Greta Thunberg

Put it this way, I no longer trust everything I read in the Guardian or on the BBC.

Me neither! But I have somewhat more confidence in the predictions of NASA.

I know that. I have also learnt that there is far more disagreement among scientists than I had realised on the causes of it. And yes I guess it's possible that those questioning the accepted narrative are either wrong or have questionable motives but I am trying to figure it out for myself. Put it this way, I no longer trust everything I read in the Guardian or on the BBC. Guess why.

Right now I'm more interested in what scientists say than I am in Monbiot or Klein.

Scientists have been warning about this problem for more than 40 years. See the skepticalscience link above. Or reports by the IPCC, NASA, WHO, ExxonMobil, etc.

Right now I'm more interested in what scientists say than I am in Monbiot or Klein.

Greta herself has stressed "listen to the scientists" and is teaming up with older activists like George Monbiot and Naomi Klein. I think the link at the end of Megan Murphy's article says a lot: skepticalscience.com/greta-reminder-decades-climate-failures.html

It should be noted that climate change is about as controversial in scientific circles as the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. There may be disagreement about exactly how bad it will be and what can be done about it, but the fact that the earth is warming and that the main cause is fossil fuels is not scientifically controversial in the least.

That doesn't mean we can't talk about the balance between economic growth (which does after all pull people out of dire poverty) and environmental protection. Or that we must assume that the most catastrophic predictions are the most accurate. Or that we can't worry about the implications of positioning a vulnerable teenage girl as some kind of Messiah.

Either 99% of the world's scientists are wrong or Greta's statements are pretty moderate and her actions entirely appropriate.

It’s incredible how this statistic has been manipulated. I urge you to spend 20 minutes looking at the origins of this data and the methodology of the study. The original study by John Cook looked at abstracts of papers published by climate scientists (77 of them, I believe) and found that 97% of these abstracts mentioned climate change related to human activity. That’s it. Cook’s study did not look at any quantifiable evidence (data indicating the extent to which the researcher attributed climate change to human activity - 1%? 50%?) or even whether the researcher considered this it be positive or negative in terms of impact on the planet (eg more CO2 = more plant growth and a greener planet). A number of the researchers whose work he looked at spoke up against their research being used in this way because they were very concerned that it wasn’t an accurate or fair portrayal of the work they were doing.

And yet somehow this study has formed the basis for grown ups actually believing that “99% of the world’s scientists agree” (so now it’s all scientists from every discipline right across the world?) - agree what, exactly? That entire ecosystems are collapsing? That in 2030 our civilisation will screech to a halt? That we’re all dooooomed?

This is not the language of science and it’s not the way research should work. This is the language of a people who have lost any sense of reason and nuance. And my concern is that this makes people vulnerable to anyone or any movement that comes along offering a “solution”.

It’s also not the way we should be behaving as adults in this situation. I’m very encouraged by the Meghan Murphy article because part of my issue with Greta Thunberg is the way in which adults seem to be acting around her - encouraging her behaviour, applauding her for it, and seemingly not countering it with the wisdom and understanding that comes with experience. That’s not good for her and it’s not good for the rest of us. Our job is to use our perspective and experience to calm our children down - which means, in part, finding alternative ways to view the situation. To not take stories like “99% of scientists” at face value. People do not make sensible decisions when they are panicking. They go into flight, fright or freeze mode, and that doesn’t bode well for the longer term.

And besides, despite all the XR marches and Greta speeches and people gluing themselves to roads, my local Primark is as packed as ever with 16 year olds buying themselves crap. Our university campus is still full of students queuing for coffee in disposable cups. Families still seem to be buying package holidays in their thousands. Whatever we think of Greta, in the broader population something really doesn’t appear to be hitting home with this message. I suspect that some of the hysteria makes some people just shrug, roll their eyes an carry on as normal.

When I was 16, one of my heroes, along with Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, was Vance Packard, whose books I devoured. He was reall one of the first to speak out about the ills of over-consumption, and he did it brilliantly in the book The Waste Makers:
www.amazon.com/Waste-Makers-Vance-Packard/dp/1935439375?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

The Waste Makers was the first book to probe the increasing commercialization of American life—the development of consumption for consumption's sake. Packard outlines the ways manufacturers and advertisers persuade consumers to buy things they don't need and didn't know they wanted, including the two-of-a-kind of everything syndrome—"two refrigerators in every home"—and appeals to purchase something because it is more expensive, or because it is painted in a new color. The book also brought attention to the concept of planned obsolescence, in which a "death date" is built into products so that they wear out quickly and need to be replaced. By manipulating the public into mindless consumerism, Packard believed that business was making us "more wasteful, imprudent, and carefree in our consuming habits," which was using up our natural resources at an alarming rate.

Anothet brilliant book by him was The Hidden Persuaders, about the power of the advertising and marketing industries to influence our behaviour.

Again: I was 16 at the time. And I read and agreed with these books out of my own reasoning, not because of the threat of a climate catastrophe. You could even say my innet conviction was more genuine, as it did not come from fear but from simple common sense, not because I thought my life was being ruined.

She is a very talented and charismatic young woman but I do worry what will happen when the media move on. I have never felt that about Malala who comes across as much more resilient and also having a very sophisticated understanding of how to create change.

This, a thousand times.
The Meghan Murphy article summarises my doubts about Greta absolutely, especially when she moves on to the trans debate and says this:

We live in a world that tells young people anything they feel or believe must be validated. That all opinions are made equal, and that, therefore, their 16-year-old opinions have as much value and worth as those of a person who has been on the planet for three times as long. I’ve had the incredibly pleasant experience of being screamed at by teenagers who insist my fight for women’s rights is wrong and old-fashioned, because they have learned all they know from their peers, and believe there is nothing to be learned from older generations of women. Young people are not taught the history of the women’s movement, yet denigrate first and second wave feminists with aplomb. A culture that lacks respect for its elders is a toxic culture.

It's absolutely this. Of course we all want a cleaner world for our children. Of course we want a healthy planet. But many of us have been silently living such a life for decades, trying to make an individual effort to that end, before these kids came along with their "how dare you!" attitude (Yes, I know that was addressed at world leaders and not at you, older woman, and me).
How many of these kids will actually walk the walk when they go home? I know that while I was very strict with myself when I first became aware of the ecological impact I make as an individual, invariably, one lapses over the years: but I did and do try and always have done. Not wasting water, not throwing out food that is still good, avoiding car travel when I could walk or cycle etc.

If these kids had given up their leisure time to go and plant trees, instead of skipping school, I'd have been more impressed. A demo where you can be angry with adults is fun. Cleaning up your own life, especially when nobody sees it, not so much. Some of us have been doing it for years, decades.

And I don't want to generalise, or judge unfairly, but self-discipline, which we older ones learnt along with our mother's milk, is not a characteristic the younger generation is noted for. It's more "you can have whatever you want", an attitude hard to overcome without, well, self-discipline.

There's a hint of arrogance in the whole thing which I don't take kindly to. And of course she is being manipulated, and of course she cannot recognise it. She's a kid.

MM's article is very good.

I can’t help but see progressives’ fetishization of youth and ‘youth activism’ as self-serving. It not only elicits an emotional reaction from people, rather than a rational one, but it is used by adults as a means to virtue signal. Children are viewed as inherently moral and good, and therefore those who ‘listen to children’ and ‘support our youth’ are also positioned as inherently moral and good.

This strikes a chord with me. I feel as if this movement is trying to manipulate. I am also struck by her thoughts on the denigration of older women. I studied climatology and computer modelling of environmental systems as part of my degree a decade before Thunberg was born. I have spent decades considering methods of countering environmental degradation while also lifting people in the developing world out of poverty.

I mostly want to shout 'stop teaching your grandmother to suck eggs' at 'Extinction Rebellion'.

Well, that MM piece said much of what I have been thinking and trying to articulate!

And CC in general is something I am very much on the fence over.

Humans wrecking the planet? Yes, we are, bloody obviously so on many areas! We need to do a lot more to reduce the harm we do.

But irreversible, end of times?

Thanks for linking the Meghan Murphy piece. It articulates a lot of my unease, especially this:
If we are not permitted to think or speak critically about a leader, they cannot be a leader. We cannot have leaders that we are not allowed to hold to account.

And having tried to follow some of the science and the history behind climate change, I have to say it's shifted me towards Yeah's position. I'm surprised to find myself here but I'm beginning to wonder why any scientist who questions how much of climate change is CO2 (as opposed to an inevitable cycle) is denounced as a 'denier'. At best it's lazy thinking and at worst it's .... well I've not decided yet.

I don’t think she’s a figurehead of a doomed cause I just think she gets some pretty crucial things wrong! Although what 16 year old doesn’t? She’s an effective tool though for her side as any dissent can be safely re-framed as bullying a child.

I love her, too. And I think she's the judge of whether she's too young for the fame. She handles it with extraordinary grace, at least so far.

As for those objecting that she's a figurehead for a doomed cause, you know what? You don't actually know that. (Unless, of course, you really are clairvoyant.) Progress is only achieved by the actions of people who didn't know they were attempting the impossible.

I say Good for her! Long may she continue to inspire us with her blunt truth and megawatt glare at obstructionists!

Yup it was good stumbled in

My views are not so catastrophic as others with CC.

Yes the climate is changing. Always has, always will. But I'm more sceptical about the degree in is man made. For sure, we have to get our act together over pollution. But a lot of scientists do disagree it is catastrophic and close, they are just shut down or don't get search engine time (see thread Google These Words).

It's the hysteria that bugs me, and as Murphy said it is played out almost exactly like the trans narrative.

This is interesting. A comment piece from Meghan Murphy on the Greta Thunberg media storm.

Meghan Murphy

Greta's statements are pretty moderate

Nobody's saying they aren't. Or that she isn't a great kid who's committed to a worthy cause.

People are questioning why she is being used as a mascot by the Third Sector Industrial Complex and the Richard Branson School of Money To Be Made in Environmentalism.

We're questioning it in the same way we question the actual value of other corporate charities such as Oxfam.

Establishment support is a red flag for anything that purports to be challenging the status quo.

I picked up somewhere, and believe it's true, that men get to be known for what they do and women get to be known for what men do to them.

We know the name Malala Yousafzai because of the man who shot her in the head. I am glad to know the name Greta Thunberg for what she has chosen to do and not as a reaction to a terrible thing a man did to her, although men's backlash against her seems to be looking larger in the public eye these past few days.

I don't agree.

She isn't re-enacting the angry teenager.

Either 99% of the world's scientists are wrong or Greta's statements are pretty moderate and her actions entirely appropriate. I think her campaigns are great.

somebrightmorning

Yes - but no.

Accepting in the most positive way that she is in contact with people who campaign or are in PR, a long time ago they should have stopped and said, we dont want this to be Greta Thunberg show. How do we make this a campaign that challenges the status quo.

But endlessly lining up stunts (sailing across the Atlantic) meeting high profile leaders always in lonely heroine mode, just feeds into the medias obsession with making every thing an episode of celebrity high lights. Our own politics is just little more than tittle tattle about who's got the most click bait potnetial.

I'm not saying its easy given the vested interests, but as it is she is just playing into the hands of those who set the media agenda.

She could spend the rest of her life endlessly re-enacting the angry teenager but if it is only ever a performance that those it should be touching are just consuming as an event, or even using to promote themselves as somehow sympathetic, then you need to stand back and re think tactics.

But that's Greta's bloody point! That's what she's saying.

The only people who want to foreground this as being a story about her are the people who want to do nothing about climate change.

Until I read this thread, I saw Greta as unproblematically a good thing, fighting against governments who were not doing enough. Now I think why are we being presented with Greta when the UN etc should be doing more about the Preseident of Brazil and his attitude to Amazon deforestation etc?

Precisely.

stumbledin

I can't claim to be an authority on the matter but have spent some time in Scandinavia, mostly Norway as my aunt lived there, over the years and to me Scadinavian teenagers look pretty much the same as UK ones.

With Greta Thunberg I think there are two issues. One is her actual physical body. To be blunt she looks prepubescent to me. If I didn't know she was 16 I'd guess 10. Obviously people vary and she may simply be a late developer but talk of eating disorders makes me suspect her puberty has been delayed due to malnutrition.

That is not really relevant or anyone else's business though. What I find more troubling is the styling, both the pigtails which I associate with younger girls, not teenagers, but also images like the ones you posted from Time. The dress seems too large for her. She's wearing scruffy trainers with it which don't go and which remind me of children playing dress up. That's the 'presentation as a younger child' vibe I'm uncomfortable with.

That's an interesting point.

Has in fact her normal image been about making her look younger than she is? Sorry not meaning to say it has all been about manipulation.

Not sure what the average 16 year old scandinavian looks like.

Also, my comments may have been a bit influenced by a news reports that some of the really ancient white men of the French Academy complaining she isn't sexy enough. Yuk.

Quote: “In my generation, boys would run after les petites Anglaises or les petites Suédoises: they had a reputation for being less stuck-up than French girls,” said Pivot. “But I can imagine adolescent me being scared stiff of Greta Thunberg.” He called her the “furious Swede”.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/left-bank-french-intellectuals-grumble-at-greta-thunberg-not-sexy-enough-6wwj5vjjs

I dont know which is worse being unknowingly manipulated by the very partial way news is reported, or being constantly disbelieving of any news story as I assume there is distortion and manipulation in the way it is being (partially) reported.

I am uncomfortable with the image portrayed in those photos too but greateful to have seen them and your accompanying posts stumbledin

Arnold is right that she looks much younger than heer years, even allowing for the fact she would not want to wear lots of make up etc.

Until I read this thread, I saw Greta as unproblematically a good thing, fighting against governments who were not doing enough. Now I think why are we being presented with Greta when the UN etc should be doing more about the Preseident of Brazil and his attitude to Amazon deforestation etc?

She is a very talented and charismatic young woman but I do worry what will happen when the media move on. I have never felt that about Malala who comes across as much more resilient and also having a very sophisticated understanding of how to create change.

I am not trying to compare one against the other in a negative way. I just worry that the media does reinforce the 'tall poppy syndrome'. I hope Greta and her family are prepared for this.

Does anyone else find the way Time magazine have done a photoshoot of Greta Thunberg as it to say underneath that campaigning image is just another young girl yearning to be soft and sexy?

That’s not my idea of soft and sexy. It’s just weird.