but that's exactly my point. she has only temporarily drawn attention back to this issue, and temporary fixes to this issue are not fixes they are pats on the back (which sickens me more than climate change deniers). It is a hype-train. this has happened before and always just ends with people like me left standing alone, with people like the ones shouting at me here walking away with a completely false sense of having accomplished something and being morally superior. its basically champagne socialism (which ironically is exactly the type of people the Thunbergs are).
furthermore, as I said many times. I have no issue with Greta. I have an issue with divisive messaging and the vitriol of 'climate activists'. I have an issue with the media ignoring this issue for countless years, despite there being numerous and objectively better role models for this issue. I have an issue with anyone who would seek to insult before attempting to educate.
any publicity is good publicity is not at all applicable to a global issue that requires the vast majority of humanity to be on board and actively change their ways before anything changes. and this is provable, look at the introduction of the Medical Corps into the British Army. despite all the scientific proof, tons of good publicity and legitimately ground breaking scientific developments of medicine 50 years leading up the Medical Corps, nothing changed until the culture of the Army changed, and for that you need conscious and borderline universal support (I know this is a very specific case study, but is applicable in a less obvious degree to all other European armies of the time. if youre confused about the connection between these points - global issue = disease and death rates. only thing to change that was practically universal consensus). if this example isn't enough, just look back a couple years when we went through this exact same phase with Al Gore: global protests, hundreds of meetings, thousands of articles... and what? what did they all leave behind? a worsening environmental situation and millions of disgruntled people who were never told any of the science.
the thought that people would never change their mind is defeatist. why ever bother trying to argue anything if people don't change their minds, or cant be educated? Also were not looking to convince the hardcore opposition (which is a minor fringe). but her messages put off many more than just those people, and most importantly those who may be undecided or unaware but have a different constitution than yourself.
sure its NICE. but is it effective? is it even useful in the long term? has it changed anything? that is what im worried about, and what anyone who actually cares about these issues should be worried about.
edit- this is the last thing im going to say on this topic. thank you for being reasonable and not insulting me or my perceived beliefs. Nothing ive said is 'the truth'. this has all been a perspective (much of it not even my own) and as a devout historian, I am happy to wait and watch (I will be doing so optimistically, but critically).