...No she does not. In this context, one would argue that, on the contrary she benefits from these. Would she have had the same journey, had she been a 50 year old "regular" (non autistic) man? No one would have cared.
You can't have both.
Now any disagreement with the movement can be dismissed with allegations of discrimination instead of discussing the issue.
But people didn't listen - or rather, enough people didn't listen, and now we have to listen to a young autistic teenager girl berating us for sitting idle while the world burns (metaphorically speaking), and IMHO we all deserve it, and you'd better get used to it, because that's not even the remotely worse part of the climate change.
Here's where you lose me. I don't see a world burning, and past predictions of coming apocalypse have proven false.
Yes, the world is warming. We're going back to the temperature of the world a few million years ago, still much cooler than it was during most of the history of life on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
If the NASA and IPCC graphs of global temperature, and rate of change don't convince you, nothing will.
Most predictions on climate heating are turning out to be far worse in actuality. Sea level rise is neatly tracking the IPCC's worst case prediction. Yet they're still putting out the middle ground , conservative case.
Apocalyptic language is not scientific. But when the facts don't inspire action, activists resort to hyperbole and distortion.
Warming or burning, it's shaping up to ruin society as we know it. At least if we are going to believe the scientists and economists at the IPCC. They seem to be expecting at least two of the four horsemen. That seems pretty apocalyptic to me.
If that;s not enough to inspire action, what the hell is? New York knee deep in water?
Disagree. The effect to society the warming causes is apocalyptic (1 billion climate refugees). Pointing to rising sea level and temperature is the cause, the effect is our society being unrecognizable in a few short decades.
It works the earth as well. we're in the middle of a fever, leaving it like that will cause damage to organs. Leave it too long those organs (polar regions, tropical areas, ocean temps) will fail. These failures lead to chain reactions that equate to system failures. entire regions will become uninhabitable. Those on the extreme edge of survivable regions will have to leave to areas that can support them. Those that are use to living in "golden zones" are going to experience climate changes that turn those areas into very uncomfortable and potentially survivable conditions.
The language is accurate, its just not precise or pretty.
(My original response didn't belong either, so I edited it.)
As humans did not live on Earth a few million years ago, insofar as human society is concerned, why would the fact that temperatures had previously occurred a few million years ago be even slightly inconsistent with them being apocalyptic?
No, it's evidence both for the general conclusion and that specific point, it doesn't require that point as an assumption.
Evidence is any fact whose existence makes a conclusion more likely than it would be in the absence of that fact.
In other words, the mere fact that something happened isn't evidence for a proposed (even plausible) cause. Proving the cause requires further evidence.
So, if you mean we get to enjoy living in conditions fit for apes, then you might be on to something, but I wouldn't exactly rejoice about it...
She's also calmly reminding people that climate change is real
People don't need reminding. They heard nothing else for decades. It's not like it just slipped people's minds.
A hypocritical little girl (not a woman), with no experience of the world, is not going to suddenly get everyone to stop using cars or flying in airplanes. She isn't even willing to do that herself, as her stunt with the yaught that had to be sailed back home by people who flew to the destination showed.
For some reason climate change is absurdly polarised.
It's polarised because it's used as a stick to try and force hard left policies on the world, so anyone who isn't hard left will naturally be suspicious that the proposed remedies are all wrong and quite possibly the problem too.
This is especially true given the frequent unreliability of academics who claim to understand highly complex systems (e.g. economists), the failure of many previous predictions by climate scientists, and the near-violent hatred dished out to anyone who takes a skeptical position.
Recall that Thunberg argues for reducing carbon emissions by 50% in about 10 years. She offers no ideas for how to do that without causing a total collapse of global society that kills millions of people, the very thing that climate change activists claim they're trying to avoid. It is natural for people to consider that unhelpful at best, or self-promoting BS at worst. Why wouldn't people find her polarising?
In the end the only people who can really make a difference here are scientists and engineers. Thunberg is neither. She has literally nothing to contribute and should go back to school.
She's a woman, she's young, she's autistic.
She faces a triple-whammy of discrimination because of that.
She's also calmly reminding people that climate change is real and poses a risk of harm to the world, and she's actually doing something to stop that. For some reason climate change is absurdly polarised.