Greta Thunburg Deletes Tweet about 2023 Deadline and the End o' the Whirrrrrled...

It didn't exactly say that the world would end in 2023. But close enough. It said that it was all over if we didn't stop using fossil fuels by 2023. Dumb enough for government work.

   This is the thing, see: the left keeps setting such deadlines, but never acknowledges that they pass. As I've screeded many times: they'll keep setting 'em. And they'll keep passing. And they'll never say either of the following things:

(a) Hey, maybe we really are being alarmist...

(b) Whelp, we missed our window. Might as well party like it's 1999...

   There's no climate crisis. There's no existential threat from fossil fuels. It's all quasi-religious, eschatological, end-times hysteria. 

   I'm a Lomborgian/Currian/Muskian: we really ought to pay attention to the possibility of anthropogenic climate change. It could be real--and could be a Really Big Thing. But as of now: we just don't know. Nevertheless, we should probably start figuring out how to move away from so much fossil fuel use--because if we start now, we might make real inroads by the end of the century. And that better be good enough, cause it's not gonna happen much quicker than that. So that means: more natural gas* right now, and lotsa nuclear in the long run. Deal with it. But if you think that the USA is going to cut back by half in ten years, you're utterly daft. And if you think that the USA even going to net zero, by itself, is going to make a big difference, then you're just not paying attention. 

   This may not be a problem at all. But it might be. And if it is, it had better be a long-term kind of problem. Because if it isn't, we're screwed. If the whole world has to go back to, say, 1980 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050...well...might as well party. Cause it's not going to happen.

*And that spells f-r-a-c-k-i-n-g, kidz!