Top 10 Reasons Why Greta Thunberg Is a (Victim of a) Fraud

[ExomatrixTV]

Who is Greta Thunberg Really?

A year ago today Greta Thunberg appeared in public for the first time in Stockholm. Since then she has become a symbol of climate protection for many young people. But who is this girl? How has she become so popular and gain attention in such a short period of time? Watch two archive programs that take a closer look at Greta and her roots.

In August last year Greta Thunberg began demonstrating every Friday in Stockholm in front of the Swedish Parliament for climate protection. In a shorter period of time, Greta -- not least through her speech at the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice (Poland) in December 2018 -- has developed into a dazzling heroine for countless young people and was recently even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. With statements like: "I don't want your hope. I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear I feel every day," the young Swedish woman has stirred up highly emotional debates halfway around the world.

How was it possible for Greta Thunberg to become one of the most prominent climate protection activists of our time? The Swiss magazine "Weltwoche" may have an answer to this question. In its fourth issue this year, it published an article entitled, "Wir basteln uns eine Klima-Ikone" ("We are making a climate icon for ourselves"). Here are a few excerpts:
"Greta Thunberg became internationally known when she started a "school strike for climate" last August in front of the Swedish seat of government. The photo of a pale girl sitting on the floor with a handwritten sign next to her went around the world in an instant. In just a few months, Greta Thunberg has made a name for herself as a poster girl for climate protection. She has initiated a worldwide movement of young people calling for a school strike for climate protection. It is little known that this movement is the result of a well-organised PR campaign. Behind it, alongside the climate protection company We Don't Have Time, are activists from Extinction Rebellion, an international, radical environmental protection movement.

A critical look should not be taken at Greta, but at the forces in her background. Is it really acceptable to use a teenager (who also has the Asperger syndrome, a variant of autism) as a driving force to collect donations and spread left-wing messages? [...] The general public celebrates "Climate-Greta" as a climate protection expert. However, research by critical media has shown that her success is largely due to the Swedish PR expert Ingmar Rentzhog, who has good contacts to several propaganda organisations. [...] At the end of December the (Swedish) magazine Samhällsnytt revealed that Greta had given her speech at the UN climate conference in Katowice in front of empty chairs, while Swedish state television pretended her to have spoken in front of a large number of enthusiastically applauding politicians. Greta's mother Malena Ernman, a well-known soprano, then confirmed on Facebook that environmental activist Bo Thorén had recruited her daughter. Thorén is a member of the board of the environmental association Fossilfritt Dalsland and is a well- known representative of the international environmental movement Extinction Rebellion, which has also been active in Sweden since last fall. With the help of direct actions and civil disobedience, this movement wants to force a climate-friendly policy upon people [...]“

However, a look behind the scenes also shows that Greta Thunberg is by no means the "ordinary pupil from next door" as she is presented to the public.

Rather, the politically left-green active Thunbergs are well known in Sweden. Greta is managed by her father, Svante Thunberg, a Swedish actor, producer, author and businessman. Greta's grandfather was also a well-known actor and dubbing artist. Svante Thunberg is also the manager of his wife Malena Ernman, an opera singer not unknown in Sweden, who had previously aspired to a career as a pop star and had hoped for a breakthrough to international fame with her participation in the "European Song Contest" in 2009. This was now awarded to her as "Greta's Mother". It is interesting to note that Greta's mother is a fanatical climate activist who also actively supports immigration and asylum seekers.

The Swedish Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius is an ancestor of the allegedly "ordinary schoolgirl" Greta Thunberg. In 1903 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in the chemistry category. Arrhenius is considered a co-founder of the Nobel Foundation and, as its director, had a decisive influence on the awarding of the prize. As early as 1896 Arrhenius was working on a theory to explain ice ages and the influence of CO2 on global warming, which seems to close the circle on Greta Thunberg's fear of climate change. And also her nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Greta has developed into a good source of money, also for her parents: the share prices of the two companies "Ernman Produktion AB" and "Northern Grace AB", of which Greta's father is the managing director, have interestingly shot up since Greta's activities.

What's also going well is Greta's mother's book entitled "Scener ur hjärtat" ("Scenes from the Heart"). It was presented exactly four days after Greta started her climate strike. This book, now a bestseller, describes Greta and her activities. It also describes that Greta, like her sister, suffers from the Asperger syndrome, a weak form of autism. Asperger patients suffer from a developmental disorder and tend to classify things only in black or white. There are no grey areas.

So, it is not surprising that Greta is driven by fear and panic.

Although this may drive many young people into action, panic has never been a good guide. So, Greta is virtually made for her intended role and it is almost obvious that Greta is being instrumentalized to push forward or enforce climate protection. In view of all of these backgrounds, who may still believe that an unknown little schoolgirl has come to such fame entirely by chance?

Source

[ExomatrixTV]

[Andre]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
What does George Soros have to do with lovely Greta Thunberg?

Hi AutumnW. I do hope you'll read the comments from "The Moss Trooper" and "ExomatrixTV" in this thread for extensive answers to your question.

But also take a look at the expose below on Greta's sudden rise to fame, including photos of Greta's handler (Luisa) who is from the One Campaign, and therefore on the One Foundation's payroll. The Board of Directors of the One Foundation include Morton H. Halperin, a Senior Advisor from George Soros Open Society Foundations. Other elite members of the Board are David Cameron, the MD of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the COO from Facebook and head of communications from Bloomberg, among other elite members. If you search anyone of these so-called "leaders" you'll find endless studies of their nefarious interests.

https://principia-scientific.org/the...Ou4PvMI-5B6nVc

[ExomatrixTV]

Greta Thunberg Incorporated: The Exposé [Trailer/Teaser!]:
Exposing The Rise of the (False) "Messiah Hood".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VZGDZVOYSJM

Keean Bexte of Rebel News travels to Stockholm to investigate Greta Thunberg's origins and speak with Greta herself. GretaInc.com

What do you think of Greta Thunberg's plastic garbage filled Tesla? | Keean Bexte:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=r8SyoRwV_To

Exposed: Greta's school strike sham, from Al Gore to her bodyguards | Keean Bexte:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SPn4928wKqQ

Rebel News
1,29 mln. subscribers

Exposing The "Messiah-Hood"
She was not "skipping school" rules ... ALL LIES!

[ExomatrixTV]

What is really happening in Sweden, Greta?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oZCCXZz5Esw

2.227.714+ Views

It´s convenient that Greta Thunberg is from Sweden, so that the politicians here can ignore the real issues for a moment.

Sources:

Politicians condemning the act and the rising crime in Sweden:
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/politiker-reagerar-med-bestortning-efter-mordet-i-malmo-avskyvart/

Woman shot in the head:
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/P9qmx0/skjutning-i-malmo--kvinna-skots-i-huvudet

“Sweden has never been safer”
https://omni.se/magnus-betn-r-sverige-har-aldrig-varit-tryggare/a/1d29bfbd-868b-4b7e-9d29-fa2f3a92c10a

Feminist Government:
https://www.regeringen.se/regeringens-politik/feministisk-regering/

Swedish Democrats racist claim
https://www.expressen.se/tv/politik/jonas-sjostedt-sd-ar-ett-rasistiskt-parti/

Leonardo Dicaprio private jet:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/leonardo-dicaprio-flies-8000-miles-in-private-jet-to-accept-green-award-a7042326.html

87 influencers want dictatorship
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/BJQR9G/87-influencers-i-klimatupprop

Politicians selling one time use plastic rain covers
https://centerpartiet-extern.felestad.se/profilprodukter/regnponcho

Unemployment statistics
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/P9mWJJ/60-000-flyktingar-fick-uppehallstillstand--sa-manga-har-fatt-jobb

“Analphabetic migrants” quote
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/arbetsformedlingen-finns-inga-jobb-for-utrikesfodda-analfabeter

“The elders can wear blankets”
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/samhalle/a/JoMRl4/kommunalradet-de-aldre-kan-ha-filtar

Hot food too expensive
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/y3XQ5K/ystads-kommun-drar-in-varma-maten-till-de-aldre

[ExomatrixTV]

Arctic Sea Ice Refuses To Melt As Ordered

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WN3eKG7zBps

Climate alarmists say they love Arctic sea ice, but they get very angry when they are told that it is not disappearing.

Greta most likely does NOT want to watch that video!

[ExomatrixTV]

Greta Thunberg Incorporated: The Exposé [Full Version!]:
Exposing The Rise of the (False) "Messiah Hood".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

Keean Bexte of Rebel News travels to Stockholm to investigate Greta Thunberg's origins and speak with Greta herself.
GretaInc.com


Climate change realist Naomi Seibt: “Greta is stuck in a bubble” | Keean Bexte:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I2lkJeSkEtg

Keean Bexte of Rebel News reports: Naomi Seibt is a self-described “climate realist”, and we caught up with her outside the United Nations Climate Change conference.

[ExomatrixTV]

[ExomatrixTV]

"The 97% Slogan"
The Most Used Lie (Deception) of The Climate Hysteria Activists:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

There are so many empty slogans out there I wish we could tackle all of them at once. But the “97% of scientists agree” is surely the elephant in the room. Lots of people have tried to rebut it by dismissing the notion of consensus itself, or by praising the historical examples of renegade scientists who went against a prevailing consensus and turned out to be right. But that unnecessarily concedes the major claim itself, which the evidence shows is simply not true. I hope you enjoy the video, and that you’ll share it widely.

John Robson

Narrator:
The claim that 97% of the world’s scientists agree is pretty much the ace of trumps in the whole climate debate. After all, who’s going to argue against a consensus that strong, backed by so many experts. But what exactly are they supposed to agree on? If you look behind the curtain, no one seems sure what the experts actually said. Or who they are. Or… anything.

John:
At first glance it seems straightforward enough. In 2013 President Barack Obama famously tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.”

In 2014, his Secretary of State John Kerry said 97% of “the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” And that same year, CNN said “97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it’s damaging the planet and that it’s manmade.”

Narrator:
That’s pretty much what most people think when they hear the 97% slogan: Every scientist believes man-made climate change is an urgent crisis.
But there are millions of scientists in the world. How many exactly were surveyed? When were they surveyed? Who did it? And what exactly did they agree on?

John:
Let’s find out. I’m John Robson and this is a Climate Discussion Nexus Fact Check on the "97 Percent Consensus" slogan.

To begin with, there are some ideas that pretty much all scientists accept. For instance that birds are descended from dinosaurs, though that idea was once dismissed as highly eccentric. And when it comes to climate, you don’t need a poll to tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it likely has some overall warming effect. That’s been known since the mid-1800s. And if you did do a survey, you would find overwhelming scientific agreement on that point.

Also, there are lots of indications that the world is somewhat warmer now than it was in the mid-1800s, the end of a natural cooling period called the Little Ice Age.
Finally, virtually nobody disputes that humans have changed the environment of our planet, by releasing emissions into the air, changing the land surface, putting things in the water, and so forth.

These aren’t controversial ideas, and they’re accepted even by most climate skeptics. What we don’t accept is that any of them prove that humans are the only cause of global warming, or that climate change is a dangerous threat.

If 97% of scientists believed that, it would be troubling. Though even so, we’d still have to find some plan whose benefits outweighed its costs. In any event, that level of consensus that the problem was manmade and urgent would certainly be noteworthy. But the thing is, they don’t agree on that.

A close look at what survey data we have, and there isn’t much, tells us, yes, there is a great deal of agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some degree, that the Earth has warmed in the last 160 years, and that humans affect their surroundings. But that survey data also tell us there’s far less agreement on everything else including whether we face a crisis.
So where did this 97% claim come from and why is it so widely repeated?

Narrator:
The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities” and that none directly disputed it.

By 2006, in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, this finding had somehow morphed into “a massive study of every scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal written on global warming for the last 10 years and they took a big sample of 10%, 928 articles, and you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that it’s a serious problem? Out of the 928, zero.”

John:
That was a fib. Gore took a study that found 75% endorsed the idea that humans have some effect on climate and turned it into proof that 100% of scientists believe it’s a serious problem. It does no such thing.

Narrator:
And nor do the handful of other surveys on the subject. For instance five years later, in 2009, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent an online survey to over 10,000 Earth scientists asking two simple questions: Do you agree that global temperatures have generally risen since the pre-1800s? and Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor? [Note: They asked some other questions too, but didn’t report the questions or results in the publication.]

John:
They didn’t single out greenhouse gases, they didn’t explain what the term “significant” meant and they didn't refer to danger or crisis. So what was the result?

Narrator:
Of the 3,146 responses they received, 90 percent said yes to the first question, that global temperatures had risen since the Little Ice Age, and only 82 percent said yes to the second, that human activity was a significant contributing factor.

Interestingly, among meteorologists only 64 percent said yes to the second, meaning a third of the experts in the study of weather patterns who replied didn’t think humans play a significant role in global warming, let alone a dominant one.

What got the most media attention was that among the 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question. 75 out of 77 is 97%.

John:
OK, it didn’t get any media attention that they took 77 out of 3,146 responses. But that’s the key statistical trick. They found a 97 percent consensus among 2 percent of the survey respondents. And even so it was only that there’d been some warming since the 1800s, which virtually nobody denies, and that humans are partly responsible. These experts didn’t say it was dangerous or urgent, because they weren’t asked. [Note: or as noted above, if they were the results weren’t reported.]

So far the claim that 97% of “world scientists” are saying there’s a climate crisis is pure fiction. But wait, you say. There must be more. Yes, there is. But not much.

Narrator:
Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring.

John:
But here again, appearances were deceiving.

Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low.

The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect.

So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200.

And it gets worse. In a follow-up study, climatologist David Legates read those 64 papers and found that a third of them didn’t even say what Cook and his team claimed. Only 41 actually endorsed the view that global warming is mostly manmade. And we still haven’t got to it being “dangerous”. That part of the survey results was simply invented, by politicians and activists.

Other researchers have condemned the Cook study on other grounds too. For instance economist Richard Tol showed that over three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsing even the weak consensus actually said nothing at all on the subject. And evidence later emerged that the authors of the paper were drafting press releases about their findings before they even started doing the research, which indicates an alarming level not of warming or of consensus but of bias.

The reality is that neither this study, nor a handful of others like it, prove that 97% of scientists believe climate change is mostly manmade, let alone that it’s a crisis. The fact that people who claim to put such stock in “settled science” accept such obvious statistical hocus pocus is both astounding and disappointing.

Narrator:
So what do climate experts really think? The year before Obama sent out his tweet, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members. They got about 1,800 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade. The remaining 48% either think it happened but is mostly natural, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. And while it’s possible that the three-quarters who didn’t answer split the same way as those who did, it’s also possible that committed alarmists are more likely to answer such surveys. In any case, it’s a small sample, even of AMS members, let alone of the world’s scientists.

John:
There was one more survey a few years later by the Netherlands Environment Agency that claimed 66% of climate experts believed humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950. Which falls far short of 97% even if it outperforms the other studies.

A social psychologist named Jose Duarte, who specializes in survey design, published an analysis of that one, pointing out that they diluted the sample by including large numbers of psychologists, philosophers, political scientists, and other non-experts, making their results meaningless as a measure of what scientists think. Just as you’ll find that the people who cite that 97% number are overwhelmingly not trained scientists, certainly not trained statisticians.

Narrator:
So we’re no farther ahead than when we began. Most experts agree on the basics, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and probably causes some warming and that humans have some impact on climate probably including some warming. But they actively debate the rest: How much warming will there be? Is it a problem? Should we try to stop it, or adapt, or wait and see? These are all important questions and we need good answers.

John:
And there's the claim that many of the world’s national science academies, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe, have issued statements supporting the consensus about global warming and demanding government efforts to cut emissions. The problem is, not a single one of those societies took a survey of their members before issuing their statements in the name of their members. The statements were put out by a small number of activists using their committee positions to make it look as though their views are shared by all the world’s experts. But if they are, why didn’t these authors survey their members before publishing the statements?

There are a couple of other studies that claimed to prove a consensus. But they run into the same problems. All they show is wide agreement on the uncontroversial bits. They offer no information about whether a majority of scientists think global warming is a crisis. And then they’re spun wildly by non-scientists to tell us things they don’t begin to say, often about questions they didn’t even attempt to investigate.

The problem isn’t just that we don’t know what percentage of scientists agrees with this or that statement about global warming. It’s something much worse. All this talk of a 97% consensus amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate just when we need it most because the question looms so large in public policy.
As physicist Richard Feynmann once said, “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” And that’s especially true when we’re asked to take drastic action based on those answers.

Not long ago that survey expert I mentioned earlier, Jose Duarte, warned his fellow scientists about the negative consequences of claiming consensus. He said:
“It is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments. Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majority… A scientist who contests the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming, or merely produces smaller estimates, will likely end up on a McCarthyite blacklist of ‘deniers’. Self-described mainstream climate scientists refer the public to such lists, implicitly endorsing the smearing of their colleagues. This is disturbing, and unheard of in other sciences.”

The unfortunate truth is that there is strong political pressure for climate experts not to question claims of impending doom. Those who do so face steep personal and professional costs, including a barrage of abuse that can be highly unpleasant for people who mostly wanted to devote their lives to the quiet pursuit of knowledge not to noisy polemics. And that means we should listen carefully to them when they feel compelled to speak out anyway.

Whether they represent 50%, or 10%, or 3% of experts, what matters is the evidence they bring and the quality of their arguments.

And on that, I would hope we have 100 percent agreement.

For the Climate Discussion Nexus,

John Robson

[ExomatrixTV]

"Humanity Must Die", a Progressive Manifesto

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J4TQO0JB7N0

A professor from the University of Cambridge has a radical new plan to save the planet from straight white men!



Akkad Daily
235K subscribers

[ExomatrixTV]

Climate Change - Fear & Control - David Icke:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KiZ01CqMjXo

David Icke discusses Greta Thunberg "Climate Anxiety Classes & Workshops" paying for your (artificial created) Climate Hysteria Syndrome!

cheers,
John

[ExomatrixTV]

BBC Just Gave Greta Thunberg Her Own Series And Most UK Viewers Are NOT Happy One Bit:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tpZvkNCUOzc

Your TAX money used for propaganda and most UK people are FED UP with her!


cheers,
John

[ExomatrixTV]

Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism

[ExomatrixTV]

The Climate Hoax Transforming Our Society - David Icke:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yok01LKUdmc

[ExomatrixTV]

Right Here Right Now - The 5G Hijack!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPoVDtfyslg

Trust Your Senses Lead Yourself

Norman recently sampled Greta Thunbergs speech live at one of his concerts. A chap in the crowd , Scott Jackson recorded a segment , thanks for that Scott, and so I watched it and thought about it a little while ( about 4 or 5 seconds ) and then , well then I did this with it.

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

[ExomatrixTV]

Climate Alarmists Are “Moving The Goalposts” To SCARE YOU Into Submission!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yisMSo4e7S0

[ExomatrixTV]

Is It True, Or Did You Hear It On CNN?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=e0XiAM_FtuM

[Did You See Them]

[Karen (Geophyz)]

Thank you. After reading all the latest on the virus I NEEDED this!

[ExomatrixTV]

Climategate II

Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.Here are some quotes from one of the scientists to another.

• Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.

• I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

• Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC

Source