Greta Thunberg

Post Reply New Topic

Now that I mentioned watching science movies, I can see how that might have been possible. Because you see, as a little kid, I didn't know how to turn on TV. My grandma turned it on for me. But watching science movies felt like my decision, not my grandma. If anyone, it was my dad who got me interested in science (again, in a way that felt like my decision, not his) and my grandma felt like my dad was overdoing it and I should be interested in other things. Yet she was turning the TV for me.

Even better example is when I was in high school and was taking university math classes through extension. I wouldn't have been able to do it if my mom didn't put a signature on a certain form. But my mom was the one thinking I was taking too many classes and kept fighting with me getting me to take 1 class and not 2. Yet when I insisted to take 2, she would still sign that paper, despite being against it.

Last but not least, my mom was the one who told me about the whole concept of taking university classes. It is not possible in Russia. In America, she learned this possibility from a certain junior high teacher. He told this to her in English. I didn't know English at the time. So she didn't have to translate it to me. But she did. Yet she didn't like that idea (the teacher did). But when I jumped on that idea, she helped me carry it out (although a year later: I wanted to do it right away, but instead she had me go to AP math class that year and only let me go to university next year).

So I guess its "possible" Greta's parents were similar in this regard. But still doesn't feel too likely since her situation is a lot more extreme. Although again, her mother dropped her career as a singer, so at least it can't be her mom's decision, although it could have been her dads (?)

Why argue about the way people get involved instead of the primary evidence? Being afraid of dogs does make dogs unfriendly to you, but the climate has no feelings, and will follow the laws of physics no matter how we react.

Funny you mentioned fear of dogs as an example: I was bitten by a dog when I was 6, and am afraid of dogs ever since. And, surely, this makes dogs unfriendly to me.

But, back to your point. Even though climate has no feelings, the perception of the issue gets blown out of proportion if one over-focuses on it.

Greta Thunberg has probably done more than anybody or anything to change my mind on tackling global warming.

I believed we needed to act or face catastrophe until Greta came along, but her arrival on the world stage made me seriously question the whole thing, because of the way grown ups were reacting to and promoting her as the face of this movement, something didn't feel right about it at all and I'm now at the point where I'm quite worried that climate tyranny is going to turn out to be stage 3 of what began with Covid tyranny, a convenient exaggerated crisis for a power grab to transfer wealth away from the middle classes to the super rich and implement more control over resources and the world's population.

As for her parents, I know nothing about them but I'd find it very difficult to believe they have not been and continue to be her primary influence, particularly with her being autistic.
I could buy into the idea that she originally expressed some concern about the climate and that they then encouraged and learned more about the subject together as a family, but she would have been at the mercy of their take on the matter. If they didn't believe there was a man made problem, they would have reassured her that it's just the Earth naturally going through its' cycles, but they obviously didn't do that because they're fully on board with it. Perhaps it was a way of being able to fully engage and connect with her that they hadn't been able to do before?

Just to check, do you agree that the issue being overblown is the loss of vast coastal plains and cities, the continued loss of living species, ever worsening lethal heat waves, fires, floods, and droughts, and frequent crop failures? I don't worry about human extinction, but I see a return to scattered survivors re-discovering stone age technology to survive as a distinct possibility. History is littered with civilizations that couldn't adapt to far less change in the local weather.
The only reason that we have encountered so many self-serving manipulators is because they imitate those with helpful warnings, which we learn to trust. Just because there is hype does not mean there's no issue at all. My ex always exaggerated just to get more attention, and I learned to compensate with a discount, not a negation.

What makes me suspicious is that the "She's being manipulated by her parents/whoever" attack line is used by people who either have already chosen not to accept the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change or simply don't like her because she's young, idealistic, female and outspoken (tall poppy syndrome).

It's attacking the person instead of the argument which is what people do when they've already lost the argument.

If you accept the scientific consensus and the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in, it actually becomes relatively unimportant why she does what she does. Anyone who can communicate with that sort of effectiveness is a valuable asset.

suspicious overlap between climate denial, anti-vaccination, pro-guns and stolen ballots

Also suspicious overlap between climate-concern, pro-vaccination, anti-guns and trust of past election.

Both sides are partisan. Both sides have a bunch of views that come "in a package". Thats why I tend to support third parties.

I didn't make that choice



The only item on this list I have anything against is "idealistic". And even then, the only thing I dislike about idealism is that it logically relates to overfocusing on one issue and ignoring everything else.

As far as the other three items, I never had anything against them, so don't put words into my mouth.



Actually, my motivation of making this post was to study her autism.

As far as climate goes, I don't have strong opinion one way or the other. But she presents an interesting case of autism regardless.



It is important from the point of view of studying autism.



I don't see her communication as effective because she over-simplifies things thus discrediting herself in the process. Even if her opinions are right, she sabotaged her persuasiveness.

Thats his point. You have to deny all evidence, and be delusional, to think that Trump won the election. Its been investigated over and over again, and no evidence for it has ever been found. Climate denial involves a similar denial of evidence. Folks on this site who are YECs tend to also believe in a flat earth, and that they faked the Moon landing. The overlap of those beliefs is "suspicious" because they all involve an irrational denial of evidence.

The Republican denial that Trump lost 2020 exactly parallels Democrat denial that Hillary lost 2016. Democrats blame Russia for Trump 2016 win, and Republicans blame stolen ballots for Biden 2020 win.

Also Republican excuses with regards to an attack on a capital parallel Democrat excusese with regards to vandalism in Minneapolis in the summer.

Democrats deny the evidence that embrio in the womb is alive, while Republicans deny evidence that the animals we kill are alive.

Both sides say the other side denies evidence.

Nobody is all right or all wrong. I collect the outrageous opinions of various experts, and they all seem to have at least one that is right off the wall. One astronomer of quite shattering eminence thought that our nostrils point down to shield them from space dust, even though he must have seen a sunbeam revealing dust floating in the air, and pictures of whales breathing.

They are completely different. Democrats (and security intelligence) blamed Russian interference in spreading misinformation designed to push Trump's candidacy. There is actually strong evidence this happened.

The republicans actually claim the democrats stole/destroyed/added ballots. There is zero evidence of this.

Hillary won the popular vote, but lost the electorial vote. And lost it in such a way that it is plausible that someone's thumb on the scale could have thrown the election. And security agencies do have evidence that Russia may have done just that. So..the election DID look fishy, BUT Hillary did NOT respond to that taint by trying to overthrow the govt. and steal the election.

Republican Nixon in 1960, and Democrat Al Gore, both lost razor thin elections that plausibly might have been thrown by shenanigans in small locales (Chicago for Nixon, and Florida for Gore). But niether Al Gore nor Nixon declared victory nor encouraged supporters to storm the capital and to lynch lawmakers.

In contrast...Trump lost in a textbook election ...lost both the popular and electorial votes by a good margin. Didnt look fishy on the face of it. BUT he declared he won the election ANYWAY....and after repeated investigation failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing (the election not only looked good, it WAS good)...but Trump still declares himself to be POTUS!

AND he inspired his followers to attack the capitol and to try to lynch his own veep.

Nixon, Gore, and Hillary, responded to (at least SOME) evidence of wrongdoing by...conceding the election anyway- and by dropping the issue for the sake of preserving order and democracy.

Trump responded to a total insane lack of evidence of wrongdoing by...NOT conceding the election.

Hardly "parallel". They are completely opposite.


The US goes through cycles of street riots. Spontaneous combustion that no political party endorse. The riots in Watts in the summer of 1965 kicked off years of riots in the ghetto in the Sixties.

In the Nineties we had the Rodney King riot in LA. And we had the riots of a couple years ago. But I am not aware of any Democrat equivalent of Trump encouraging thier supporters to go out and riot. Didnt happen in the Sixties, nor in the Nineties, and didnt happen in 2021.

In contrast Trump broke custom by not conceding the election, and he encourage his followers to riot. And the rioters did something unlike Watts or the Rodney King riots. They targeted the federal government itself by attacking the capitol, and did so to disrupt a proceeding and to actually steal an election.

The only other time the Capitol was attacked in that way was when the attackers were an invading foreign army (the British in the War of 1812). Never before have a group of Americans done that.

So again the two things are not parallel.

Hey QFT, you seem to have taken what I wrote a bit personally. It wasn't intended that way. I hope, if you read my post again, you'll see that I made no assumptions about what you personally choose to believe, or put any words in your mouth.

With regards idealism and overfocussing, I'd counter that if you accept the scientific consensus on human caused climate change then the issue of climate is necessarily all-encompassing. All other issues become unimportant if the environment in which those issues exist, fails to continue to exist.

I'd also question the value of anything you can learn about Greta's autism in this way. Unless someone here has met Greta and spent time personally observing her, we're all dealing with second hand information that has been filtered through any number of opinions and biases. It's all speculative. I actually have met Greta, albeit briefly, and I learned nothing about her autism in that time.

What concerns me is that I've seen people use her autism as a way of discounting the validity of her message. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying this was your intention in this thread, just that I've seen it before and I'm always suspicious of it.

Finally, I'd reassert that she's an outstanding communicator. You may not agree with her message but people who communicate poorly do not achieve the size of platform Greta has. To be an effective communicator you have to be able to simplify, particularly with something as complex as climate change. That's the whole trick, in a way. That's why Trump is a great communicator, he makes things very simple. In the case of Trump, I think that's probably because his own grasp is pretty simple, but if you care to you can find examples of Greta going into serious detail about climate change - she knows what she's talking about and she adjusts the complexity for her audience. That's good communication.

I disagree about her effectiveness. You do not get to be Time Magazine’s person of the year, get thousands of people attending your demonstrations, imitating your school strikes by being an ineffective communicator. If I heard her without any context I would think she is an ineffective communicator, but I strongly suspect that is generational. Winning debating points does not conflate with being an effective communicator. Besides helping persuade a significant portion of the public that humans are causing global warming and that this is an emergency that requires immediate radical actions she has helped raised awareness about Aspergers.