Hahaha. I was anticipating a comment from you Charlie. We may disagree about whether she is misinformed, but it’s hard not to believe she was sincere and not acting. (You probably won’t be amused — but some of my other readers might — by this meme that came out a few years ago for writers looking for a plot idea: “97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.”)
It is true that the 97% number is not 97% of all scientists but 97% of climate scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (as referenced by NASA, Wikipedia, etc.). For ALL scientists, it drops to somewhere in the 80s but I can’t find the exact number … which would make sense, since some scientists work in fossil fuel industries.
I have lived long enough to know that scientists are often wrong and that the demise of life as we know it has been predicted many times…… I am a skeptic of anything but the past….
Scientists do sometimes make mistakes, but the scientific method is one of the best tools we have to work with. A consensus based on thousands and thousands of measurements should be taken seriously, especially where the consequences are great. So I disagree with you, as I often do, but I do it with love in my heart 🙂
Considering the fact that climate science is my daughter’s field and she is considered a leading expert in the field by world leaders, I will have to disagree with you. It is NOT true that the scientists who are stating this, writing about this, studying this are only those who are in the field but what if it is? My doctor has a degree in science, that does not make him an expert at anything to do with the climate. A molecular biologist is a scientist who doesn’t have a clue about climate science. So, your statement is not only extremely wrong, it is dangerous. It is also very telling that you are suggesting that this girl is “acting.” Those of us who have seen her in person, who have read about family and know far more than you on this topic KNOW that she, along with countless other young people, are deeply concerned about what is happening to their world. The fact that people over the age of 50 do not want to accept responsibility for their egregious mistakes does not make her an actress. It makes those people selfish fools!
Hi Macsbooks. I assume that you are disputing Charlie’s comments (which cast doubts on the climate science and on Greta’s authenticity) and not mine (which support Greta and the analysis of peer-reviewed journals in climate science) … in which case I agree with you wholeheartedly 🙂 (Sorry, Charlie 🙂 ) Gary
It was pure child abuse. I was shocked. She was nasty. But it wasn’t her fault. It was nothing to do with climate change – which I believe in. That little girl was brainwashed to hate.
Interesting. I didn’t get that. To me, it was passionate and hard-hitting, as good “moral call to action speeches” always are (e.g, MLK’s speeches, which always fueled the good fight with a bit of moral outrage), but not hateful. I thought she was close to losing composure a couple times but overall held the tone pretty well under enormous pressure. Thanks for the added point of view. I’m sure the range of reactions was great, and it’s nice to get them on the table.
shakemyheadhollow 
I believe that this young lady is misinformed and should become an actress…
LikeLike
Hahaha. I was anticipating a comment from you Charlie. We may disagree about whether she is misinformed, but it’s hard not to believe she was sincere and not acting. (You probably won’t be amused — but some of my other readers might — by this meme that came out a few years ago for writers looking for a plot idea: “97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The term legitimate scientist is often used… It means anyone who agrees with the climate change “theory”.
LikeLike
It is true that the 97% number is not 97% of all scientists but 97% of climate scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (as referenced by NASA, Wikipedia, etc.). For ALL scientists, it drops to somewhere in the 80s but I can’t find the exact number … which would make sense, since some scientists work in fossil fuel industries.
LikeLike
I have lived long enough to know that scientists are often wrong and that the demise of life as we know it has been predicted many times…… I am a skeptic of anything but the past….
LikeLike
Scientists do sometimes make mistakes, but the scientific method is one of the best tools we have to work with. A consensus based on thousands and thousands of measurements should be taken seriously, especially where the consequences are great. So I disagree with you, as I often do, but I do it with love in my heart 🙂
LikeLike
Considering the fact that climate science is my daughter’s field and she is considered a leading expert in the field by world leaders, I will have to disagree with you. It is NOT true that the scientists who are stating this, writing about this, studying this are only those who are in the field but what if it is? My doctor has a degree in science, that does not make him an expert at anything to do with the climate. A molecular biologist is a scientist who doesn’t have a clue about climate science. So, your statement is not only extremely wrong, it is dangerous. It is also very telling that you are suggesting that this girl is “acting.” Those of us who have seen her in person, who have read about family and know far more than you on this topic KNOW that she, along with countless other young people, are deeply concerned about what is happening to their world. The fact that people over the age of 50 do not want to accept responsibility for their egregious mistakes does not make her an actress. It makes those people selfish fools!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Macsbooks. I assume that you are disputing Charlie’s comments (which cast doubts on the climate science and on Greta’s authenticity) and not mine (which support Greta and the analysis of peer-reviewed journals in climate science) … in which case I agree with you wholeheartedly 🙂 (Sorry, Charlie 🙂 ) Gary
LikeLike
It was pure child abuse. I was shocked. She was nasty. But it wasn’t her fault. It was nothing to do with climate change – which I believe in. That little girl was brainwashed to hate.
LikeLike
Interesting. I didn’t get that. To me, it was passionate and hard-hitting, as good “moral call to action speeches” always are (e.g, MLK’s speeches, which always fueled the good fight with a bit of moral outrage), but not hateful. I thought she was close to losing composure a couple times but overall held the tone pretty well under enormous pressure. Thanks for the added point of view. I’m sure the range of reactions was great, and it’s nice to get them on the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person