OMFG -- She's AMAZING!
Imagine the sheer Audicity! -- holding this Planet's current Residents Responsible -- nay, fucking Liable -- for the next Generations' God-Given Right* to a Habitable planet -- oh my god, and then to ask their Generation to a school strike, sit out every Friday (damn, born too soon!) in front of Sweeden's Parliment till they wake the Fuck up -- whoa.

Sounds like a Game Changer to me.

See what a Education might getchya, Repubs?
A fucking Future.

*pretty sure it's in the Constitution, too

Hang onto your cocks, Kochs --
the Kids are comin' for ya.

And they may not be Alone.

Assuming not being born in America was waived, her parents would have to co-sign legislation and executive orders for most of her first term.

fitting to have children championing the CO2 caused catastrophic climate change paradigm because it's become a full-on religion. somehow to me its like children choirs around christmas warmed the hearts of edwardian londoners, who largely were unaware that their religion was a religion. (hint: I am one of those heretics that don't believe manmade CO2 was even close to the leading factor for the 1970s-1990s temp run-up, and believe in cyclical causes, as shown by the multidecadal oscillation observations and data - look it up, and join me in the rabit hole. also look at pre 1880s temp data, and get wise to the mini ice-age, the roman warm period, and the larger view showing that we are still emerging from the last full-on ice age.) have a nice day, sorry to believe in heretical things that most of you will want to hate or disagree with, without even being familiar with the counter-arguments. I do believe that the added parts per million of CO2 are man-made, but i don't see it as the poison that some of you do - plants love it, and compared to the deeper historical record 280ppm was extremely low. and even now 400ppm is not unheard-of and still low compared to many many previous geologically recent millennia on the planet.

To answer the question why would scientists be hyping the doomsday hypothesis - there is a bias currently in favor of this current theory that results in much research funding for AGW believer scientists. Also, the idea that what is looked for is found, and so one can observe any number of shifting dynamics of climate, weather, geology, oceanography, and then by linking it to the current climate change much more publishing and funding is available. Look at housing costs these days, most people I know are not in a position to be all heretical with the conventional wisdom of their profession. This is why most of the climate heretics are older climate scientists, and many of the AGW advocates are younger or attention-seeking, media-scientists like bill nye, mechanical engineer/celebrity.

For governments, we are talking about not just polar bears (who survived previous melts - see the warm period of viking expansion to greenland, and that they numbers actually increased of late) but we are talking about control over energy - which is why I think of all the variables influencing climate, we are seeing a single-causal emphasis - In my view, to justify control over CO2 emissions, aka most energy, aka about the most important and valuable thing to humans, maybe more than money or food.

the 97% consensus is trotted out but there are many people who spell out where that came from, and the petition project has 30,000+ scientists, and 9000+ PHD who have signed on in dissent from the simplistic, power-hungry, bureaucratic CO2 fixation and hysterical doomsday straight-line, non-cyclical projections.

just throwing that out there in advance. again, sorry to be different. I just have seen our species get all worked up over phantom WMD, red-scare and domino theory, bloodletting, a vengeful european god with liturgy and rules for entry to heaven spoken in latin, and many other later laughable and formerly 100% certain paradigms, that also had a key tie to power via the hegelian dialectic among other things... well, maybe not bloodletting, that was just bad science. Also, I am not pro fossil fuel and may consume less than some of you, but this stuff needs to be debated, not just turned into a leftist religion with solemn nods and vague doomsday correlations to any swing in the climate or any weather event.

@7 Under what circumstances / in the face of what data would you become convinced that AGW is actually happening?

8 - sorry for the delay, I liked your question, and really don't want to seem like a driveby troll. I started out a believe in the paradigm expressed by al gore in the late 00's, and only recently have become more skeptical.

I do believe that AGW is happening, but due to the fraction of CO2 among greenhouse gasses (3%) if one fairly includes water vapor among the "greenhouse gasses" that help or "force" warm the planet. And then among that CO2 that is counted, is 3% manmade, so we have 3% of 3% being man made, which over the last century produce about a 1degree C change in average climate.

Where I keep getting caught up is the politicization and catastrophization at the expense of our money and energy to care for and spend on other pressing issues that are also unjust and fixable - continued militarism, spying, corporatization of our epistemology. there is also the issue that we now have a "just trust us" clerical class of climate priests, who absolutely have something to gain if their pet issue is the celebrated cause of our time, just as beaurocrats absolutely have something gain if they get to have more control over CO2 emission. So I am just skeptical about the whole religious bandwagon on the issue, considering the power at play (no pun intended) and the litany of strange anomalies to the theory, CO2 lagging temperature and often moving in ways that look unrelated to temperature - someone show me the holy grail on CO2 levels being causal.

I am totally still open to hearing this issue out, I just can't stand religious style unquestioning faith. look up the petition project, many scientists are not in consensus, and even among climate scientists that are mainly AGW proponents, much of the mechanics are not fully understood, so the idea that the science is fully settled is medieval catholicism or stenographer "take their word on it" fanboy bullshit.

to answer your question, I would like more causal proof that a) its CO2 causing the warming and not whatever is causing the multidecadal oscillation which seems to correspond to sun activity, and b) that it's man made CO2 and not the temperature following CO2 is released by the ocean during times of warming like we have had, that raise our PPM. I do believe that the PPM is higher than what would be caused just by off gassing from the ocean, but still it's 3% of greenhouse gasses and I am still not sold that its even close to a majority of the CO2 out there. On top of that there is the expense, our 3% of all CO2 would be very hard to take down to say 2%. a 1/3rd reduction in emissions? noble. the question is we have only taken greenhouse gasses down by 1%. 1% of 1 degree over a century? wow! cool! so thats where I get cynical and where I would like more proof that it's all man's fault. on other issues like whales and trees, I understand man's impact, but just like marxists insistence to make us all exactly the same roles as power dynamics in the past, using the ecological paradigm to explain the 1 degree temp rise/100years, may well be using the wrong mental tool for the job at the expense of finite global resources and individual fucks to give.