RickBradford

That's a very disrespectful description of the Pope, and in any case, he had some quite friendly words to say to her.

First, Greta has apparently never seen the scientific evidence. If she had, and could understand it, she would not spout idiotic unsupported nonsense like: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it." Second, any sensible society would be well advised to be cautious about listening to the "opinions and conclusions" reached by 16-year-olds, as any parent would tell you. The only people that Greta is "showing up" are the shameless activists using her to push their own radical agendas.

Greta, recently, has made statements such as "irresponsible behavior", "failures of humankind", that her generation's future had been "stolen", that her dreams had been "stolen", and more besides. There's no science in that, just emotional outbursts. I am not making scientific arguments, any more than Greta is. I'm making a socio-political point, just as Greta is. If you think it's off topic, that's because you have failed to understand that this is not primarily a scientific argument; it's a political argument. That is evident from the fact that some governments have made steps to reduce CO2 emissions, some have not. And dragging identity politics, including race and gender activism, into the public climate debate, which is now commonplace among the wealthiest NGOs, is rank bad strategy.

Greta's main handler is a German lady named Luisa-Marie Neubauer. She is a member of an organisation called ONE campaign, set up in the early 2000s by Bill Gates and someone called "Bono", probably a Brazilian or Indonesian, having only one name, like Neymar, or Romario. Another funder of ONE foundation is alleged to be George Soros, which has caused some conspiracy theorists to go berserk about Greta being a stalking horse for a world government and so on. Too much is being made of this, in my estimation. Either way, her caravan is not short of money, but it is equally likely that the groups she is speaking to (with the exception of the Pope, perhaps) are happy to pay for their chance to kiss the hem of her corduroys. I don't think her precise funding is important - there's clearly plenty of money sloshing around somewhere. If you're interested in this subject, a persistent blogger has written a long 6-part series called The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex http://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Well, it's less of an argument than an informed opinion. The point is sociological, and I don't think that large-scale studies have been conducted on that precise point. What data there is strongly suggests the following attitudes: * Most people in the West are concerned about the climate, and would like to see action taken to minimize damage. A YouGov/Guardian poll from May showed that the proportion of climate "deniers" was very low - about 4% in the UK, 8% in Australia, and 13% in the US. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll * Most people in the West are heartily sick of political correctness, which is the hallmark of identity politics. A poll published late last year called "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape", showed that 80% of people agreed with the statement that "political correctness is a problem in our country." https://hiddentribes.us/pdf/hidden_tribes_report.pdf Ergo, by merging climate change with identity politics, the movement merely gains a whole new set of opponents; people who generally support action on climate, but who are not prepared to adopt the shibboleths of radical race and gender activists. Now, you may regard that as credible science or you may not, but at the very least, it is a strong indication that climate activists would be well advised to keep their distance from the SJW/PC/identity politics types.

Identity politics is a large part of the ongoing problem with attempting to get sensible action on climate change, which is what Greta is attempting to do. It is therefore quite germane to the topic at issue - if you don't want to engage with it, then don't.

It's central to the topic. Greta is touring the world desperately trying to get urgent action on climate change. The more that activists place climate change in the same basket as race, gender, transgender, gender identity and other SJW hobby horses, the less likely it is that action will occur, because they simply acquire an additional set of opponents. You didn't put any questions to me at #1941. Don't you even read your own posts?

I don't know precisely what the word "triggered" is supposed to convey, not being well up on the latest SJW vocabulary, so I will simply repeat that lumping climate change together with all the other identity politics games, as NGOs overwhelmingly do, is detrimental to the whole debate. It's just bad business.

No, it's right on point. The point being that the climate change debate has become just another outcrop of SJW identity politics, where the aim is not so much to do anything about climate, but to satisfy "progressive" fantasies about diversity and inclusion. And power, of course. If you don't believe me, just look at what the large environmental NGOs have to say, and you will find statements like "climate justice is gender justice" strewn around all over the place. Now that climate change is mired in this social justice stew, it makes it even harder to find practical ways forward.

Demonstrating how deranged and absurd these "woke" activities have become, a number of activists are now denouncing the Greta Thunberg circus as evidence of "white supremacy", "white privilege" and "white power". You just can't be "woke" enough for some people, it seems. A Ugandan "decolonizing" group called No White Saviors says that Greta is benefiting from a "global system of white supremacy" which has given her "privilege and a platform". "Y'all need to ask yourselves why you find it so much easier to hear from white people, regardless of age, when it comes to the violence they have caused across the world," they said. Another nimrod tweeted that: "Indigenous peoples have been saying this [climate change] for 500 years. So it is not a new message. Her message has political and cultural authority due to white supremacy." So much for "woke" solidarity; it's all about competing identity politics and victimhood status, in the pursuit of power.

Socialism isn't going far enough. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those horrible backward peasants to do things that the self-appointed elites have decided are harmful or "problematic". That's why prominent Left activists are forever fantasizing about the world being put "on a war footing", and the masses "mobilized" as they supposedly were for World War II. You have to wonder about the characters of people who constantly dream about wielding that level of power and control over other people's lives.

I doubt it. Many prominent Left-wing activists, such as Naomi Oreskes, have said exactly the same thing. In their fantasy world, the self-appointed elites shall tell the proletariat what they can consume, how much they can consume, what it must be made of, and how they must dispose of it. Beatings will continue until morale improves.

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin. And we've seen young schoolgirls being used as propaganda pawns by some very unsavory people in the 20th century.

I agree entirely. She is being used as a human shield for activist agendas which are far more extreme than current climate science would support. As to who is listening to Greta, or not, we'll just have to wait and see what governmental action results from this media blitz.

Since you know nothing about my views on climate science, it is baseless to suggest that I understand less about it than Greta Thunberg, or that I disagree with the consensus position. The idea that Thunberg understands the science is easily disproved. Earlier this year, she said to the UK Parliament: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it." This is utter nonsense, not backed up by any scientific analyses. Certainly, the IPCC does not talk in those terms. The NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up well: "Climate change isn't a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down". Given that Greta demonstrates that she knows nothing about the science, and talks in apocalyptic terms which are often used by radical activists, I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that she is being told what to say.