Why do old white men hate Greta Thunberg so much?

[MotherOfDragonite]

My 65 year old uncle and friends of a similar age (and also white, though not necessarily all British -- others are American, German and Australian) seem to talk about her an awful lot with great vitriol and hatred.

They seem to have shared views about climate change, but I still can't understand why they hate Greta so much. Not only do they comment on her, but they post unpleasant memes about her. While I understand that they fundamentally disagree with the concept of climate change, I don't really understand why a 16 year old girl with Aspergers, who does not live in the UK and who clearly has good intentions even if they disagree with them, is the focus of so much of their ire.

What is it about Greta that older men find so very "triggering"?

And from recent reports Greta didn't want to engage Donald trump's as he's ignorant

But Trump is the leader of a country that needs to do more in regards to climate change. Dismissing him comes across as not wanting to change minds through sitting down and talking rather than the hectoring and shouting that seems the only form of communication

As I write the Daily Telegraph has a piece about Greta Thunberg where the reader comments seems to be flying in unmoderated, all seemingly from denier men in their later years. Perhaps they are being directed there from another site where they congregate to express and promote their own world view?

Environmental scientists can be right or wrong in all sorts of ways, and a consensus will emerge one way or the other probably quite soon. What informs my view is evidence from my own life and I'm in no doubt the climate is changing. Now this may be in part from a natural cycle but I think it odd to imagine that human activity is not playing a large part too.

Mochamacro, the Telegraph has its own resident collection of dinosaurs, so it certainly doesn’t need to borrow any from another site. It really is incredible how out of touch most of them are.

I thought that the vast majority of environmental scientists had reached a consensus - that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is a real threat to our future.

Cattenberg a consensus that there is climate change, sure, I was thinking more about human cause, intervention and funding by vested interests which I should have made more clear. Thank you.

Incidentally, many dinosaurs became extinct as a result of asteroid strike to the earth. Not to catastrophise unduly, but....

I know this is anecdotal but there are scientists saying that they can't get funding to research/publish because they are not towing the official line with regard to climate change.

So any consensus could be misleading

Anecdote is not the plural of data.

Actually anecdote isn’t the singular of data.

malylis

Apart from your obvious mistake.

Yes, that is why I put anecdote in there because I have no proof that its true. just what I heard.

But being the advocate of objective proof that you are, you would know this.

In fact just checked, the original quote is "the plural of anecdote is data" so both wrong.

" Its what I heard" got any links of scientists saying this? In significant enough numbers to challenge the current majority? Otherwise its likely to be another of those conspiracy theories that abound on the net and are then repeated as others as fact in order to dismiss actual evidence.

malylis

When you start providing links then so will I.

But that you have actually fact checked something is an improvement.

But you don't seem to understand anecdote.

Of course I understand anecdote, I actually just used the phrase you used yourself earlier back at you for fun.

I'd be surprised if it was true, climate change deniers are a like anti vaxers amd flat earthers they grab anything they think might prove it and cling to it hard. If there was any evidence of this it would be everywhere.

The one I see repeatedly as a member of the scientific community who has published work against the majority opinion is a retired professor who doesn't submit her work for peer review.

Why use climate change deniers?

The scientists that I know do not deny climate change they want more research in to the impact that man is having on it.

The vast majority of the scientific community agree man is having a major effect on the climate. Overwhelmingly (in fact almost universally) those who have researched this issue come out with the same conclusion.

I believe in climate change and I also believe the Sun has a lot to do with our climate as well.

The only issue I have with Greta is she comes from a VERY privileged background so has never really experienced what actual hardships the average person and child has had to go through so in a sense her privilege brings her benefits and opinions which may not sir well with others.

At the end of the day she goes home to a lovely warm house with most probably organic food in a lovely "carbon neutral green" house.

She isn't going home to a mouldy cold house where they can't afford to put the heating on or eating noodles from a food bank.

To me, it's like being a broke worn out farm worker being told to eat a nice green carbon neutral cake by Marie Antoinette when I can't afford a nice green carbon neutral cake. Or Bono/ Bob Geldof telling me to give my last pennies to the poor and making me feel bad because I can't afford to because I am one of the poor who just happens to have a couple more pennies than the person next to me.

If "being green" could earn us money then the poor would be rolling in it. They can't afford heating, get their clothes from charity shops and buy the cheapest food they can. No holidays and many can't afford a car.

No doubt her family live in a green friendly carbon neutral house and use a composting toilet but I doubt she is pooing in a bucket she got for a fiver from a local hardwear store with some pipe insulation for a seat. (yes I watch a lot of tiny house builds on youtube!)

I bet they have a Natures Head loo, yours for about £1,000.

I dream of going off grid and living the green life but I need a lot of money.... even building a "green" house can cost hundreds of thousands, even going into the millions!!!

Unless you are Kermit, being green costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Luckily her parents have that. She is a very lucky bunny for that.

Yes she has Aspergers but so do millions of others (my partner for one) and millions are not rich enough for one parent to stop work to home school and not rich enough to be able to give up their work because their child is distressed that the air miles used for their job may be killing the planet.

I went selective mute at secondary school when I was 12 but I struggled through it. I had no other choice in the matter as we were poor and mum and dad had to work.

She doesn't NEED to travel anywhere, we have video conferencing calls that she could use to get her message across. So to me I think she likes the limelight and the publicity.

The "zero carbon" boat she traveled cost around £4 mil to build (yes the company didn't ask for any money from her) but THINK what that 4mill could have done for conservation or lifting the poverty stricken out of a hole.

Electronic cars are great but the lithium needed for the batteries is wiping out vast areas of China and poisoning the soil and water tables making the land useless for farming.

Plus you still need electricity and unless you want nuclear energy then, at the moment, there is limited options as things still need to be burnt to drive the turbines.

Frankly I think cars running on reclaimed veg oil should be the focus, not electronic cars. They would be easy to convert, easy to repair and you could re-use the oil until it's all used up.

The components needed to make tech savvy phones are mined from the Earth and causes pollution so each person banging on about being "green and carbon neutral" whilst tweeting about it on their latest iphone is being a hypocrite IMO.

The Earth is dying as we all are. We humans are the biggest planet killer so unless we all stop having babies or the Governments all bring in a "one out, one in" policy then we are screwed.

Personally I'd like the "Logans Run" approach... we all have lovely fulfilled lives until we are about 40.. then zap... we die and a new baby replaces us!

But the planet can HEAL... Remember green house gases and the hole in the Ozone? Governments stopped the use of harmful gases and the hole slowly got smaller.

Chernobyl...... Animals and plant life are thriving there! And why? Because it's still harmful to us humans so we can't life there and nature is just doing it's thing.

Luckily scientists seem to be being heard now and I think moving forward changes will be made for the better now that other countries are not afraid of the USA.

malylis
The vast majority of the scientific community agree man is having a major effect on the climate.

So if the results are so indisputable why aren't grants being given to "deniers" so that they can disprove themselves?

Strange question. Deniers research does go on, and often falls down at the peer review stage (which is why some of them don't submit it).

Although scientifoc grants are very valuable, why would you waste it to get studies where the evidence is already available to disprove it ?

Better question, if it is possible to disprove climate change why aren't the big oil companies funding research that does so and championing it from the roof tips, rather than like Exxon and Shell, keeping the results of their own studies into it, which agree with the 97 percent, and then keeping it secret for 40 years?

malylis

Its not a strange question at all, we should be questioning all information that we get given.

It is the only way to increase our knowledge.

Better question,

Not really, it just as subjective.

Skeptical people I've spoken to don't dispute that the climate is changing, so much, but rather whether rinsing out our yogurt pots or using less fuel etc will actually stop it changing.

No issue with the reality of climate change the only issue I have is why is everyone so keen on GT when she has nothing new to say. This has all been said before by people who have an understanding of it yet it didn't get taken that seriously now we have a privileged teenager travelling the world telling us something has to be done but no answers.

As for the oil companies why fund research, why would they, their input to the system is pretty minor in the scale of things.

Not at all, its a very accurate question. Why are these companies with vast amounts to invest in research (significantly more than the money currently given to climate change) not funding research that disproves it? Oh that would be because they can't ? Why have they sat on thie information from studies they did for decades that does agree with the majority of the rest of the scientific community?

There is questioning the information given, and there is disputing it with no basis because it doesn't confirm your bias.

malylis

You think that its a better question, therefore it is subjective.

It is odd that some people think that climate change is like a religion when all I hear from the major religions when it comes to THEIR climate change action is a howling wind with tumbleweeds?

Where is the green movement within Christianity, Islam and other religions?

The irony that the current Brazilian President seems to want to turn the Amazon Basin into the Amazon Toilet with a horde of Pentacostal nutjobs whispering into his ear.

I suspect that people do not want nasty facts when there are cosy lies to believe instead, whether this is about people or events.

Would the same fuss be made if they were teenage boys?

Evidently not or we'd hear a lot more about Boyan Slat and a lot less about Greta Thunberg.

On the plus side Boyan Slat has been taken seriously by people who matter, engineers, scientists, computer modellers.

theoceancleanup.com/about/

Actions speak louder than words. I have way more time for Slat (even if his project doesn't ultimately work out) than Thunberg. He's actually doing something rather than emoting.

which agree with the 97 percent

Oh god, the 97%. That will never, ever go away, will it?

What exactly do the 97% agree on, malylis?

On the causes and effects of global warming? That humans have had a significant influence on its increase or that it is man made

www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp