RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Talk:Greta Thunberg

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Global warming related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

If people are known by their enemies then she is my hero.

Any child who can get attacked by both Trump and Putin must be on the right track.Hubert (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Very nice[edit]

Great edits guys. I'll try to add a little more tomorrow, about her life and her message. ShabiDOO 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, great work everyone. Was fun to get an article collaboratively written with decent content up and running in the mainspace in 24 hours! ShabiDOO 14:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


A more legitimate criticism is that she believes climate change is a purely scientific problem that can be solved by experts within the existing political system. But much of climate change is a political matter: who should pollute and who should pay. Issues both about rich v poor and North v South. Many campaigners e.g. George Monbiot believe fighting climate change requires socialism or other political change (although that is itself debatable). --Annanoon (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Read or listen to her UN speech again. She does mention climate justice and equity, and keeps trying to tell the media to not ignore the minority teenagers who are also fighting climate change. Her quote about "fairy tales of eternal economic growth" sounds like a pretty good understanding of the politics to me. In fact, she is good friends with Monbiot and has collaborated with him multiple times. The evidence of her being apolitical is pretty weak, and comes off as a bunch of smartasses trying to gotcha her. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't she think she even needs to, to be honest. she doesn't appear to be proposing any particular solutions - she doesnt need to nor should she be expected to. that is not the point of what it is she, I think, trying to do. as also the quibbling over the 'accuracy' of the numbers and timescales that she presents, even where that might be vaguely fair, misses the point. she is neither a scientist nor a politician. she is a 16 year old girl. the message she is imparting, is that we know the science. we know things will be bad. and we've known for years. her message is that time is running out. that we to need to act now. that it will be her generation to pay the price for our failures. it is a call to arms for those who are able to act, and a j'accuse to those who refuse.
she does this with the sincerity and the passion of youth, untainted by any overt politics and ideology, that makes it difficult for her detractors to able respond in the way they would with other more seasoned campaigners, and theres enough scientific meat that they cannot dismiss her as simply naïve. she has gained through this such exposure and such popularity that they are too fearful of her to ignore her. all they have is vitriol. in some parts of the world they would probably have killed her. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
my only criticism is not of her or her approach, but recent events tell he difficulties in getting concensus on literally anything and the sheer ease and speed in which it can be ripped a part makes me far from optimistic that anything can be done in the time that we have. and we are probably all to blame for that. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Quote: "A more legitimate criticism is that she believes climate change is a purely scientific problem that can be solved by experts within the existing political system."

I disagree with this completely.

She is heavily into the idea that individuals must make personal changes to their own lifestyles. The fact that she personally refuses to fly is pretty clear evidence of this. As for not changing the existing political system: a quote from her UN speech:"All you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth." Which doesn't really sound like someone who is happy with the present system.Hubert (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

that's all pretty vague and gives no indication of what actions ned to be taken by anyone or anyone government. it isn't a criticism so much as we expect too much her. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
My criticism of her is not really of her, but of everyone else's promotion of her. She is a teen whose only accomplishment is acquiring a bunch of attention for herself because mommy and daddy had enough money to let her take the yacht out for a spin. The environmentalist movement is not in need of instagram "influencers" and other worthless celebrities, it's in need of politicians willing to do the dirty work, of scientists and engineers redesigning the modern world, etc, which we actually do have. What we need is for everyone else to stop getting in the way, to stop hijacking the environmentalist movement for social justice pet causesWikipedia, to stop interfering with the adoption of the one power source that with current technology could displace virtually all coal/gas plants and possibly oil with future tech in automobiles, and perhaps even reindustrialize the US/EU. Countries meeting emissions goals by having all the heavy industry outsourced to China is like having a urine-free section of the swimming pool, only far far worse since not only is China not even trying to hold it in, the transport of goods between countries relies upon Suez-max container ships burning bunker fuel, a fuel so horrific it's the equivalent of China having explosive diarrhea in our swimming pool. It's odd, really, that the "bring the jobs back over here" types aren't more involved in the environmentalist movement, considering that they would have even more legitimate reason to support the environmentalist movement than the watermelons would. CoryUsar (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I take some issue with: "She is a teen whose only accomplishment is acquiring a bunch of attention for herself because mommy and daddy had enough money to let her take the yacht out for a spin"
Taking your second point first, I don't think that her mommy and daddy paid for her to cross the Atlantic. As far as I can tell the owners of the yacht volunteered to take her because they agreed with her position. But if you have investigated further you may show I'm wrong.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's absurd to suggest that her only achievement is gaining attention by crossing the Atlantic. She has kick-started a global youth movement which didn't exist before.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Greta Thunberg is a mere activist / highlighter, it is not her job to do the technical work. What she has done is pushed back against the bullshit climate change denialist movement, which has been festering for *decades* among conservative activism. (And of which the US oriented sequences is very well known: carbon extraction companies like Exxon and Koch feed stuff they even *know* is bullshit to conservative think tanks like Heritage, which in turn feed bullshit to right wing populists like your Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys, and next thing you know your racist uncle is all of a sudden convinced that climate change concern is but a "Democrat" globalist conspiracy which is working hard at taking away your incandescent lightbulb due to bullshit conspiracy reasons or something.) Although the IPCC has pretty much been right since the 1990s or earlier, people don't tend to read dry technical shit. So far she also seems to have avoided extremely over-apocalyptic language (an unfortunate tendency among others in the environmentalist movement, hopefully that doesn't change). Nuclear power is probably part of the future, but don't over-fetishize this, nuclear power has disaster oriented problems as well as military / security / geopolitical implications those who overpromote it overlook. I think in general the science community is already moving to adapt to a fossil-fuel-reduced world as best they can, actually China has had their "low-visibility pollution" moments several years ago and have visibly promoted clean energy sources since then. (America's moved more at a local scale, nationally conservatives tend to over-fetishize dirty power like coal still.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Chernobyl has so far killed less than 100 people, and is expected to kill a few thousand over time. While pro-nuclear folks like to gloss over the problems and handwave Chernobyl as the result of criminal stupidity (which shouldn't be done because, well, people are criminally stupid and mistakes can and will happen), the anti-nuclear folks apparently feel the need to outright lie to make their points. Fukushima is probably a better example of what can go wrong with nuclear, but is more a lesson on three things; the importance of having passive failsafes (diesel generators got knocked out in the flood, coolant couldn't be pumped), the importance of not building in disaster zones (Japan may not be best place for nuclear power, at least not of the "can't be shut down instantly" types), and the importance of not letting major decisions be made by businessmen (the disaster was forseeable but would've cost money to protect against in spite of nuclear plants practically printing money). Oh, and depending on whether you believe the company owning Fukushima, the importance of being able to fix problems without everyone freaking out; they claim they totally wanted to fix the Fukushima plant to prevent this disaster, but fixing the problem would've been admitting there was a problem. CoryUsar (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is human stupidity is abundant in quantities. :) Chernobyl death count estimates aside (Chernobyl's death count estimates have varied a lot as assessing deaths from radiation is tricky), nuclear is actually safer than any fossil fuel I can think of in the long run considering the ecological and health costs of fossil fuel pollution (and certainly clean power like hydro can produce large scale disasters). However, the psychology of the nuclear large scale disaster potential unfortunately looms larger, particularly since nuclear radiation is "invisible" and therefore foreign to direct human sensory experience. It is possible to mitigate this with failsafes etc., of course, but currently to do a nuclear power plant right does require lots of upfront capital costs and time, which is another disadvantage. There are other advantages and disadvantages, of course, I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, like everything a balance is involved. There's a good chance it will be a part of the picture, particularly if storage technology does not improve significantly, and particularly if some of the disadvantages get mitigated with technological improvement. However, IMHO it is poor psychology to counter fears about large scale disaster with whining about environmentalist ninnies. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That is an extremely exaggerated description of Greta, who she is, her background, how she got where she is, the role her parents play and what she embodies. She is not there because she's some random girl. She embodies what millions in her generation feel, she is driven and passionate, a good speaker and she truly expresses the utter incredulity and rage a lot of young people feel. We fucked up, are still fucking up and will continue to fuck up despite needing only making relatively uncostly changes now, which we won't and are setting the planet on fire. Of course she is furious and so are millions in her generation. Of course they should be. And they should have someone representing them. Just looking at the rabid raging criticism of her by politicians, important people and millions of adults around the world tell you everything we need to know. Her message is seriously threatening them and her generation will truly despise us for this and will hold us accountable. Makes a whole lot of sense. ShabiDOO 10:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Fear of justice can lead to increased suppression. Generational contumely is a hopelessly inadequate tactic. I am reminded of the Crying Indian commercial for the Keep America Beautiful Campaign. Iron Eyes Cody was a very effective symbol for the activists for that movement. He had no special knowledge of the problem of environmental deterioration beyond what should have been clearly visible to anyone. This is the challenge of young opinion leaders like Greta: to point out what is physically obvious to any who would see it. Showing instead of telling always works best. Greta's part is as narrator to a grim reality, not as a Q-like inquisitor Ariel31459 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

UN Speech[edit]

Here is a link to a transcript of her UN address. It's really quite short and sets out her ideas very clearly. Is it too long to include in its entirety?

Because it makes it clear that her main point is: "Look at the science and act". Something which it's rather hard to argue against.Hubert (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

nuclear power[edit]

Added her exact words on nuclear power and removed the she has been criticized for being "against" nuclear power. Seems it not quite that simple.Hubert (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


I sometimes see conspiracy-style opinions expressed to the effect that she is somehow a pawn in some great conspiracy. That she is being somehow being manipulated by "someone".

But - in this case, the unstated objective of this "conspiracy" is to save the ecology of the planet and human life on it. So who are these hidden evil people with their nefarious plan to save all of us? When will they come out of the shadows and declare that they want to put an end to humans god-given right to terminate civilization?

Mmmm. Perhaps there is some cognitive dissonance required to believe this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I usually see this sort of shit on boards like 4Chan / 8Chan or other primary conspiracy oriented areas where the primary fuel is stupidity, racism, and machismo. EG: If known figureheads get together -- by gosh, Bill and Melinda Gates, Greta Thunberg, and other climate activists such as Luisa-Marie Neubauer actually agree on an issue and might attend the same climate change oriented events -- it's an INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! (Let's throw a nod to (((Soros))) in this Infowars article as well because reasons). These folks are CONSPIRING to... make the world a better place, I guess? Indeed, the subtext becomes *much* less clear on *why* the climate change crowd is problematic unless this crowd has some sort of weird thing to rally for, like plastic straws or incandescent lightbulbs (for the former, learn to drink from a fucking glass without *any* straw, you toddler, and for the later, incandescent bulbs honestly suck compared to LED lightbulbs IMHO, unless you enjoy changing a bulb every few months). Honestly, if it wasn't for the Koch / Exxon folks pumping disinformation to the racist idiots via the populist right channels, I'm not sure why they'd care (other than some of the machismo right not liking the fluffiest of the environmentalist left for attitude reasons alone, historically, but that's never been the most rational argument, the environmentalist left is why we have national parks and forests instead of large private exclusive ranches where only rich dudes can engage in outdoor recreation, as has often been the historic norm). Certainly 4Chan shows their colors by asking the most important climate change question of all time, "Is Greta Thunberg Jewish?" Soundwave106 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The 4Chan question is really hilarious. But I'm guessing they aren't serious. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a shitpost I'm sure. Not serious, but you are who you pretend to be. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
A Russian troll might suggest such a thing. Who would guess that? Why would a Russian FSK officer troll on this subject? They may want the ice cap to disappear considering the valuable resources that are presumed to exist there. Take a look at the part of Russian territory near or above the Arctic Circle. Countries close to the AC might be quite opposed to stopping climate change. I have been concerned about that possibility for some time now.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of claims that climate change is just a scam to allow the government to raise taxes and enable big government to control our lives. James Delingpole has advanced various versions.[1][2] Sometimes people are said to be campaigning on global warming because they hate industry or capitalism or cars or whatever, and want to destroy them and all Americans hold dear. More pettily, it's sometimes said to have been made up by scientists purely to get research funding (which ignores the fact that a far better strategy for research funding would be to prove, then debunk, then prove again, rather than consistently say global warming is real). Global warming conspiracy theoryWikipedia has a little, but any time spent on Breitbart etc will provide some "arguments". --Annanoon (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Circle jerk[edit]

I used to be a voracious reader of RationalWiki. I was interested in your articles about Creationism and other pseudo-scientific garbage. But I've grown to realize that you guys are just progressives trying to push your viewpoint under the deceptively neutral name "Rational". Say what you want about Conservapedia, but they're at least upfront about their biases. Not you guys. This article is embarassing to read. Its not an article, its an encomium about the silly girl. — Unsigned, by: / talk

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Bongolian (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Quoting an essay is not a reply. The essay carries the same snarky leftist prejudice found in the rest of your site so it was hardly informative. It literally opens with a strawman claiming that right-wingers are racist, sexist and the rest. — Unsigned, by: / talk 10:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)‎

Your response is rather um... unnecesarily vitriolic. Also, please sign (four tildes) your comments. You'll find people are much more responsive if you raise your concerns in a polite fashion rather than accusing groups of people of being biased while pretending to be neutral (the edit header above the talk page says as much, perhaps you missed it?). Either way, while this page is rather unabashedly positive of Thunberg, that does not automatically mean that this entire wiki is. There are for example concerns on whether her advocacy for a school strike could ultimately be seen as an example of Sunday school environmentalism (see the talk page) rather than serious action. That said, I do think there is value to mention that Thunbergs' statements are somewhat overreliant on the Appeal to shame ("you stole my future" and "how dare you") and I feel that the article could mention her use of this fallacy.
Furthermore, whilst not directly related to Thunberg's own statements, most environmentalists that I have seen on various media sites in her wake seem to put a hand above her head when the question on what can realistically be done as a direct measure to limit the effects of climate change (that can be executed in our current socioeconomic situation, so not any Hard green takes or takes that outright involve overthrowing the state in a revolution, which I did see plenty of from her supporters during the climate strikes as "the only possible answer", although I can already tell you that is patently false even without doing a deep reading into the issues that climate change will cause) that we aren't already doing is raised. The argument that consistently gets asserted that those questions shouldn't be asked of her since she's a child, which is avoiding the answer and in my opinion a rather weak defense to use for someone who has spoken in front of the UN.
I would agree that the article on a whole seems too insistent on asserting that she can't be wrong on anything and that the opening paragraph on the criticism is a little too eager to insinuate any that disagree with her viewpoints are always arguing from a fallacious position ("without exception" is a very sweeping statement for example) and the lack of real criticism of any of her arguments in the criticism section is a tad suspect, but those are sections that could be expanded upon. The Crow (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Given that her main message is "listen to the science" I'm not sure what there is to criticize. But if you have difficulty getting the point in the article - which of her positions would the posters above like to criticize?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It's reasonable to question the amount of attention she gets in comparison to other campaigners, and the way even pro-environmentalists seem to focus on her as a personality (messianic figure) rather than discussing the actual ideas she mentions. And arguably her presence has allowed the debate about climate change to get sidetracked into "is Greta the optimum advocate?" rather than "what do we actually do?" but that seems to be the way the media works on almost every topic (e.g. discussing political candidates as personalities rather than their policies). But none of this invalidates the fact that she is right about climate change. --Annanoon (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
We do not hide our biases. We don't pretend to be objective when it comes to political articles. You're ranting about something we never claimed wasn't the case. It's an extremely irrational thing to do. Might I direct you to our list of fallacies? In the mean time, if it upsets you to read such articles...you might consider sticking to the ones you do like? And if that is asking too much...I believe there are millions of other websites you can happily enjoy. I can offer you a list of websites that are 100% rational per critical thinking or political analysis that is as dry and unbiased as possible. If you have a specific criticism with a specific paragraph of the text, you might quote it and tell us exactly what you object to. ShabiDOO 12:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Shabi Nowhere in your website have you declared that your political viewpoints are left-leaning. I can read what I want, thank you. I don't mind reading stuff I disagree with. If someone disagrees with you, it is "ranting". This pattern of denigrating your opponents while never actually arguing with them is typical for RationalWiki editors. (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it? Is your position really rational? From where I'm sitting you seem to be throwing a fit because we aren't taking your side. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ranting","Throwing a fit".. you don't have any arguments to come back at me, do you? I couldn't be bothered about you taking my side. In this same talk section, I could see people arguing well, and then people like you using expressions like "throwing a fit". You're not my mom dude, why would I be "throwing a fit" with you? I get the distinct impression you guys are not accustomed to debate at all. You're like Bill Maher's audience who would laugh like hyenas at his every low blow, safe in the knowledge that they are inside an echo chamber. (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe I have ranted at you at all. Could you calmly and politely state which of her stated positions is factually wrong. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The Crow], for starters. Not everyone is rich enough or connected enough to afford travel by yachts. Also, lets not forget in our enthusiasm that after all, she is just a child. (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. Air travel is a big contributor to climate change. She has stated that it's her personal decision not to fly. But it is my understanding that she does not directly criticise those who do, and I do not believe she advocates for the immediate stopping of all air travel. If you have a link where she makes this suggestion I think it should be in the article. Nobody is arguing she is not a child and our article does not make this claim. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:40, 29 January 2020 (UTCS)
So what if she's "just a kid"? That's patronizing as all hell, and teenagers aren't toddlers, they're definitely able to debate and consider so-called "adult" issues. One 16 year old was even a federal judge in Pennsylvania, your "argument" is ageist and an example of poisoning the well. And her criticisms are from a systematic viewpoint, not an individual one, how about you actually try listening to what she actually says for once? Oxyaena Harass 09:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
BoN, if you actually have a good article that has legitimate criticism, we'd be happy to add it. The problem (when I actually was taking a look at articles) is that literally I could not find much about her that was both critical and actually using good solid logic. Arguments that "she is just a child" is shit, that's basically a form of the appeal to tradition debate fallacy. So far, I couldn't really find anything directly attributable to her in Google News regarding either her views on air travel or even "flygskam" (aka flight shaming) which seems more movement oriented. We aren't above adding criticisms for environmental movements where warranted (see the article on Extinction Rebellion for proof of that) but we are also happy to point out instances where grown men freak out over what so far seems to have been an activist recitation of the IPCC consensus. (I mean, look at the Heartland Institute, they essentially had to draw up an article on Greta Thunberg by shitting on the IPCC itself. Who ya gonna believe, the advocate that, from what I see, essentially repeats what the scientists say in activism/advocacy tones, or the group of "conservative" grown men that are known climate change denialists, and actually were previously known as denialists on the problems of secondhand smoke to boot? That's been typical of the typical "criticism" I find of her.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(The Crow made a good point, however, she does heavily rely on appeal to shame and this style is arguably contentious, although one could also argue she has justifiable reason to do so.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Of course not. You hadn't actually made any arguments for me to counter. "I used to be a voracious reader of RationalWiki. I was interested in your articles about Creationism and other pseudo-scientific garbage. But I've grown to realize that you guys are just progressives trying to push your viewpoint under the deceptively neutral name "Rational"." "How dare you have an ideology I disagree with, when I failed to read a large chunk of your site!" Not our problem if you were willfully ignorant.
"Say what you want about Conservapedia, but they're at least upfront about their biases." Actually, no they aren't. Conservapedia actively promotes itself as unbiased, whereas RationalWiki openly states that it is not neutral.
"Not you guys. This article is embarassing to read. Its not an article, its an encomium about the silly girl." Unproven assertion. Disproven assertion.
In conclusion, you make several false claims and as I stated before "[throw] a fit because we aren't taking your side." That isn't a coherent argument, outside of "I don't like this" (which to be honest, I personally don't give a fuck what you like or dislike, I want to know why you like or dislike it) so there is nothing to counter. In short, you made no argument, simply made a declaration of dislike, therefor I made no counter-argument. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(EC) @Bob M To quickly answer, I already covered my assertions and issues, but to give a repetition: Her argument is indeed, "listen to the science", which y'know, I don't disagree with. My criticism of Thunberg lies in the way the media and the environmentalist movement in general have propped her up. On the environmentalist movement's end, nearly every single one seems to hail her as a near messianic archetype of what the movement's goal and direction is (and that's not her fault, I'm sure she's very smart and does know what she's talking about and any assertions that she was manipulated are unfounded, I'm not here to argue that), and if you're remotely critical of whether she should be in that position, they browbeat you with "she's just a child, you can't expect that much of her" or "you're ignoring the important words of those who will have to live with climate change in doing so", which is in both cases essentially placing her above criticism. In my opinion, nobody is above criticism and the way she is being treated by both activists and the RW article does suggest there's no relevant criticism to be leveled against her.
One of these (and the biggest) critcism I hold is that, for someone who gets the attention of places like the UN, when it comes to actively suggesting change, her arguments that it's a systemic problem are... well, they're kinda hollow. Yeah, the current system sucks for slowing down and mitigating climate change. Luckily, we have methods in place that allow changing it to be better equipped to handle it. But rather than trying to bring up plans and point to methods that could fix the system, all Thunberg's arguments amount to are... well, complaining (and Hard greens will gladly seize on this lack of answers to suggest the most extreme available options). Anyone can complain. Given enough time, I'm sure I could dig up every single grievance I have and blame it on a nebulous "system" that encourages the behavior that results in my grievances. What ultimately would be more helpful however is to point to solutions, rather than problems. And that's where her words seem to ring awfully empty. There is a lot of complaining and trying to shove the blame on governments and corporations for ignoring the science. Are they the ones to blame? Yes, they are the actors that perpetuated the screwed up system, I don't disagree with that.
But here's the thing, a positive feedback loop works better than a negative one. Thunberg on the other hand seems insistend on perpetuating a negative feedback loop (which isn't an uncommon thread when we look at other climate activists and climate activist groups, which for clarity I am just as critical of for creating and perpetuating it), where no change that anyone attempts is ever going to be enough unless it automatically fixes the entire system. Fixing a broken system is a gradual process, you can't just snap your fingers and do it. I wish we could, but from a realistic perspective, it's going to take time and many gradual steps to account for edge cases and details. Deriding any of the actors who attempt to make a positive change for not doing enough is very much counterproductive and the answer "well, she's complaining about the system, not about the individual" ignores that a system is made up of individuals (because yes, the actors that made climate change an issue are also very much individuals. Corporations aren't people, but individuals are part of corporations. Governments are elected by individuals and ran by individuals) and by deriding those, you are actively discouraging them from even bothering to attempt to fix the system or to advocate for trying to fix the system.
This turned into a small ramble and I realize I also responded to Oxy in doing so, but this is one (and my biggest) criticism I hold of Thunberg. As it should be clear, this argument is not even remotely falling into the category of the stuff that climate change denialists complain about, but the article in question dismisses this kind of criticism as being a part of the stuff that they complain about. The Crow (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like you have backed off your two initial specific criticisms: Her unspecified views on air travel and the fact she's a teenage girl, and you are now going with: "My criticism of Thunberg lies in the way the media and the environmentalist movement in general have propped her up".
But that makes zero sends as a criticism of her. It's a criticism of other people. If that`s your third shot at her then it's another clear miss.
In fact nothing in your long "quick answer" post says anything about her or what she says. Could you please explicitly say where she is factually mistaken. I am sure we will add it if it can be verified. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bob MIf I may be so bold, it seems @The Crow is saying that he doesn't think Thunberg's methods are as effective as they could be given her media influence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much this as well, yeah. The Crow (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bob M I'm not the BoN, don't confuse me for it. This has been my argument from the start about my personal criticism of her methods and actions (hell, I repeatedly say that she's not factually wrong in both of my earlier comments in this thread). It doesn't have to do with her facts, but rather with her style of reasoning and negativity on any attempted change for the better because it doesn't immediately "fix" the problem. (Putting aside that we can't fix climate change, only mitigate it's effects). The Crow (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. When you pinged me in response to my response to the BON I assumed you were it(?)
OK. I posted a response to a similar question in the saloon bar this morning. Which I steal I will steal a little from here. Greta's message is inevitably a bit general. She is not a scientist or economist - but rather the very informal "leader" a group of similar concerned people who have seen where the science is pointing and are saying "This can't be right. We are angry. You (somebody) must do something to change it."
So she, and they, know what result they would like to see but they cannot express the exact mechanisms to achieve this result. They would argue, I'm sure, that action is required at a personal level, a business level, a governmental level and at global levels. But, pretty, obviously, they are not going to be producing a detailed step-by-step plan for all of these entities and institutions. It is down to these entities and institutions to produce the plans necessary to reach the professed zero carbon goal.
In which case I'm not sure how you would expect her to do things differently.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some of this gave me some good keywords to search for so I went in details on some of the less ad hominem criticisms. Some of the criticism (eg media over-focus on her and lionization) is stuff Thunberg actually agrees with. Tone oriented arguments (eg the appeal to shame) and paradigm-oriented arguments seemed to be both criticized and praised depending on the commentator so hopefully that is reflected. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That looks better to me. Also, @Bob M, no worries, I can see the confusion. Since you said "you two", I thought you were also referring to me. Perhaps that was not the case, but I took it as such. As for the fact that they cannot express the exact mechanisms, sure that's fine. The problem I have with her is mostly her extremely negative attitude, but I'm willing to write that one off as a character flaw. After all, nobody is perfect. The Crow (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear BON: the torrent of ad hominem attacks at Greta are themselves indications that her presentations might have been expected to evoke mixed reactions. What has she said that is wrong? I hear some ask. Nothing that I know of. But I think to myself, does this all imply I may be personally responsible for an immanent catastrophe? Do I feel guilty because of her histrionic accusations? No. Because I am as helpless as anyone to fix the problem, and I have long since regarded collective guilt to be an ineffective moral construct and therefore I reject possible implications of my complicity. In other words, while I support the basic points of discussion, I don't consent to hold the bag. But some people, perhaps many people, would feel guilty as an affect of her presentations, and I don't think that should surprise anyone who took the time to think about it. Guilty feelings can be funny things. Harsh words are a reminder for all of us of the failures we have experienced, and of the bad things we believe we have done. Resentment is a common byproduct of guilt.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This website is just a left wing version of Conservapedia now. (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Elaborate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We really need an automated response to "Wah, it's just a left wing Consevapedia/Encyclopedia Dramatica". It feels like it's supposed to be an original complaint but it's as crappy as the "MSNBC is just left-wing Fox News" meme. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame the BON failed to give actual examples which would demonstrate his claim. Presumably there something in this article which has raised his ire - but what? If he told us we could look at it, but such a general vague criticism of (apparently) the whole site is not very helpful. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A German, astroturf “anti Thunberg”?[edit]

Apparently, the usual suspects (e.g. the Heartland Institute) are trying to fabricate their own, climate change denialist, “anti Thunberg” in the guise of Naomi Seibt,Wikipedia a young German YouTuber, who lists Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson among her key inspirations (this just gets better and better). If there are other instances of similar attempts at creating “anti Thunberg”, that might merit a section on this page, insofar as they aren’t important enough to merit their own, separate articles. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. My personal inclination would be not give them the publicity they are after - but it's a fine line. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
True, but then again, as Oscar Wilde famously remarked: ”Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” (with the very apt continuation ”that mediocrity can pay to greatness”). That deniers feel the necessity to create their own “astroturf Greta” is a testament to the impact of the “original”. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)