The amount of defeatism, unfounded scepticism, denial, and just pure and nasty ad hominem attacks is sickening.
The one potentially positive thing to note may be that denial and anger often come before acceptance. Eventually.
I find using emotions instead of facts to sway the political discourse to be problematic.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned or even angry at this. Maybe not good enough reasons to create an account on Twitter and scream into the void, though.
Is being young disqualifying for having strong opinions ?
it's just too toxic and I don't need that in my head.
Group 1: Stock traders - example opinion "Greta is groomed by some sick fuck, no child should act like that".
Group 2: Software developers - mostly never about software; example opinion - a bit like OP.
So the toxicity I'm trying to avoid - anything about US politics, US news, guns, environment(when there's no tech discussed) gender or race.
There are mobs of great people, scientists, activists etc... speaking truth to power about global climate change worldwide and have been doing so for decades.
I'm just not clear about what is remarkable about what she's doing aside from her being a teenager.
As a relevant counter example, Boyan Slat invented a plastic cleanup device at 16 and has made good progress getting it used in practice. [1] That seems like something that is novel and beneficial.
Obviously she's older/a teenager, but this is still at it's core, an emotional draw. Has she authored papers and done the models? She's a spokeswoman. Even if the intent is different, it's still similar in means and effect to the Nayirah testimony.
Making politicians uncomfortable about their careers. Lots of other people have tried and failed. She's succeeding.
As for France, there is not much more to do; the country's energy mix is largely nuclear + hydro and the industry has long left the country anyway. Macron could try to promote insect burgers, as they are trying in other countries, by in that case he'll get protests even bigger than the yellow vests :)
While this could be true on some deeper level I don't think that this specific event is a good one to base such an assessment on.
Being invited to talk to the UN is a great honor from the political establishment and her speech got interrupted by applause several times. I only watched the speech itself, but I have difficulties to see evidence that people there were uncomfortable.
edit: This appears to be very controversial? Would someone care to elaborate?
Evaluations about his project should be extremely careful, as [currently] there isn't any meaningful way to measure progress.
Both 2019 deployments failed, and interestingly, there is very little analysis of the second, aside the company's own reports.
1. Why we talk about climate change being serious threat, yet we are acting as if nothing is going on?
2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?
That, and her determination to strike (based on the two above points).
You can argue that neither argument is particularly difficult or complicated. They are rather obvious in hindsight. Well, there is a name for things like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus
That's not really what's happening. From day one, in the eighties, the ones who have been vocal about this have been politicians. Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. I mean, most people can't name a single scientist advocating this issue. In France, just like in the US, the number one advocate on this issue is a TV show host. And in fact, the most well-known French scientist (turned politician) who talked about global warming (Claude Allegre) is what people would call a skeptic or denier...
What's happening today is that:
1. in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
2. in developing countries, leaders also choose to ignore it
> in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
According to polls, it is considered to be very important issue, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-cl...
There was another poll and in European countries the support is even higher.
But
- Why is caring about climate left-wing?
- It's the same people ignoring the scientists, that write this crap, so no, a scientist speaking doesn't solve anthing. Unfortunately. It wouldn't have come to this then.
- The left-wing hates prosperity (and freedom).
- Prosperity comes from coal, oil, and cutting down forests to make cattle ranches. Freedom comes from buying weapons with the profits.
- Climate scientists/advocates say we have to scale back the coal, oil and forest bits, or we're flirting with extinction-level risks.
- Ergo, climate scientists/advocates are left-wing.
It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0].
Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s.
[0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
Meaning she spoke strongly and powerfully and is difficult to argue against so they attack everything else.
Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive.
Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.
I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?
I saw her speak in a fireside chat and spoke with people who have spent time with her.
She's plenty mature.