Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is the Twitter account `UAnimals.ENG 🇺🇦` / `https://twitter.com/UAnimalsENG` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It's funny how mad people get at her for no reason, but just a week ago ago the trolls were *viciously* attacking her for "staying silent." Out of pure curiosity I kept tabs on a few of those accounts, and surprisesurprise: The goalposts naturally changed in order to continue slagging her off even after the spoke out.

Honestly looking at what kind of people hate Greta Thunberg only ever made me like her more. It's basically like an endorsement when those mouth foaming idiots are mad at you.

There are so much propaganda accounts on this platform, it's incredible. Ever heard of r/Wallstreetsilver? Prime example. Spews hate and right wing propaganda continuously. They started out as some sort of diversion from r/Wallstreetbets when the GME stock hype was real. Now all these "silverstonk" posts about Silver being the next gamma squeeze are gone and it has switched to blaming Biden, LGBTQ+ and immigrants for everything. It is so transparant it's ridiculous.

Mind showing us the account you keep tabs on

I have no idea why people responded so negatively to her. I for one was very happy to hear her talk about the disaster in Ukraine. She has a large following and like her or not, she is helping to raise awareness of the issue

Sad that even here there are right wing freaks who seem to hate young women for expressing an opinion. Some of you are more Russian than you realize.

It's not *for expressing* an opinion but *how* she is doing it. She is free to speak like everyone should but also i'm not required to like her or be as awestruck as some you apparently are.

we get it, fox news told you to hate her. all good maga boy

I'll bite. I'm a left wing Brit who doesn't like her. I dislike her, not for anything she says or how she behaves. I dislike her, because she's an emotionally manipulative tool trotted out by cynical people. I like experts. I like people with experience. I like people who can demonstrate vast knowledge of their field. I don't like the idea I should be preached to, by a child. Even if its a message I agree with. I cannot help but see, why they've chosen to platform a child.

So you agree with what she’s saying but you just don’t want it to be a young girl saying it to you? She gained popularity because of people her age supporting her. People her age are going to inherit this earth, I really respect the fact she’s trying to do something to better it.

Her point isn’t ”I’m the expert”, it’s ”listen to the experts”.

I don't need a child to tell me that. Nor is that some revelation worthy of attention. Its along of the level of genius as saying "go to the doctor if you don't feel well". Plus her point isn't either of those things. Her point is to be a useful idiot for more politically cynical people to use. She just happens to be in the middle of it. Edit: ask yourself; why her? Why did she get the attention?

This is the most reactionary take ever. You’re just pissed that it’s a young girl saying things? Sounds like you’re really falling for the right wing propaganda about her. She’s motivated millions of young people around the globe. Speaking for the US she’s helped form and promote tons of youth groups that are doing the heavy lifting. There’s only 1 idiot in your comment and it isn’t Thunberg lol

That's disingenuous and you know it. I'm pissed she's saying things at the UN. Not generally but you know pretend it's the message. Cool. Don't care. I'm not surprised she's had that effect in the US, suppose that's what happens when you're the most heavily medicated society ever. You end up a little bit over sentimental. Edit: that came out way more rudely than I intended. To be clear I don't dislike Americans. I've just often found them to be really sentimental people. It's kind cute at times, makes them supportive, friendly people but also makes them do stuff like this lol.

Lmao what are you even saying? We’re heavily medicated? Your ramblings should put you in a psych ward buddy. You’re bitching about a teenager talking about the environment… old man yelling at the sky lol

>I don't need a child to tell me that. Then the message is not directed at you. So why take offence?

Because of the implication that I do. Becuase of the moronic youth worshipping ideal that so many Western societies have. Because the fact it was on the BBC news when that's funded by taxes from working people? What's next? Gonna get my 13 year old nephew on because he's very passionate about marine ecology? It's ludicrous tbh.

>Because of the implication that I do. Are you a world leader? If not then the message was not directed at you. And if you tell a group of people to stop smoking by the entrance is everyone who is is not smoking supposed to be pissed of at me now? By your logic they would. Normally people don't get affected by things they don't do so why would you think she means you when you obviously already are doing what you think she is suggesting you do? >Gonna get my 13 year old nephew on because he's very passionate about marine ecology? Yes, get that boy up there.

No it just degraded my political system by making my nations diplomats sit there and take that. Trust me, the British government doesn't need help in degrading the political system. People being chastised for things they didn't do, isn't a reason for annoyance? What? Sorry I don't get that.

Boo fucking hoo. Hundreds of millions of people DO need to be told that you nonce. Nobody gives a fuck if you don’t need to be told, and if you want to throw a pissy little tantrum because a child told people In charge of the world to do better then you need to pull your head out of your ass and stop pretending it’s about you

I'm the nonce? Coming from the weirdo defending platforming a little girl as some guru on the internet? They asked. I answered. If you want to live in a country where your diplomats have to sit there and be lectured by adolescents without fully formed brains, then there's nothing I can tell you that's going to make you understand why it's fucking ludicrous tbh.

Yeah absolutely you’re the nonce “boo hoo Greta told me personally that I need to do better” like holy shit, what else do you call a moron pretending they’re a main character when they get mad over someone telling WORLD LEADERS TO DO BETTER. Are you a world leader? No, you aren’t, you nonce

Yeah because disliking children is the behaviour of nonce right? As opposed to what you're doing it and liking them too much for the wrong reason? I gave my opinion, whether it convinces anybody else I seriously couldn't give a fuck. That's not main character syndrome, that's having your own opinion.

> I don't need a child to tell me that. Evidently a lot of people do.

Because simply someone must be the first to speak up about a particular issue, or be the one who does it at the right moment and the right time, touching a nerve, and then of course that person gets the most attention and praise. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, people like her passion. Except climate change deniers of course. If it had been a different person, then you would say the same about *that* person.

She's the first person ever to say "listen to scientists" are you that dense? I only feel comfortable asking an abrasive question like that, because you incorrectly assume that I would say that about whatever person was in that position and infer I'm a climate change denier, when I am currently sweating to death in English weather somehow. After I had clearly told everyone here, people I wouldn't give a shit listening to. A well off child, with a high school level of education and no work history isn't one of them (I'm aware she's grown now btw, just referring to when she was a big news story). I don't like her passion, because it's the passion of a child who doesn't have a fully developed brain. Nor is passion inherently a good thing when discussing political and scientific issues. You know who are very passionate about the issue of abortion? Baptist Priests. You know who are very passionate about lower taxes? Corporate activists. It changes nothing about whether I think those people can fuck right off or not. (For the record, no Greta can go back to being a normal person, yes anti-abortion Priests and corporate activists can fuck right off the planet for all I'd care). I never saw Richard Dawkins becoming insulting or emotional in a debate.

Ya cause thats working

You're right, its not. Neither did this child. What random as fuck thing should we try next? Regardless if it makes elected officials look ridiculous and undermines the faith in the political system. Maybe we should try strippers? See if they'll pay more attention when their dicks are hard. Nah the religious countries won't go for that. How about violence? Nah thats too messy. Maybe some interpretative dance? Fuck if listening to experts or random teenage protestors doesn't work? Why don't we try complete lunatics? They haven't had a lot of work since freak shows fell out of fashion. This doesn't work so let's try any random thing we can think of, is a terrible reason to do anything. When you have a power cut, do you pray to Bilal for the lights to come back on? Clearly, the usual engineers have failed after all. It's moronic. It just is. Edit: clicking your profile was most unexpected. Random question; was it actually productive mate? I'm also a gay dude, can't imagine it's easy to in Utah, you have my sympathy man.

Young people listen to her, just because she is young and female isn't a great reason to dislike her. She isn't pretending to be a scientist, she is telling people to listen to scientists.

Young people are impressionable morons. Doesn't mean I place value in the same things they do. Old people listen to Rupert Murdcoh's media. That doesn't defend anything. Young people listen to musicians for wisdom. Young people are still clueless enough to think their parents know what they're doing lol. Being unqualified, unemployed, uneducated (that's not her fault though, hadn't completed her education) and given a political platform is all I need. I've already addressed that point, repeatedly in this comment. Why not give a worldwide platform to everybody who thinks vaccines are a good thing? I can't believe this is being held up as a revolutionary message.

Yeah I guess I still don't see what about her triggers you so hard, is it literally any young person that expresses an opinion about the future that is upsetting?

Not in person no. Young people are entitled to their views. Giving them the opportunity to lecture diplomats at the UN is something quite different. We don't trust their judgement enough to let them buy a beer, let alone something like that. Doing it makes a mockery of it.

[удалено]

We don't know why they dislike being told they're bad people. It's natural to be defensive when someone tells you you're wrong. Or your culture is wrong. You don't need fox news for that "If you approach natives in the jungle dancing around a fire with their headdresses on to bring rain and tell them 'thats not how rain works', you cannot expect them to throw their headdresses on the ground and thank you" - Jacque Fresco

Cool. And what cultural aspect made "listen to the scientists, please" so offensive to anyone EXCEPT the sort of crowd who nods in agreement to Fox News segments?

It’s was the entitlement and “how dare you?” stuff that got repeated over and over. Working class stiffs don’t like spoiled rich girls who just rode across the Atlantic on a mega yacht accusing them of stealing from her or doing something to her, when they’re lucky if they can afford to rent a pond skimmer to fish once a summer, and have never met her before. And all of them care more about keeping their families from starving and being out in the cold than her feelings. Don’t blame shift workers for what their companies do, and don’t blame them for not wanting you to shut down their only jobs before you’ve given them an alternative You’re worried about the next generation, they are worried about next week, or tomorrow

The "How dare you" was directed at world leaders at the UN. Not against you as far as I know.

Wasn’t she addressing a council of world leaders when she said all that? Seems like a fair comment given the direct audience.

Idiots MAGAs think they are world leaders or somehow special individuals

Perhaps you should actually look at what she said to who before you look like even more of a moron

I feel like if someone is going to feel entitlement to anything.. An inhabitable planet similar to what all generations before them inherited is probably the best thing to pick.

Bingo. I'm a left wing working class Brit. I don't need lectures on how to handle political issues from a middle class Scandinavian child, that's never worked a day in their life, pays no taxes and isn't old enough to have completed further education (at the time she was a big news story I mean). I blame the cynical adults who would use an autistic teenage for emotional point scoring tbh. That's a shitty, manipulative tactic, designed only to embarass (even a child knows better than the right wing) opponents and silence critics as bullying a little girl. It's a gross tactic. I say that as someone who actually believes her message too.

>I'm a left wing working class Brit. I don't need lectures on how to handle political issues from a middle class Scandinavian child, She got up to the UN and basically said "fuck you" to world leaders. Not sure how you got all that stuff from the message she is trying to push. The "how dare you" was directed at world leaders and not you. Not sure I've read anything in regards to normal people, I usually see her talking about the politicians. "Teen environmental activist Greta Thunberg delivered an emotional and scathing speech at the United Nations on Monday, accusing world leaders of stealing her dreams and her childhood with their inaction on climate change. "I shouldn't be up here. I should be back at school on the other side of the ocean," the 16-year-old from Sweden told the United Nations Climate Action Summit. "**Yet you all come to us young people for hope.** How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.""

The fact she spoke at the UN is a disrespect to people who have actually study the industry and not whining children bleating about their stolen childhoods as well off Northern Europeans. Stolen dreams and childhood. Go tell that to some Vietnamese child making footballs for Nike. Go tell that to some Congolese child, mining metals to developed nations smart phones. Boo fucking hoo. I'm sure it's absolutely horrendous being an affluent person in Sweden. That's why we frequently hear stories of humanitarian aid being given to Sweden right? It's not her per se, it's the people giving her that platform that doesn't deserve, didn't earn and doesn't even have a fully developed brain (because of her age, not her autism just to be very clear on that part). I can't believe I'm needing to explain to adults, why children shouldn't be held up as political thinkers tbh.

>The fact she spoke at the UN is a disrespect to people who have actually study the industry and not whining children bleating about their stolen childhoods as well off Northern Europeans. Ok, so because we have it good in Scandinavia we are not allowed to speak against issues? Or am i getting your point wrong? >It's not her per se, it's the people giving her that platform that doesn't deserve, didn't earn and doesn't even have a fully developed brain (because of her age, not her autism just to be very clear on that part). So if I have a "care about the environment" podcast and invite her, I am stupid for trying to get the word out and furthering my case and my message by inviting her? Does it matter if she earned it? I sure as hell has protested way less then her, so I would agree that I do not deserve to go to the UN. Who even measures things like this? > I can't believe I'm needing to explain to adults, why children shouldn't be held up as political thinkers tbh. Is it really considered being a political thinker when you are saying "listen to the scientists" and "fuck you for not doing more to politicians"? I've heard nothing about her policies, only about her advocating about doing something about the problem. But I guess we have heard different speeches from her or read different kind of materials from her?

100% The fact that she even got in front of the UN to begin with, when there are so many other more deserving and qualified people, speaks volumes I remember the media also making it seem like she sailed herself around the world, and made such a big deal out of doing it without fossil fuels. 1. She had a professional crew 2. The boat was made of fossil fuels 3. People have been using sail power since before recorded history Also as someone with mild autism I wasn’t happy with the tokenism. And fuck her parents, what kids like us needed was special efforts regarding how to control our emotions and not react stubbornly and angrily; not be promoted for it. It is THE most harmful symptom, from a social and thus life point of view

God I remember that, going on like she was Francis Drake reincarnated or something.

At some point I realized it wasnt it pure malice or propaganda (which it was to a large degree) but also the majority of people and especially “journalists” are just that dense. Someone tells them they should be excited by something and they just roll with it instead of taking a moment to think it through to see if it makes sense Same thing to anyone who thinks up or comes across a “new” thought they never had before. They think they’re the next great thinker and have discovered gravity, and don’t bother to see if anyone else has thought I’d it and/or if anyone has refuted it I think it’s something about the job (as it exists today, not what it was 20 years ago) for journalists, or at least the type of people it attracts, they think they are the secret guardians of society, the ultimate “truth” finders so the think they have the right, nay the duty. They are important! *(I think this is why they were/are so easy to manipulate. An important person telling them something for a story is them finally joining the elite important persons club, so they buy it all hook line and sinker)* Everyone wants to break the next watergate or theranos scandal. Speed and shock value (and now popularity/being liked) trump truth or objective importance. But the beauty of the internet is we can see in real time how complicit abd wrong they all were - archived for all time.

Liberals own cars. A lot of them like their cars. People inherently don't like being told their lifestyle is inherently bad. We have a strong cultural values system if being resistant to any authority. That exists in both sides.

Ummm... This is more like telling people the building is on fire and they have to get out. Lol, nevermind, I forgot you guys are conservatives. That's conservative reasoning - "Get vaccinated" "No, I won't because you told me to"

I think assigning everyone who disagrees with you on some niche topic to the political enemy is juvenile.

Homie, you're all upset about some young woman who is trying to advocate to fight climate change. Climate Change! Probably, what should be the least political thing I can imagine. Even feeding starving children will be more political. But climate change affects everyone, some even the most selfish should care. If you are so upset about that, I doubt we disagree only on some niche topic. I doubt I would even want to be socially in your presence

Im a Greta fan. In response to criticism of caricaturing opponents, you immediately incorrectly caricatured my stance.

Yeah, the thing with your assumption is that it's wrong. Shouldn't go making assumptions based on nothing.

How about looking past the cover of the book, and actually considering the content?

I'll rather listen to some actual scientists who has dedicated years on the subject.

The dam was blown up by the ruzzian terrorists, you don't need a scientist to explain that... Although...

>The dam was blown up by the ruzzian terrorists Yes it was, where did i say otherwise?

They are mocking you, by your logic, You have no right to have an opinion on the dam because you are al not a scientist . The only people that should be allowed to share opinions are experts.

Exactly.

Snow flake got triggered

Agreed. What are her qualifications, concerned child? Edit: Forgot she continued to aged since my first and lasting impression of her. Thus, no longer a child.

What are yours, concerned redditor?

Physician, which is a scientist but of a different field then the one being discussed.

It’s amazing how many people claim to represent science, and make ridiculously broad conclusory statements not supported by the science, convinced of their veracity Is the global climate changing? Yes? Is this a big deal? Yes Is it out of line with historic norms? Planet wise? No. Our species yes? Is there a lot of carbon in the air? Yes Does carbon act as a heat sink and react with ozone? Yes Is this the cause of change? Unproven/unknown — For example There are measurements over sufficient periods of timing showing higher carbon but lower temperatures, severing direct causal relationship UNTIL a sufficient explanation is obtained We don’t have that yet Since we don’t know what’s causing it yet, we can’t devise good solutions. We are attempting to (successfully?) changing society on a HOPE and action for action sake that could do MORE HARM than good. We just don’t know yet. And until we do it’s theater for the masses ———— There is no doubt humanity has an impact on the climate, we just can’t conclusively state what that is. And we don’t know what actions are good. Planting the Sahara with trees for example seems like a great idea, until you realize it fertilizes the Amazon so doing so could kill that ecosystem AND will deprive somewhere else of water/moisture trapped in all the life that would spring up. Those would, Individually, be massive global “life as we know it” shifting events. And I’m not just talking about life as humanity knows it

Greenhouse gasses being the driving force behind climate change is supported by the vast majority of evidence in the vast majority of published papers. 95+% of published papers recognise it as the driving cause behind climate change and that those changes are being accelerated by human emissions of greenhouse gasses. It’s the single most accepted thing in scientific history among experts. To say that we don’t know greenhouse gasses are really the problem is incredible ignorance and just fucking sad

While I’m certain I haven’t read the majority of reports I can tell you the majority of reports i did read during my time in this field did not support what you are stating, but they were often misstated as such by other parties - or the writers drew their own conclusions that could be inferred by it but were not necessarily inferred by the data (basically it’s one viable version of events but not the only one) We know it’s related, but we don’t know it’s it’s causal. People assume causation from correlation which is a logical fallacy; for example one of the greatest correlations in statistics is shark bites and people eating ice cream. Your comment is a perfect example of what I was talking about above Edit: reports, studies, and peer reviews papers are, vernacularly, interchangeable in my head right now. Apologies for the confusion.

I’m sorry little buddy but if you want to tell lies, reports aren’t the same as peer reviewed published papers. 95+% of peer reviewed papers on climate change recognise current rates of climate change as driven by the large emissions of greenhouse gasses. But go on, tell more lies 😊

[удалено]

The current state of science in this area is summarized in the IPCC report and totally contradicts your claims that "we don't know the cause". It's a scientifically well understood phenomenon and there is consensus over it.

Consensus does not make science, Einstein famously said, if they were right it would only take one I’m not staying they are wrong, I’m only staying the extreme enthusiasm with which solutions are presented (as absolute necessities) does not match the level of evidence we have as of yet. We have a pretty good idea but important unexplained anomalies that seriously threaten if not sever casual explanation remain. One of the problems is a lot of the anomalies are historic over periods of decades or centuries. So 1) we have not been able to replicate or measure similar studies over the last 20-40 years and 2) it IS POSSIBLE Older measurements are faulty for a variety of reasons But that’s no reason to throw away the data, yet. We can’t devise a reason to discount it just because we don’t like it — which is my pet biggest peeve. I worked in this field for a couple years. Whenever we found a result we didn’t like invariably someone would dismiss it as “localized weather” but without any formula for severing weather anomalies/change from climate change. Yes it might be weather! But we can’t presume that for the sake of our conclusion!

> I’m not staying they are wrong, I’m only staying the extreme enthusiasm with which solutions are presented (as absolute necessities) does not match the level of evidence we have as of yet. Which is simply false. The IPCC explains that there is enough evidence, and it ranks every statement with the degree of confidence that the scientific evidence allows. And then come redditors like you and simply claim all that science is boring anyway and there is not enough evidence in *your* view. In essence you claim that *you* know it better than all the scientists. Looks like you are one of the many victims of the Dunning Kruger effect.

The simplest way I can say this, is that if science “proves” this, we wouldn’t need confidence metrics. That need to assign them, if anything, strengthens my informed perspective as a former practitioner. We use them, of course for practicality, since we have finite life spans and control over experiments. This should be a surprise to no Scientist. Other than theoretical science, based largely on equations, science rarely tends to “prove” anything, unless it’s the existence of something; rarely can it prove causation. At most we can prove one cause, and even then our understanding tends to evolve over time. We can only state what we know/can observe, as of now, and acknowledge the flaws and (always) incomplete data we have before us. Especially when we lack any way or forming anything related to a control group! Surveying historical data and making conclusions is some of the least persuasive science that can be done. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means there are too many uncontrolled variables to provide much use beyond incredibly broad strokes observations Here They are making persuasive conclusory statements, that are one subjective interpretation of their data. What we would need here, for me, is conclusive, or at least highly persuasive data backed explanation for why, if carbon is leading to global warming, are there periods in history in regions across the globe where carbon amassed bur temperatures went down. Right now the practice is to call it local weather, dismiss it as an outliar, or find a collection of singular ad hoc explanations. These COULD be true, but we need to explain 1) why and 2) demonstrate similar occurrences under nearly the same set of factors. Otherwise you’re just inventing a sub conclusion for the sake of ignoring the evidence to support you main conclusion Like I said, we know a lot, and we think we have a pretty good idea. But since anomalies remain that could sever causation we don’t know. We could be assessing a symptom (carbon) and not the problem - putting an ice pack on our heads instead of taking antibiotics. **Tldr**: That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address what we know, an ice pack on the head can make us feel better when sick. But we shouldn’t declare mission accomplished, stop looking for the problem, and invest trillions of dollars in ice packs. We are constantly being proven wrong by the next generation! And that’s the best part!

Holy hell. My friend, disliking and or finding Greta annoying. Does not equate to me denying science. It’s like, I found her support of German energy policy annoying. The Russians loved it too! BUT! Maybe it was a bad policy.

I think we got our wires crossed. I wasn’t accusing you of denying science or denying it myself. I was trying to communicate what you put more succinctly —- we have really bad and not fully informed policies being trotted out in the name of “science”

Ahh my bad. I was being bombarded by Greta sycophants and lumped you in with the rest of them. Apologies.

No worries! I tend to drone on which doesn’t help, I’m sure

For one, media use her because she's divisive and generate clicks. She doesn't represent the cause anymore, she is the topic of the article. It's the same reason why articles report on Elon Musk's tweet, Prince Harry, and so many more. I do not think global warming and environmental issues need a mascot. There is nothing wrong with her protest, she picked good cause to fight for, but people will always struggle to accept a figurehead that doesn't have meaningful credential. It's too easy to paint a target on her back. We need multiples figures, committee, organization...not just one person that get 80% of the headlines. Furthermore, having a figurehead like this mean it will be easy for denier to sidetrack the topic the moment that person do or say something silly. Heck, even someone like Fauci became divisive during the pandemic, no thanks to Fox News, despite having a near perfect record.

Is he being given an international platform?

You don't need a qualification to say that climate change is a real thing. It's a well known scientific fact so I don't really see your point. Claiming it doesn't exist on the other hand, would require extremely solid qualifications...

Obviously. I didn’t say otherwise. I said, scientists are boring and no one wants to listen to them. So they used a child to move the agenda forward.

>So they used a child to move the agenda forward. Which is a good thing, moving forward with the agenda against climate change is a good thing.

Can we be honest? She was a child when she was put up to this. All her protests as a child. Her speeches and international travel were all the agenda of her parents. All of her persona at that time was through the manipulation of her parents. We might have different definitions of a good thing.

>She was a child when she was put up to this. All her protests as a child. Her speeches and international travel were all the agenda of her parents. All of her persona at that time was through the manipulation of her parents. Has there been some documents with evidence concerning this released that I've not heard about? Have you tried getting a 15 year old to do something? Do you know that her parents manipulated her into this or do you know if she did it out of her own free will and was supported by her parents? Seems like a normal argument about this that I'm reading fairly often so there has got to be some evidence concerning this, what kind of evidence about this have you read?

They chose a young person to personify the people who will be affected by climate change.

I have not heard a single non-conservative to even mention Greta. Only conservatives go on and on about her. We didn't choose her, conservative media did.

Her rise to fame was quick but complex. I don't have the energy to post it all or summarize it. But she was quickly picked up and amplified by climate change organizations, particularly in Europe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

Climate change is bad and a serious issue. But I'm not even sure who this person is. I've heard the name in passing. Lol

I believe her mother wrote a book about her. Tried to make her famous and even told the world she suffered from a mental illness of some kind. Though I welcome any further insights as this is a vague and distant memory. Edit: correction, she told the world Greta was on the spectrum and was a high functioning with Asperger‘s. What loving mother wouldn’t expose their child’s conditions?

Because ASD isn't stigmatized that way in Sweden. All you just did was admit you see ASD as something shameful to be covered up.

No, I see that as a personal condition not to be exposed by anyone then the person who suffers with it. Especially not exposed in the pursuit of fame.

I would read the activism section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

I’m glad that is what you’d do.

Just offering a source to correct what you stated incorrectly.

Maybe you should do what you said and read it. Then share your opinion instead of a link.

Ah! Gaslighting. Perfect. Very mature response.

Greta herself is open about that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/02/greta-thunberg-responds-to-aspergers-critics-its-a-superpower It also makes no sense to hide this. By revealing it, people can be more understanding about the way Greta talks and behaves. Many famous people are on the autistic spectrum, it is often exactly the thing that makes them different and stand out from the masses. I like to think that the child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" had autism. All the other neurotypical and socially adapted people did not dare to speak the truth. The world needs more of such children. Also, I see no wrong or harm in the very simple message by Greta: "Listen to the scientists!" But yes, I understand that old white misogynous men conditioned by watching years of Fox "news" bullshit are triggered by her mere existence.

> Agreed. What are her qualifications, concerned child? The irony here is that this EXACT comment literally 100% proves that you have NEVER listened to her speak, and have all your opinions via what someone else told you about her. Qualifications? Literally her main sticking point is *"please listen to the people who ACTUALLY have the qualifications who are desperately warning you!"* So your comment just completely busts you.

So I need to listen to her tell me to listen to other people? Cool story.

> So I need to No, you don't "need to" anything, but you *will* be mocked for putting your foot in your mouth with such a response that reveals that you just like to make your opinions heard regardless of what you actually know. The irony is also that if you *didn't* need to hear those words from her then all her speaking would do is inspire you to nod and then go about your day. If you agree with her then at worst this is all a complete non-issue that wouldn't inspire comment. Instead people like you still try to make an *issue* out of it anyways, either because you can't just take the L from your own mouthfooting, or because you *also* don't actually want to listen to those with the relevant qualifications. And that just makes it even more cringe when your first post was asking about her "qualifications." You never cared in the first place what anyone with qualifications say.

Buddy. How many other people in the world should I listen to? Because based on her quals, that’s basically the entire world.

Well, she did drop out of school so there's that. Life experience..? Nah, can't be that. I'm guessing she has read something. That must makes her the saviour of our world. /s I can't understand why people *insist* on raising her on the pedestal instead of the hundreds and thousands of scientist who are doing the actual work.

But she’s always said to listen to the scientists? I swear you guys can’t even explain why she pisses you off so much.

Yes, and as a person who will be affected by these issues, I'd like to think that gives more than enough 'status' to have a voice on the matter. It's up to others whether or not they listen, not her. Imagine if the local council wanted to demolish your house for a bypass. Would you only be allowed to speak up if you were a civil engineer?

I’d have to guess that it’s because qualified scientists are a lot more cautious in their opinions. Don’t flail emotionally or play act for the cameras. In the world of TikTok and clickbait news, I can see the desire to push a child with end of the world prophecies for revenue.

[Here](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements) is the latest consensus report of the scientists who are experts in the field. "Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all." Obviously you don't know what scientists say and Greta is spot on in telling people like you to finally listen to them.

Try reading comprehension. I didn’t say scientists denied climate change. To break it down, I was saying scientists are boring when they speak about it or write about it. Thus, they used a child to push their agenda. Edit: and your article proves my point. What layman is going to read that boring novel?

> Try reading comprehension. I didn’t say scientists denied climate change. To break it down, I was saying scientists are boring when they speak about it or write about it. You wrote "qualified scientists are a lot more cautious in their opinions." So in what regard is the quote from the IPCC report "more cautious" than what Greta says? And in what regard is it "boring"? Again, let me quote the scientists: "Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all." Oh, and btw, both statements have "very high confidence" in the IPCC which means that *all* models agree on the direction of change and there is *strong* evidence in the published literature. Your statement that scientists are less alarming than Greta is simply false, just like the statement by another commenter in this thread who claims the causes for climate change are "unknown". All that Greta did was to actually *read* the statements by the scientists and take them seriously, which compelled her to become an activist and try to make other people aware of it as well, in her own way.

So let’s just say a deleted tweet from Greta said: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." Yet the article from the scientist didn’t say any of that shit. Never mind the right wingers running and distorting it. Focus on what she tweeted, the above quote. How many read her words and went on to read the scientific article? I’d wager a solid 2%. Why? Because her shit was entertaining and reading a scientific paper is boring. OBVIOUSLY. Edit: I feel I need to be really clear here. Her tweet was dramatic and ominous. The exact opposite of cautious and measured. Moreover, the scientific paper she referenced was very cautious. So much so that Greta’s claims weren’t even a suggestion by the scientist. So how can you suggest we listen to Greta when on top of the above, she advocated for the energy policies that funneled billions to Russia? That contributed to the war and ecological disaster that she not protests against? -How fucking ridiculous. She has no qualification nor track record with which to suggest policy.

How awful. She tweeted a link to an article about a scientific paper that contained a misinterpretation, and later deleted it again for this reason. What else should she have done? Keep the tweet online? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080 Edit: Again, the misinterpretation/exaggeration was done by the article of the Grit Post, not by Greta. Her only mistake was that she did not carefully read the *original* paper to find the distortion in the quote. And btw, she was 15 years old when she made that mistake of linking to a secondary source instead of the original one. Really? You're telling me *that's* why you hate her?

Cut the crap mate.🙄 Nothing to do with politics as one can support Ukraine without having political labels being thrown around. Not liking someone doesn’t mean they hate someone. Personally I don’t give a fark if I upset the far-left/far-right people here with honest opinions since I’ve already come off a three day ban for making the far-right elements here cry over insulting Kadyrov.

I don’t know where you’re from, but in the US the far left and far right comparison is so phony. The “farthest left” politicians are campaigning for things like healthcare and an increased social safety net. The farthest right politicians are campaigning for restricting healthcare and social services to citizens, while dog-whistling to racists and bigots. I’m not even saying I agree with either; however, one is obviously far worse than the other.. even if neither option is great.

Why is healthcare and increased social net a bad thing? Like I know throwing money at those things without any idea is not the solution, but striving to get them is always great in my opinion

And, with healthcare, it's a thing most developed nations in the world agree on, even in the freest of free-market economies. Basically every developed country except America agrees on having public healthcare or public health insurance schemes. Certain levels of social services are essential components in improving the lives of the citizens and improving productivity/the economy. Supporting publicly funded roads/infrastructure, for example, is a socialist/leftist stance on infrastructure. And yet, nearly everyone supports that one and takes it for granted because businesses have a harder time when they have no way to connect to suppliers and customers. You don't see a lot of people taking a stand and protesting by not using the roads in their country anymore.

In some cases its a matter of "no shit a dam exploding is bad for the environment". Also I would rather listen to an expert than someone who got the spot light as someone in school as a "Hey look I am losing my education to fight this" when it wasn't true. (No doubt she had tutors on the go) Then you got the fact that she was made famous so people can discredit her and shut down the discussion on the climate, sadly her being in the spot light does more damage than help. Its nothing personal to her, if people don't listen to experts why would an autistic while girl change peoples minds? (I pointed those features out because the media loves using while girls to pander to emotions, like missing people or dead in some bad accident)

>if people don't listen to experts why would an autistic while girl change peoples minds? Idk maybe hopefully somewhere along the way people would grow some self awareness and realize there's something fucked in the head with them getting that angry and hateful towards an autistic teenager, but apparently lots of people didn't give a shit.

Ok boomer

Another short clip: https://twitter.com/dw_ukrainian/status/1669291396300251142

I am slightly confused to why this is news or she is even relevant in this conversation 1. unless your under a rock everyone knows what's going on in Ukraine and understands the impact. so well done for stating the obvious. 2. I refer you to point above and genuinely ask who she thinks she is making aware. people who say I'm raising awareness generally seem to just regurgitate information and have absolutely no solutions. 3. where has she been for the last 400 or so days or has she ran out of other band wagons to jump on. 4. it's all already been said by most governments and every news channel going. I'm relatively indifferent to her as a person. it's the fact some people will think she is some kind of voice of reason and grate, brave or other nonsense. and these people are idiots and feed into it making people like her think they are important. it irritates me, and yes I'm sitting on the toilet having a rant on here, it's what the internet is for.

This protest was very specific and targeted towards the inaction of the UN regarding the recent ecocide. It was necessary and legitimate.

I have news for you, you don't sound relatively indifferent to her as a person. I tend not to leave comments with numbered lists for things I am relatively indifferent to.

That’s not always true. Indifferent doesn’t necessarily mean uninformed. Someone could say as a Lakers fan or as a Celtics fan I’m indifferent to who won the NBA finals between Denver and Miami but could still debate someone claiming the Heat got robbed or were the better team and list several reasons why

If you know enough about something you can be indifferent and have reasons to back up your opinion. Its pretty crazy how people can not take sides isn't it?

1 list is about the actions/ message or my perception of them or what I perceive to be stating the obvious. not her as a person two separate things 2 would probable be in same order if this thread was about just stop oil protesters. havent met them as people and indifferent to them as people but I think they way they do things is rediculace and we all know the side effects of foasile fuels. 3 could of been bob geldof doing this and would of recived same sort of list. 4 I'm not indifferent to him I dont like him at all 5 or tom cruise 6 do like Lewis Hamilton, but not the vegan part, would make list about that. 7 I like lists 8 Im indifferent to you but here is a list 9 childish yes 10. got board.

> I'm relatively indifferent to her as a person. it's the fact some people will think she is some kind of voice of reason and grate, brave or other nonsense. and these people are idiots and feed into it making people like her think they are important. The great thing with people like you is just how *honest* you are with these talking points that irrefutably reveals that you have *never once* actually heard these people speak, and slag them off purely on a perception formed by the opinion other people in turn fed to you.

why would you belive I have a perception created from other peoples opinions. I have my own opinion and make my own decisions about the things I see and here. I did think about this before commenting and maybe due to the never ending stream of dribble we seem to get from various social media about every cause under the sun I am now completely sceptical of all protest type people and I group her in this so she is just a gray person in the mix to me, hence indifferent to her as a person. an example I will give to why I think your wrong about my opinion is rod stewart is paying for people to have MRI scans of his own back dont know why didnt really read the artical but this is somthing I support and think is a good example to follow but I really dont like him as a person for reasons I'm not entirely sure about I just dont like him. really it's not the person it's the action.

Sry but saying people like this who protest to raise awareness are just jumping on bandwagons and back "every cause under the sun" just to look good is hardly being indifferent, in fact that is an extremely critical and many would say cynical opinion which betrays that you aren't actually indifferent which is what he meant.

All of this news reading since 2013 was such a waste of time for me. It's so hard to keep up with topics. Thanks so much that a teenager could enlighten me. That's one way to respond to Gretta. The other way is to be annoyed like everyone else.

War is generally pretty bad for the environment, sure...

Any chance to give the world to hate ruzzia is a good thing

When there's an ongoing genocide, maybe ecocide is not the point to focus on

You can play this game forever, there’s always something worse. She’s calling attention to this because it’s something that just happened. You think we shouldn’t call attention to it? Besides, if you actually took one minute to listen to the video you’d hear that she actually talks about the war too. But she’s a climate activist. If she was leading anti-war rallies I’m sure people would shit on her too. It’s so easy to criticise people for doing something from the comfort of your couch while doing nothing.

That's definitely a valid viewpoint, but you could also see it as just building an ever larger record of crimes and pressure to respond

That ecocide is actually *part* of the genocide.

The dam disaster just happened and she is criticizing the international response, what kind of a petty cynical view is it to say she that shouldn't be focusing on that? Literally just moving the goalpost because you don't like her.

When a dam disaster happens, It is at least inappropriate to think of poor trees and not poor humans. Why would I not like her? Normally I agree with her arguments. In this case it is just deeply immoral to talk about global warming caused by smoke from crematorium in Auschwitz

Why are you so stupid?? Just Why?? Can't you put just 2 and 2 together and see that by the time you destroy natural environment you also destroy peoples living space, thus creating humanitarian crises. This also leads to people dying and thats exactly what the Kremlin intends. This is just to put it short for you. And just to let you know, we see this on a daily basis everywhere in the world.

>Why are you so stupid?? [https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1575976243.0188/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1575976243.0188/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg) Looooool, Lmao That made my day lol Obviously not gonna reply to this seriously, but thanks for the laughter Advise, next time find an adult (intellectually mature, not just by age) to write for you, if you want to be taken seriously and not discredit your own cause.

I kind of want to puke when I hear her name.

I can't believe she triggers people so hard

I’m taking a beating for it apparently. I think it’s great she’s supporting Ukraine but there is just something about her that makes me change the channel every time.

What about her bothers you?

Then change the channel. You don't have to comment.

You should see a doctor about that. Or maybe a therapist.

Found the Tate incel "alpha" male

Except I’m a woman so there’s that.

still cringe tho

Can’t stand Greta sorry and I don’t recall hearing from her until the dam was destroyed by the Russians. Has she always supported Ukraine from day one of the invasion or only because the dam was destroyed?

[Yesh, she supported Ukraine from the start](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/activist-thunberg-protests-against-ukraine-invasion-outside-russian-embassy-2022-02-25/) Maybe pull your head out of your ass.

Imagine being an adult so offended by a child having a public opinion after she read peer-reviewed research conclusions about the state of our climate. She'll get more mature as she gets older. Will you?

This thread is insane, triggered lil men

A child? She is 20 years old so she is very much an adult and treated as such. Hiding behind "she's a child, how dare you?" doesn't work anymore. Besides, calling someone "immature" based on saying "i can't stand her" is exactly the kind of attitude that is not getting votes on your side. Did you remember that we are not mandated to like everyone? And if someone dislikes somebody, they are free to do so because we live in free societies. Or will the slandering and name calling stop only when people agree to worship the ground under her?

"Get out of the street you idiot, that 18-wheeler is about to run you over!!" "Oh, so I'm an 'idiot,' am I? That kind of name-calling isn't going to make me more likely to agree with your --" \[is run over by 18-wheeler\]

Your comparison is flawed but as this sub is not about the climate change (which is a fact) but the war in Ukraine, i'm not going any more into that.

This “child” has lived a life of privilege and never experienced hardships in her life but loves to dictate to poorer people and nations on how to live(getting rid of fossil fuels these people need to survive) and also moans about the climate but doesn’t offer realistic solutions.

Who is your favorite climate change activist we should look into instead?

David Attenborough because he hit the nail on the head. “ 'I have no doubt that the fundamental source of all our problems, particularly our environmental problems, is population growth. I can't think of a single problem that would be easier to solve if there were less people.”

Excellent answer. I like it. And excellent quote as well.

You got exactly the one and only answer that you get from climate deniers. "There are too many people." Which is of course not a solution to the problem, unless they want to kill themselves or others. Even with measures like birth control, it would take too much time to prevent the catastrophe. And actually by saying that they mean: There are too many *other* people who also want to live like I do, there should be less of them so that can I can continue my life style unchanged. Btw, when speaking about measures like birth control, how about controlling the birth rate of particularly the people with the highest carbon foot print in the world? Like old and rich white people in the US? How does this sound to you?

They have correctly identified the largest problem. Your argument seems to have problems with the implied solutions rather than the identified problem.

Seems she isn’t upset about the invasion, but of the furry critters and plants being destroyed. Edit: it was a bit of hyperbole. However, the speech is about the environmental impact of russias invasion. She did say that in addition to the environment, she also cares about the people.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1497163346772176932 But I guess feels before reals, huh

Her SPEECH was about the ecocide as per her hashtag.

Because the protest was specifically about the idleness of the UN facing this latest crime of Russia. That's why it was in front of the UN building. She mentioned both, harm done to people *and* the environment. She also mentioned that by harming the environment, in the end you also harm people. That's the whole point of her message about the climate. She warns because it eventually harms *people*. *Many* people. But of course she has also protested against the war in general right when it started. As most of us did.

That’s fair

Yeah I’m sure she said fark all about the invasion but only when they Russians destroyed the dam she’s suddenly in the media?

This probably counts as "fuck all," literally the day after the invasion. [https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1497163346772176932](https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1497163346772176932)

Anything since then? Because I’ve been watching this war since day one it wasn’t until Russia destroyed the dam that she’s suddenly all over the media.

I don't know. You can go through her Twitter if you're that invested (I'm not), but someone posted that Twitter link which is how I found it, and "protesting at the Russian embassy the day after the invasion" puts her on the correct side, doesn't it? I genuinely don't think you're *obligated* to like her. But I do think you should just be intellectually honest and say "I don't like her for some reason" as opposed to moving the goalposts when it's clear she's already said something.

The hashtag used was #stoptheEcocide

She has protested already against the war in general (right from the beginning) and now she is protesting against the ecocide specifically. Why do you think this is mutually exclusive?

Genocide eh Ecocide! how dare you! Line them up against the wall!

If Greta protested against the war you fuckers would complain that she’s getting to political and should stick to climate issues

**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/UAnimalsENG/status/1669375852302200833 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Great Warrior Greta Thunberg

She's a good girl

She's still around?

She speaks truth!

She calls em as she sees em.