February 26, 2021


Daily Global New Media


1 min read

49 thoughts on “NAOMI SEIBT Q&A and PANEL DISCUSSION at CPAC2020

  1. James Taylor, President of Heartland and therefore an employee of fossil fuel interests. And therefore is bigoted. Further he is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist or a scientist in a relevant discipline.
    "“The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years.” " A blatant lie.
    Frank Lasée (correct spelling). Ex-President of Heartland and therefore an employee of fossil fuel interests. And therefore is bigoted. Further he is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist or a scientist in a relevant discipline.
    "The rate of warming has not accelerated. We have been in a natural gently warming cycle since the end of the little ice age”. A blatant lie.
    "Lasée described the 97% consensus among climate scientists on man-made climate change as “MADE UP PROPAGANDA” A blatant lie.
    Come on Naomi, why don't you prove me wrong?

  2. Naomi Seibt is trained, paid and intensively prepared by Heartland "Institute", a tobacco & CO2 (coal, gas, petrol industry) lobby group, which she places with extreme right-wing and Russian television stations for interviews. Seibt is a member of the right-wing extremist and anti-constitutional group "Junge Alternative" according to the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution. For Heartland ""Institute"" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

  3. This girl Naomi talks about climate realism and I just checked her wikipedia and they actually call her a Climate Change Denier she doesn't deny climate change. Who is editing Wikipedia?

  4. I have to agree that the whole climate discussion has several effects:

    1. People get upset about smth the cannot change, but at least have the fealing to induce change.
    Former feeling of depression or "I cannot change anything" are challenged into a adding the fight for smth in the background noise of today's SUB-groups.

    2. It's a big stalking horse, which fuels up technology.
    Big Companies are lazy A.F. and PE wants to see double digit return on investment.
    Also, this (circular economy thinking) helps to actually improve lives in East and West, so that former colonized countries do profit from a genuine bettering in general conditions @home.

    The marketing machine of :" we are the developped world "will continue to function, in fact it won't change any power distribution but rather fortify it.

    Aaand… 🥁 :
    Household money will be mainly be bound into green bonds, green funds etc, so that the economy is forced to move on.

    So the next banking crisis will at least be a green banking crisis 🤣🙌
    (Slogang : "We do not save the banks with taxpayer $, the taxpayer save the environment with his taxes")

    Little side effect : it is hoped that the printing press'es leverage will reduce leverage of bloated markets by channelling money in such funds, funds of funds etc, that might create real value…. let's see.

    The whole issue I see is that none of this matters at all because the whole calculation is based on oldeconomy thinking.
    It holds up if the Central banks and FIAT Money will have still the same importance in 10 years then today, which I highly doubt.

    Anyway that's a just scraping the microbes on the surface, YouTube ain't the platform to discuss this in a 360° perspective.

  5. Greetings from an Australian. Naomi you are fast becoming an icon for climate realism. You are a young lady who speaks with clarity and reason based on a verifiable scientific perspective. Clearly you are a discriminating reader, writer, speaker and thinker who is representative of those in opposition to deception and ignorance based on ideology and pseudoscience. We who believe in democracy and freedom of thought and expression, celebrate you and your educated rational exposition.

  6. Questions for Naomi:
    1. Why does your face look like you've already has too much plastic surgery?
    2. Are you happy with far right paedophiles worshipping you?
    3. Are you happy taking money off of liars, denialists and fascist?

  7. God damn you look like you're dying of liver cancer, get your liver function checked out girl. Unless you're using beige war paint liquid foundation or something. If that's the case dear gods stop.

  8. Da bist du ja genau Richtig bei den Rechten Konservativen der Usa. Ich frage mich welcher andere etwas Jüngere Mensch denkt genau so dumm wie du. Den Was du verbreitest sind wie deine Freunde von der AFD so schön sagen verbreitung von lügen.

  9. As Naomi said at 1hr13min climate analysis looking at changing patterns over a 30 year period… often they don't do that correctly, but even when institutions and scientists do, it's still problematic…. when looking at issues strongly linked to multi-decadal ocean warming and cooling cycles… reviewing and drawing linear trend lines on systems strongly forced by cycles of 60, 100 or more years does not provide information about any likely sustained trend no more than extending the minute resolution 8am to 10am temperature graph will inform you about Evening temperatures….

  10. Why don’t you people look a little bit closer at this girl’s sinister background and her mother, you may want to start with a little party called the AFD in Germany !!!

  11. 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.

  12. Greta is the antithesis of a free thinker, more like a theatre performer such as her own family, with a team of script writers and handlers to sidestep all interviews. It's revealing that she has never been allowed to appear in an open debate such as the one that Naomi has just hosted so brilliantly because it would reveal her inability to articulate the realities of the subject she claims to understand.

  13. Thinking outside the box – Pole shifts do you think that due to a pole shift it has a massive change on the positioning of climate in specific locations, such as when the poles move the cold & heat shifts to a new area, also causing the poles to melt on one side and increase on the other. As well as erratic weather conditions all around the world. Thus changing the climate. I think a pole shift is more plausible to cause climate change instead of man made. So if this is the case no matter how much we try and change our ways of living with energy it is only really going to make our lives and planet a more cleaner but its not going to stop the climate getting hotter or colder. I'd like to see what your thoughts are?

  14. Ich bin ebenfalls hobbymäßiger Klimaforscher und bin froh, dass es Leute gibt, die auf geschichtliche Beobachtungen schauen anstatt auf Computerprognosen zu vertrauen. Gerade habe ich eine Debatte hier auf YouTube mit einem Klimawissenschaftler der alle meinen Bahauptungen widerspricht aber selbst keine Gegenbeweise liefert. Ich sehe parallelen zwischen Klimahysterie und Flacherdler. Russel Fine Arts. Vielleicht hattest du auch schon das Vergnügen mit ihm. Ich mag vor allem Willie Soon, Patrick Moore und Tim Ball. Alle sagen das selbe, sind logisch und bleiben sachlich. Mach weiter so. Vielleicht ein Tipp, wie ich mich noch mehr engagieren kann?

  15. Sure, don't agree with the thousands of highly educated scientists saying we are warming the world. Take a 19 year old high school dropout saying "my research shows….". Having problem finding scientists supporting your views? Doesn't really add up does it.
    And then there is all the half-equations at best. Science does not think that all the warming we have got, and will be getting, is caused by CO2 alone. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a much greater greenhouse gas as there is so much more of it. So what happens if you heat the world a little by increasing CO2? It gets warmer and there will be more water vapor. (Don't believe me? Put a kettle on.) less arctic ice which in turn will reflect less heat from the sun. The permafrost in Siberia will melt and release more CO2 and methane as old plants will start to decay. and the list just goes on. So by only talking about CO2 alone, you can make it fit your theory that it's all about getting more taxes. Is presenting information so you get the wrong result as close to lying as possible? Let's talk taxes then and how the the cruel and evil scientists want to get into your pockets. In any investigations it's always about following the money, right? Who benefits from what? What does the the few trillions of dollars compare to the thousands of trillions made by burning coal, gas and oil?

Leave a Reply

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

4 × two =