I think some misinterpet my point.... I'm not defending Greta's science, just her right to speak. If I wanted to argue either for, or against her, my first argument wouldn't be an attack on her because she hasn't voted, nor would it be that she is young and lacks a lifetime of experience of an adult to make an arguement from...
My arguement would be strictly about the claims she makes and facts that either support or dispute those claims... Even if she is totally wrong, she has a right to make her argument... Everyone has a right to their opinion.
In her case, Pete she displays at lot of anger in her public behavior... Being more angry doesn't make you more right... You are either right or not right (or somewhere inbetween in her case) I think the media loves this little girl because she publically scouled at Trump and they promote her as just another thing to reflect their own feelings of loathing. So she receives the backlash of those who don't think her anger is justified. That's what being angry does, it stirs the anger up in those you direct your anger at...
No doubt there's some justification for global climate change based on burning fossil fuel. As to whether we are screwed already, or screwed within some predicted time table, I think we can only guess where we are.
I really wanted to use this little girl as an example of someone who has not voted so the "Shut up because you didn't vote" Nazis could explain how their theory applies..