March 4, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

Naomi Seibt Introduces Herself at CPAC 2020

1 min read



Naomi Seibt, famous YouTube personality and employee of The Heartland Institute, takes the stage at CPAC 2020. Naomi talks about why she is a climate …

source

34 thoughts on “Naomi Seibt Introduces Herself at CPAC 2020

  1. She's not that much emotional as Greta.
    And that will not move emotional people's heart.
    And that's a sad fact thing…
    Because there are a lot of emotional JW, rather than logical people.

  2. Donating to the Heartland Institute financed by the fossil fuel industry? Don't you guys get enough subsidies anyway?
    Estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

  3. 3:20 There's nothing more embarrassing than having some 19? year-old girl without a clue of WTF she is talking about trying to tell me what not to do. You've got to be kidding. This girl is an embarrassment to all other blonds. I guess those blond jokes are applicable after all.

  4. Let's first look at this from incoming light. The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.

    Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gas CO2. One of CO2's properties is it has a reactive band in the 255K range where it absorbs and releases infrared photons in Earth's black body radiation range. Once released after absorption, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas that prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon, -18C on the mean. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.

  5. AHHahaha! The bankrupt Heartland Institute's latest attempt to generate enthusiasm for dirty energy went badly. In February, Heartland decided it would bring an end to Greta Thunberg's terrible reign of climate activism by sponsoring its very own Euro-teen who just LOVES fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the young "I think coal is groovy" shill, 19-year-old German Naomi Seibt, turned out to be a tad problematic.
    Her mother, Karoline Seibt, is an attorney who works with Alternative für Deutschland, Germany's far-right nationalist party with ties to neo-Nazis, and Naomi has her own far-right baggage. Seibt took part in a YouTube discussion following a deadly attack on a synagogue in October, in which she had some thoughts about how Jews get way too much sympathy in Germany. Oops.

  6. Those, who proudly brand themselves as 'climate science skeptics' tend to not bother questioning the information sources that they have chosen to immerse themselves into.

    Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

    DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjtMDtA0N7Y

    DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4RyUUFxdE&t=2s

    DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtFGN6B8lfg&t=10s

  7. It seems that despite what Seibt herself says, the "skeptics" need to have their own "Greta". Why? The science speaks for itself, we don't need to play those games. She is only parroting the stuff she believes the same as Greta does. She is not a scientist or experienced enough to be a voice of authority on the issues involved, so is only acting as some kind of image maker for the "skeptic" case.

  8. SILLY MADE UP FLOOZY LOOKING INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS A LOT OF ATTENTION, TALKS TOO MUCH, DOESN'T GET TO THE POINT. THIS SEIBT IS NASTY AND STOP
    CONDEMNING WHOLESOME LOVELY GRETA WHO SEES IT LIKE IT IS. YOU ARE SO SILLY…PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THINKING FOR YEARS WITH NO CHANGE FOR THE
    BETTER. YOU TALK EMPTY AND STUPID..

  9. I was an "alarmist" around 20 years ago, but spending 20 years researching the facts around this issue have become a "realist". I would like to pose three questions to Greta ….. 1) what caused to the 0.6 degree rise in global temperatures is the early 1900's ? 2) Why do you set so much store by your "Carbon Budget" when it depends entirely on the values / parameters you include in it as to its' value? 3) Where was the coral when the oceans were 120 metres below todays level, some 10,000 years ago?
    No doubt she would have an answer … A little like discussing religion with a true believer … they have their answers planned, however unconvincing they actually are.

    The idea that these people will have the go-ahead to engineer the climate to reduce CO2, the life blood of EVERYTHING, is truly frightening

  10. Welcome any articulate, informed people like Naomi. Still not sure why we would defer complex scientific subjects to teenagers, no matter the side. I don’t think we NEED to have a Greta alternative, but, at least she’s rational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twelve − six =