violence.

“It goes without saying but I say it anyway,” she wrote.

Note how "David in Cal"s quote truncates Thunberg's comment, to obscure the fact that she was obviously not talking about shooting world leaders. Generally when you shoot someone, you don't then expect them to turn around and do their job and protect your future.

My only question is whether DiC was aware that he was spreading and amplifying ugly lies, or whether he was just too enthusiastic and excited to bother checking. Either way it's appalling, so I guess it doesn't really matter which.

Here's a taste of the hate that David in Cal's ideological brethren are directing at her:

Online haters are targeting Greta Thunberg with conspiracy theories and fake photos

David in Cal said...

Ned, obviously I was unaware of Greta's apology and explanation, since it came after I posted my comment. BTW at 8:05AM above, I acknowledged that Greta might not have intended her comment to mean executing, due to differences in language. Now that I know this is the case, I withdraw my criticism of her comment.

The hate comments aimed at Greta are disgusting. They deserve to be condemned. However, sadly they're all too normal. Conservaatives put up with that sort of thing, and worse. Even though I am not an activist, I was personally called part of a “basket of deplorables” characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views. (More precisely, Hillary describe only half of Trump supporters this way, so there's 50-50 chance that she meant me.)

Not only are pro-Trump people putting up with verbal vilification, they're being physically attacked. E.g., see and and

Two wrongs don't make a right. I again condemn the mean comments about Greta.


Layzej said...

CTV reports that Trump is murdering Canada. All of it: Trump is 'putting Canada against the wall'

I'm not sure that Greta is the one with a poor grasp on the English language.

Ned said...

Shameless. You didn't even consider the obvious explanation of different meanings in Swedish vs English, and you couldn't wait a few hours to give Thunberg a chance to defend herself. You just went ahead and slimed her.

Now you're acting all huffy and claiming that you're actually the victim because three years ago Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump's supporters are deplorable.

So, here's the deal. If you are in the bottom half of Turmp supporters -- the most gleefully racist and cruel, the ones who actively rejoice at the idea of forcibly separating young children from their parents at the border, because the cruelty is the point -- then yeah, you're deplorable.

Ned said...

My guess is that approximately 0% of the people, like "Davin in Cal" here, who falsely accused Thunberg of wanting to shoot people, have heard about this incident, or the many other death threats she and her family have been getting:

An Iowa teacher who said he wouldn't attend a climate rally featuring Greta Thunberg because he didn't have his 'sniper rifle' has been put on leave

Deplorable indeed.

Layzej said...

The Washington Examiner says "Trump murdered navigators" according to only the most obtuse reading of this headline:

Obamacare 'navigators' up against the wall after deep Trump cuts.

David in Cal said...

Layzej - You have a point. That WaPo reporter said Trump was putting Canada against the wall. She didn't mean that Trump planned to put Canada before a firing squad. OTOH she wasn't referring to putting a group of elite people against the wall. Greta's apology and explanation show that my interpretation was at least reasonable. However, I ought to have realized sooner that Greta might be misusing the idiom, since English is her second language.

Ned, you wrote, "You didn't even consider the obvious explanation of different meanings in Swedish vs English". In fact, I did just that in my comment above at 8:05 AM. However, I did not do that in my original post. I was wrong not to have considered that possibility sooner.


Thomas said...

I guess many English speakers are spoiled by never having to speak a second language. Even adults make embarrasing mistakes as BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg experienced when translating in his head from Swedish he talked about "small people" in a way that sounded insulting in English.

Robert I Ellison said...

So you ask for data and I bury you in it.

To complete silence. What a knob you are.

Layzej said...

I don't think the problem is with ESL. The first definition of "up against the wall" has to do with limiting options: "In a difficult or troubling situation in which one's options or ability to act are limited or constrained."

Read in context, there is no other way to interpret what she said: "World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job and to protect our futures."

Who could possibly think she meant that they would attend to their responsibilities after they had died? The first definition is the only one that possibly fits. Most likely someone very disingenuous snipped a bit of the speech and fed it out of context to a very unskeptical audience.

David in Cal said...

Laayzej - you have a good point. Sadly, that sort of thing is routine in today's political wars. E.g., CNN Fact check: Trump says Democrats misquoted his call. He's correct.


David Appell said...

Greta Thunberg apologized for her words:

and decided she needs some time off.

Did Trump apologize for what he said about GT? Of course not. In fact his wife said GT was fair game, since she was an activist.

David Appell said...


"Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said 'put them against the wall,'" the 16-year-old climate activist tweeted on Saturday. "That's Swenglish: 'att ställa någon mot väggen' (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable."

David in Cal said...

I do think GT is fair game because she's an activist. She can't have it both ways. I think she is an ignorant child, whose recommendations she cannot vouch for scientifically or economically. IMHO nobody should pay attention to her. However, she has somehow become a leader in the movement to adopt some very bad policies. As such, I think she is fair game.

GT is right that earth is warming and that human emissions are responsible for all or some of the warming. But, she's wrong about the imminence of the threat. Sweden will probably benefit from the amount of warming that occurs in GT's lifetime. Her childhood is not stolen.

And, she's dangerously wrong about the remedy. The socialist ideas she espouses will not stop the planet from continuing to warm. But, implementing these policies would probably have a have a disastrous effect on people's standard of living and on personal freedom, as they did in Venezuela.


David Appell said...

OK boomer :-)

Greta Thunberg's main message is "Listen to the scientists." She's not claiming to be an expert in the science and the economics. We're past the science -- it's settled enough. GT is a leader because she communicates the urgency clearly to her generation and others. And yes, there is an urgency. The Nature paper on tipping points published a week or two ago says we may have already ensured tipping points w.r.t. Arctic ice melt and the melting of West Antarctica glaciers behind the Amundsen Sea. (The latter is 3 m of sea level rise.)

If you have a better solution, then present it. By denying climate change, deniers are automatically locked out (locking themselves out) of participation in the discussions of solutions, so will get what others decide and implement and they'll have no right to complain about it.

David Appell said...

"Sweden will probably benefit from the amount of warming that occurs in GT's lifetime."

Pure and simplistic speculation.

Thomas said...

David, Sweden isn't isolated but relies a lot on international trade. If the world is hurt, Sweden will suffer too regardless of how the Swedish climate changes.

David in Cal said...

David - a plan that won't work is no solution at all. A plan that won't solve global warming but which will lead to economic hardship and possibly reduce civil liberties is worse than doing nothing.

IMHO the sad reality is that we have no feasible way to prevent atmospheric CO2 from continuing to rise. That's why these international meetings keep failing (although they must be pleasant for the attendees.) The 2019 United Nations climate summit is a failure, just as prior climate meetings were failures. See


Layzej said...

The socialist ideas she espouses...

Can you name one? I've rarely heard her talk about solutions. Largely she's encouraging people to action.

I checked the web for examples where she is prescriptive. I found this video she made with George Monbiot where she says: Stop burning fossil fuels.

That's exactly what we have to achieve to address global warming. They also suggest we : plant trees, stop subsidizing fossil fuels, protect tropical forests. Of those, the last is possibly socialist, but it's hardly radical. We have parkland in Canada with no apparent impact to our standard of living and personal freedoms.

So what are these "socialist ideas she espouses"?

David Appell said...

David, what plan are you referring to?

David in Cal said...

David - I was referring to Greta's plan. I assumed that you were also referring to her approach when you asked if I had a better solution.


David Appell said...

And what is Greta's plan?

David in Cal said...

My understanding is that her plan is something like the Green New Deal. Perhaps I'm wrong. I was basing that on 3rd party commenters.

David - what plan or solution were you alluding to when you wrote, "If you have a better solution"?


Layzej said...


Your sources are only interested in spreading disinformation. Why fill your head with nonsense?

Ned said...

DiC writes: "I think she is an ignorant child, whose recommendations she cannot vouch for scientifically or economically. IMHO nobody should pay attention to her."

This is hilarious. Is there any long-term commenter at Appell's site here who is as routinely wrong about the science as you are? Greta's understanding of climate is certainly far better than yours.

And yes, you know nothing about what she is actually saying. You credulously and uncritically repeat what you've been told about her by people who are peddling disinformation.

They've told you to hate Thunberg, so you fall in line and hate her, and fabricate various imaginary reasons for doing so. And when called on it, you have the temerity to say that it's not your fault, you were just repeating what you were told by unnamed "3rd party commenters".

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. You prefer to remain misinformed because the people who are misinforming you are your ideological brethren.

Ned said...

Thunberg's message is quite simple and logical. Here's the thumbnail version, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Thunberg has stated four interwoven themes: that humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change, that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change, that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people, and that too little is being done about the situation. She has also stated that politicians and decision-makers need to listen to the scientists.

I agree with every one of those points. And contrary to what DiC claimed, there is NOTHING in there about ideology - she says nothing about socialism or conservatism or liberalism or capitalism or any other economic theory.

Here's my slightly extended version of her argument:

(1) Scientists have done their job and determined that we are damaging the climate of the only planet we can live on. Their message is clear and needs to be heard.

(2) Now it's time for politicians, economists, engineers, etc. to do their jobs and come up with a more sustainable path forward.

(3) If politicians aren't doing their jobs, then it's up to the citizenry to demand that they start doing so, and to hold them accountable.

Thunberg is pointing out (1) and working on mobilizing people to do (3). The problem is that what she's saying actually is sensible and correct. So the "3rd party commenters" that DiC listens to are forced to fabricate an imaginary Thunberg for their Five Minutes Hate, because they can't argue with what the real Thunberg is saying and doing.

David in Cal said...

GT recently said,

“Schoolchildren, young people, and adults all over the world will stand together, demanding that our leaders take action...That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.”

That sounds a lot like typical Communist revolutionary jargon. In any event, it goes far beyond science.


David Appell said...

David, that's an extreeeeemely long stretch. I think it's ridiculous.

Ned said...

It is ridiculous, yes. But it's also informative - not about Thunberg, but about "David in Cal".

Over the past year or more, his comments here seem to be getting more and more explicitly political. More approving references to Donald Trump and more angry references to Trump's opponents, like the Hillary Clinton remark that he brought up out of the blue. More and more angry and off-topic or simply wrong remarks about socialism and Communism.

It suggests that DiC is getting his ideas about climate science not from actual scientists, but from right-wing media. The increase in frequency of these angry and vindictive comments also suggests that DiC is undergoing some degree of radicalization over time, which seems to be a widespread process during the past four years among consumers of right-wing media online.

I would not expect much in the way of useful contributions from him on this blog in the future.

Malik Shahzad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
huntingorbit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nock Code said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nock Code said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anam said...


Free Submission Sites List 2021
Introduction to SEO
On Page Optimization SEO Guide
Keyword Research in SEO