A Lady of Reason

Dear Greta Thunberg and Others Like Her

I heard many are talking about the recent climate strike led by Greta Thunberg so I share my thoughts in the format of an open letter…

Dear Greta Thunberg,

Needless to say I disagree with much of what you say, mainly that while we all must be cognizant of the impact we make on our planet, there is not much evidence the world which has weathered countless shifts in climate and atmospheric conditions, is going to end as people like AOC predicts within a decade or so. However, what inspired this open letter to you is not specifically to refute or rebuke your climate activism, but to draw attention to a much bigger issue: Youth and the Left’s indoctrination.

The thing that resonated with me about young people, teenagers like yourself is the nature of some of the backlash you’ve been getting in regards to your age. Many argue you are too young to make coherent arguments or that what you say is your own words and not the words of some other adult. However for the sake of argument I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume everything you wrote and said is of your own volition and creation. Believe it or not, I happen to disagree with some who say that you can’t possibly comprehend the arguments you make or the words you use because of your age.

See, I’m not too far removed from the feeling of being underestimated and dismissed due to being a teenager or young adult. I’m not a teenager anymore, but the memories still sting as someone who was somewhat above their age in vocabulary, writing and reasoning in many aspects as a child and teenager. I’ve had intellectual interests atypical of the average teen and was aware of bigger social issues at younger ages than most. So I personally know that young people can be articulate, intelligent, socially aware, capable and driven as any adult.

I also have known many others who were all of those things too and excelled in school and genuinely cared about their intellectual growth and aspirations. Luckily many of the adults around me encouraged and believed in my capabilities, but the ones who dismissed me still hurt me to this day. I do believe that at age 16, it is possible to have adult like intellectual maturity and present oneself in an articulate manner on an issue and that young people like yourself are more than capable. Just look at all the conservative youth such as CJ Pearson rising now who are articulate and mature. Your youth doesn’t disqualify you from having a valid argument or opinion, but it doesn’t shield you from criticism either. An idea is flawed or not flawed regardless if the person purporting it is 10 or 100.

Do I think you’re just lying? Not necessarily. I believe that you are truly convinced of your position, and your passion is genuine. However, you are part of a system that brainwashed you to the far Left from day one. Your schooling, society, authority figures, etc… guided you in the ideological direction you are going down now. Of course you don’t believe it, as well as countless other young people but the fact is you were educated in an educational system that only taught one side. A system that told you and others that conservative ideas, politics and values are the antithesis of progress, science, good policies, and even basic kindness and humanity. A system that taught you that conservative people are bigoted, intolerant, impervious to facts and ignorant and that anyone who sympathizes with conservative opinions are to be ridiculed and demonized. You may be genuine in your convictions, but you are still a pawn for the Left in that their views are the only ones you were ever taught as valid. They now can use you to further their agenda as the new young face of the Left, the polar opposite to the “old white man” Trump is. Deep down, I think young activists like yourself have the capacity for deep thought and genuine conviction, but simply have not been given the tools to foster your critical thinking.

The passion’s there, but the facts are not. No one doubts that the Parkland activists show passion for their cause and indeed have direct personal experience. However, their ideas about the best way to stop shootings are deeply flawed and take guns away from those who can defend themselves and others. If you have only been shown one side, you can’t truly understand the issue at hand. You can’t foster critical thinking skills with only one side of argument, yet that’s what the public school system has done, as well as society. Teens can be very capable intellectually, but they need to have been given the tools and mentorship to learn the art of thinking critically, which countless young people have not been.

Another point is, many on the Left criticize conservatives “attacking” you for your youth. Thing is, many are simply refuting your ideas, and expressing the fact that you’ve been brainwashed all your youth by the Left. You ask to be treated like an adult, so we are. Adults get criticism all the time, especially a public figure such as yourself. You can’t expect to be given pity points, or an intellectual free pass and be treated like an intellectually capable thinker. There are no safe spaces to hide in in the real world of adult ideas. I honestly feel sad you see the world as such a dismal place. The Left has tried to brainwash youth into thinking the world is literally going to end in a generation! Honestly, I’d give our planet more credit for its resilience in the face of change over its 4.6 billion year lifespan. (Also, your childhood was not “stolen”. Go to the nearest homeless shelter and ask those kids how their childhood’s going for them…)

You say you speak up because the adults have failed you, but on a related note, have you truly listened to them? Tried to understand their ideas or why they can’t do it the way you want it to be done? Many say youth can be idealistic, and unrealistic which is also very true. While intellectually capable of understanding, young people simply don’t have the same life experience as adults. You haven’t lived long enough to see what ideas have been proposed and worked or didn’t work. You haven’t been able to see over 40, 50, 60, 70, years etc… what politics has been like, whose promises came true and whose didn’t. Yes, we have a historical record, but you haven’t had a personal experience to develop your own intuition into when something’s a bit “off”.

Maybe some of the adults who allegedly “failed” you have seen similar claims come and go and think why should this time be special? I’m not saying teens are too dumb to understand the world, it’s simply a matter of life experience that one can only get by living longer. The world’s not all black and white, and even the most seemingly “simple” solution can have unintended consequences or flaws. Older people have made more mistakes than you and were able to learn from them thus tempering their idealism. I hope one day instead of viewing adults with contempt as negligent failures, you gain the wisdom they impart to you so you don’t have to make the same mistakes they did and gain a fast track to the wisdom they had to learn on their own. If it weren’t for my parents and conservative role models in my life, I’d be brainwashed too! They gave me the tools to think critically and resist the Left’s agenda.

Lastly, I do not oppose young people getting more involved in politics and various causes. I think it’s good to have an awareness outside yourself and your own immediate life and it is true that youth do inherit the future. I like many, are simply concerned that not all of it is youth driven, but driven by adults with agendas using young people as pawns. Or driven by youth without enough facts and experience in the issue at hand. Young people should be able to draw their own conclusions, but it’s impossible in an environment of brainwashing!

Think on this too: What concrete things are YOU personally doing to help change the environment? Beyond skipping class for a day, why not walk or bike to school? Carpool? Use energy saving lights. Cut down your carbon footprint in tangible ways if its so important to you. I’m not just saying this for you either, but to every kid who cut class last Friday! Why not go to school to LEARN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE rather than use the cause as a flimsy excuse to cut class if you all care so much? Trust me, you’re all no more PhD level environmentalists than I am…

I see a passionate driven young woman, but one that is misguided and has been brainwashed. The Left doesn’t want to empower youth like you, they just want to exploit your inexperience and your raw passion to steer you to their agenda. They don’t want to give youth the vote for example because they’re capable, but because they’re gullible. Same with giving youth a voice on their platform. Maybe an intelligent, capable and passionate person like yourself will one day realize this.

Sincerely,

A Lady of Reason

Related image

53 comments

  3. It is as Alan Jones so ably stated on Sky News: modern kids are “the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. They want a TV in every room; their classes are all computerized, and they spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, they don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but they arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic. They’re the biggest consumer of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items in order to stay trendy.” He concludes by calling these nitwits what they are: “Selfish, badly educated, virtue signaling little turds.” It’s not their fault though; the adults around them enable this pathetic behavior. One wonders why …

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Once again, Lady of “Reason,” you expose your ignorance for the whole world to see. 98% of climate scientist agree that the Earth is warming, and at a faster rate than EVER before…..that’s first. Of course, you don’t “believe” it, like your mentor, the pretender to the phone in the White House. Secondly, and this one os really easy, the warming trends are the direct result of human habitation and industrial development. Anyone with a brain can deduce it from carbon and weather records just going back to the beginning of record keeping in the mid/late 19th century. You really don’t have to be a scientist to follow the science. I would suggest you check some bona fide data. Lastly, if you can’t actually see the signs of our immoral stewardship of this planet, you’re simply not looking. They are all around us. Instead you start with ad hominem attacks a a responsible young lady looking to try and change things for the better. You don’t even try to shape a counter argument; no, just like Comrade Trump you just decide you don’t believe it like it’s some faith-based issue. It is not. Humanity is at a crossroads of their own making and the decision is ours to make. I know you won’t change your mind, your type never do that, you’d have to admit you were wrong. Perish the thought. But that will not stop the movement that has begun. You should at least be ready for it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • If there is one thing we can say about RaPaR’s comment, it is that it is intellectually dishonest —whether intentionally so, I cannot say. Despite being embraced by Barack Obama and John Kerry, here are the facts: the 98% of climate scientist statistic is pure hooey. This “survey” originated from the University of Illinois by a professor and a graduate student. They sent a two-minute/two question on-line survey to 10,257 earth scientists. They received 3,146 responses. Of those, only 79 respondents were in fact climate scientists. The first question asked, “When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think that the means global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” The second question asked, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

      In their analysis of this survey, The Heartland Institute concluded that out of 10,257 academics that the Illinois professor identified as worthy survey participants, only 79 individuals agreed that global temperatures have risen, and that human activity is responsible for it. That is, seventy-nine people out of 10,257 … which equates to a percentage of 0.77. So let us stop lying to the American people about what earth scientists believe. If there is no body of evidence to support such notions, stop making them … otherwise, you only come away with junk science.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Let’s explore what you just replied, Mr. Mustang.

        1. From your explanation, of the 10,000+ surveys sent out to “Earth scientists”, of which 3100+ responded. Of those that responded, 79 were actual climate scientists. This Heartland Institute reports that of the total respondents “only” 79 affirmed their opinion that humans had an impact on global warming. So.. this “79” shows up twice and referring to two different things. You state that 79 represented the number of actual climate scientists that responded to the survey. The Heartland “thing” uses their “79” as a number of respondents affirming human influence. Since that number is being used for two different results.. coincidence or that same number being used in confusion? The question… if those 79 respondents of the original 3146 were actual climate scientists, and all of them affirmed human intervention was woven into climate change, that in itself seems to send a statistical message, doncha think? If nothing else… what the professor and his apprentice used as “other” earth scientists.. and how their responses may have resulted in various patterns based on their disciplines.

        2. You report that Heartland said the 79 affirmations of human influence were compared with the 10,000+ survey sampling and came up with that .77% representation. Yet you stated earlier that of the 10,000+ sent out only 3,000+ responded. So.. to me the math might show the 79 affirms should be compared with the total respondents, thus changing the percentage to 2.5%. Still doesn’t seem to win any arguments.

        3. Oh.. and this Heartland Institute? “The policy orientation of Heartland has been described as conservative, libertarian, and right wing.[14][27][28][29] The Institute promotes climate change denial, advocates for smoker’s rights, for the privatization of public resources including school privatization, for school vouchers, for lower taxes and against subsidies and tax credits for individual businesses, and against an expanded federal role in health care, among other issues.[citation needed][neutrality is disputed] In addition to lobbying activities, Heartland hosts an internet application called “Policybot” which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Cato Institute.” Seems a bit biased organization, huh?

        Liked by 1 person

    • One hundred percent of Islamic scholars agree that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.

      So if consensus is the sole criterion for assessing truth claims, one would have to conclude that Islam is the one true religion.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. You were quite a bit more generous to this supposed “wunderkind” than many others are, including myself. After the way the press and the Left went after Nick Sandmann for just standing and smiling, I can’t seem to muster just a whole lot of sympathy for a programmed bot like Greta. Nor do I accept the edict that, because she is cute, autistic and depressive, that we can’t criticize her message. Which is expressly why the Left chose her – she is virtually unimpeachable with her childish face, many personal problems and a message “from the children”. Where Nick can be treated like an adult pariah because of his red MAGA hat, we can’t say jack about this girl because she’s two steps away from a total meltdown! I don’t buy that and neither do many of us out here who think she’s being used as part of an extremely dirty trick.

    I used to hang out in a chat room in the 90’s that was mostly inhabited by adults, but one woman would let her young daughter come in from time to time – a place children did NOT belong. Or rather, that’s what her mother WANTED us to think because any time a squabble broke out, this child’s avatar would suddenly appear, telling sad tales of how all her friends at school were fighting and that adults were supposed to be above that, and begging us to stop. At first it worked because it’s hard to say no to a kid! But as this happened more than once, when the mother had just been in the chat room not five minutes before, I figured out pretty quick that it was a ploy by the mom to “shame” the adults into behaving by having an erstwhile child tell us we were being bad and guilt us into good behaviour. This is exactly what the Climate Alarmists are doing with this poor girl – they have made her into their avatar for controlling the adults of this earth by putting her on a world stage and have her scold us all for ruining her very short 16 years of white privilege with her actor father and opera singer mother by driving our cars and flying in planes.

    What I feel for this girl is a mixture of sympathy and contempt – sympathy because she’s 16 and ought to be at home having fun trying on makeup, dating boys and chatting with friends on the phone, not creating my contempt by allowing her views to be hijacked by George Soros to push his globalist plans and then hammering them down our throats. If Americans were bad about ecology, I’d agree with her, but we’ve been pushing ecology since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and we’re one of the least offensive countries when it comes to doing things that might affect climate, so I find it a bit disingenuous that it’s to America that she has to deliver her Hitleresque message of “How dare you!?” She’s been indoctrinated by her Antifa-loving parents to believe the sky is falling, and in the black-and-white world of Asperger’s Syndrome, she has been fully duped into believing it’s a zero sum game when it comes to climate – in her mind, either we must become Communists NOW or she will die tomorrow. Her parents and teachers should be brought up on charges of child abuse, really, for putting a child in her condition through all of this when she can barely handle it. They should at the very least be ashamed of themselves for using this poor mentally challenged child as their shield!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Your point, I believe, is political. My point is that politicized science is bad science. It is a simple matter of answering, “What do we know about earth science —and how do we know it?” If we only know it from what political people tell us, then we really don’t know it at all. Do we want to spend large sums of the public’s money on programs that evolve around what we really don’t know?

      Our planet and its many interdependent systems are far too complex for most people to understand. Because politicians understand this all too well … a healthy society will always question the things politicians (including politicized scientists) tell them.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • Yeah said your reply was meant for me… but from your reply I dunno who it was meant for. You first spewed out a bunch of misguided and/or misunderstood stats collection and evaluated data by a right wing think tank… and I’m being political?

        1. “Do we want to spend large sums of the public’s money on programs that evolve around what we really don’t know?”
        Well, yeah we do. The space race to the moon… WW2’s Manhattan Project… one could argue, every military conflict since 1945… just to mention a couple.

        2. “Our planet and its many interdependent systems are far too complex for most people to understand.”
        Balancing a checkbook, preparing an IRS-1040… fall in that category as well. Here’s to your point, if what you suggest is true then that presumes we should likely place our faith and trust in scientists who DO understand.. and have an unbiased scientific credibility and a commitment to scientific research using accepted research practices. Simple. Strangely, that’s how we’ve reached this point in our technological achievement… trusting in science to improve our way of life. When did it become popular to start thinking scientists in general are motivated by politics? It’s ALL political.

        No.. this entire issue is completely political. Well, more to the point, falling for Trumpian-inspired fears that unless we have fossil fuels the U.S. will fail economically.. when history has shown that with every frontier we confront we gain far as much on peripheral knowledge and spinoffs as we do on reaching the intended goal. Global warming is not about China ripping us off because they won’t play fair in the market place and commit to climate treaties. There is also something called “the rule of reasonableness”. I had general science in elementary school so I have a relative grasp on the idea that if someone spews exhaust carbons and other associated pollutants into the air then bad things can happen to humanity.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. An excellent post, Lady! Many excellent points, and some excellent comments as well (along with your usual trolls. LOL).

    If I may quibble, there are a few things I do actually disagree with that I wanted to address. This is the one that leapt out at me the most (homeschooling parent that I was… LOL).

    ” Why not go to school to LEARN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE …”

    From what I’ve read, school is where her problems started. They are the source of her misinformation, indoctrination and even triggered psychological distress. She has talked about developing an eating disorder after learning about “climate change” in school. She is not alone in this; there are numerous reports about how students today have developed various mental health disorders – anxiety, depression, eating disorders and more – as a result of their school indoctrination about “climate change.” (I used quotes because it’s not real climate change they are being taught about. They are being taught apocalyptic visions of anthropogenic climate change, which is a different animal altogether). Right now, public schools are among the worst places to get a real education; the culmination of many decades of social engineering experimentation on our children.

    The other thing I find I disagree with is that she is “passionate.”

    I don’t have a lot of time to spend watching video, so when I do, I tend to be very selective on my choices. Which means I read the transcript of Greta’s speech to the UN long before I ever saw a video of her actually speaking. I was unimpressed by her speech already, given the emotionalism and data errors it was filled with, but seeing her actually speak was… disturbing. Especially after reading so many comments from people (who should no better) basically deifying her for her “passion”.

    What I saw was not passion. What I saw was rage. Disgust. Arrogance. But not passion. When someone becomes passionate about something, they are EXCITED about it. They practically vibrate with enthusiasm! They dive headlong into the subject they are passionate about it, learn everything they can about it and work to become experts on it. Whether it’s a child who is passionate about dinosaurs and can tell you everything about their favourite ones, or the adult who is passionate about model trains to the point of building the most elaborate dioramas, or the teen who is passionate about their favourite movie star and knows everything about them. That is passion. If Greta were truly passionate about “climate change”, she would not be traipsing around the world making speeches. She would be learning everything she could about it – and wouldn’t be making ludicrous claims like “Eco-systems are collapsing” and yelling “how dare you!” at people. Climate is an amazing subject, with so many fascinating, complex things to learn. She hasn’t learned any of them. She is only parroting propaganda. And when she is faced with an off script question, she is so incapable of responding, it’s embarrassing to watch (and I’m not referring to a video already posted here, either). She is definitely emotional about the subject, but not passionate about it enough to actually learn more. It’s one of the things that makes it so clear that she has not been educated, but indoctrinated, by the adults around her.

    I agree with your points about her age; youth does not automatically mean she should not be taken seriously. However, she is not really a child, is she? She is an older teen; a young woman, nearing her 17th birthday. The “child” persona is carefully contrived and cultivated. Her clothing, her hair, even her mannerisms, are all calculated to present “child-like”. We saw the same thing with C.B-F, during the Kavannaugh hearings, with her ‘pretty pose’, use of vocal fry, etc. (if you have a chance to watch, there’s a body language expert that did a really interesting video about her testimony). Greta is a young woman being presented to the world as a waif-like child, and like the blatant signs of indoctrination, this is a blatant sign of emotional and psychological manipulation of her audience. And it is being lapped up by her supporters.

    The more I’ve been seeing of Greta and the circus surrounding her, the more disgusted I become. Not of her, but by the adults surrounding her. I have no doubt she believes what she is saying. I have no doubt she believes she is somehow in control. I also have no doubt those surrounding her are using and abusing her for her youth, her disabilities and her mental illness. She has talked about her anxiety, depression and other mental health struggles, all apparently caused by “climate change.” She has Asperger’s, which she refers to as her “super power.” That’s one positive thing I can say; people with autism process information differently and, to me, that’s not necessarily a disability, but can be an advantage. It’s good to have people who can see things differently than others. But this is someone who thinks she can see CO2. Which is physically impossible (especially considering she apparently only sees it coming from factories, but not from, say, her own exhalations). This is a warning sign. In fact, everything about her throws up red flags for all sorts of things.

    What this young woman needs isn’t adulation and enabling. She needs help for her mental health issues. Instead of getting help, she is being used, and when they are done with her, she will be discarded, as others have been before her. Her mental health, however is very fragile, and the damage being done to this young woman is heartbreaking.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • I can agree with your points too. She’s clearly brainwashed and you are right school probably isn’t helping! It’s just hypocritical to skip school, like if you genuinely believe climate change then school would be the place to learn more about supporting your position on it vs. skipping class! The Left is using her as a pawn and it’s sad…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • “Science Deniers around the world.. circle the wagons!! We’re being attacked by a 17 year old!”

      Seems there are far more important things in life than sitting around and fearing a teenager, and spending time actually analyzing how she, and her message, can be discredited before she convinces someone of something.

      Like

      Reply

  7. Doug

    Don’t be silly – what an amusing thought – that you have “triggered……” my rage! Even more amusing is that this would be something that causes you “gladness”

    I cannot imagine what it must be like to take pleasure from “triggering” rage in another person – might I suggest some serious therapy, to address that rather dysfunctional mind-set. Including what appears to be a claimed psychic/clairvoyant ability to reach across a couple of thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean and “see” what I watch!

    Wow – I’m impressed – I’ve never actually encountered anyone who WAS either psychic or clairvoyant – any chance you could “look into the future” and tell me what next week’s lottery numbers are?

    Silly man.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • From your various diatribes in here it’s very apparent that you have a particular affinity to prefer (relish, actually) condescending prose in judging other people’s remarks, and you enjoy “listening” to yourself. Perhaps something to do with relating more to cattle and sheep than humans.
      But… just my own thing… I often try and go deeper into certain posters and reply-ers to see where all their… pontifications… may originate. Ireland, huh. Is your gravatar a self-portrait?

      Like

      Reply

      • Sometimes when one bothers to post anything at all.. just getting a “rage” response is a form of getting attention. Such is the nature of blogging. 🙂

        Like

  8. Elizabeth

    What a perfectly wonderful example of a strawman “argument” your comment is, it contains all the necessary elements.

    Let’s start with deflection and misrepresenting, shall we?

    Lady’s response to my comment was the substance of your opening remark – that this woman would “open her eyes” to the perils awaiting her if she resiled from her current position on the environment, re-thought that position on the basis of further and better information, data, analysis.

    The perils being that those ideologically driven “supporters” would shred this young woman to pieces, as they are wont to do whenever anyone attempts to waver or question or God forbid – criticize any element of any part of any position on any subject, topic or dictat given the imprimatur of the “left”

    In essence – dissent is forbidden, questioning is forbidden, changing your mind on the basis of…well anything is forbidden – as well you know – if you were being honest – having a different perspective, not agreeing – is not simply viewed as the natural state of unique human beings who do not always see things the same way.

    There is no “ah sure we’ll just agree to disagree” is there – no “let’s see if we can find some common ground” your comment is a classic example – your tactics are rather amateur and obvious.

    You have ignored the substance of, not just my comment and Lady’s response to that comment, but the actual substance of her article, in your effort to malign, misrepresent, mis-label and create a false rather over-dramatic manufactured counter-point argument that you can then launch your commentary from.

    So, as you have not actually made a valid counter-argument to anything that was actually said – there really is no point in any further comment on the substance of Lady’s original thesis or my comment is there?

    Let’s just address your strawman “comments” in brief – no doubt a product of your own rather limited knowledge of “conservative” women, conservative points of views, and, while it is rather difficult to unravel any points of coherent thought – I will give it a shot.

    Starting with your opening remark – shall we?

    “Open her eyes to what exactly? That she’ll do a 180 and suddenly decide not to give a hoot about the environment, entertain the fantasy of unlimited resources, consider Trump a genius of his time, and want to become a quiet conservative stay at home wife?”

    In particular, your rather lame mischaracterisation of “conservative” women as “quiet conservative stay at home wife?

    Elizabeth, tut tut, such grand sweeping adamant statements – such contempt for women who may not wish to enter the cut-throat world of commerce or business – such disdain dripping from that rather crudely crafted “value judgement” using the subterfuge of a passing reference to Miss Greta to launch your agenda from.

    Such a feeble attempt to “dramatize” and misrepresent the substantive basis of the article – no-one suggested, implied, called for or even posited that it would be a good idea for Greta to “not to give a hoot about the environment…”

    Let’s tie these two seemingly disparate “things” into a nice neat little package for you Elizabeth.

    I am a “conservative” woman – with a small “c” as you can clearly see – so my conservativism, is not simply a party-political position, it is a state of mind, a particular perspective. I am a mother, in fact with a nod to yet again your rather clumsy and crude effort to make age a thing by your reference to “oldies” I have children both older and younger than you, though I have never been a full-time “wife and mother” I CHOSE – emphasis on the word CHOSE – to work part-time when they were little, and as they grew older, more.

    I also live in a very rural area – more cattle and sheep than people – I am the custodian of an ancient well (only because it is situated on my land) – now I’m not sure I fully subscribe to the various notions of some people around here that this well has “healing powers” but – who am I to trample all over someone beliefs?

    I believe that THEY believe.

    Here’s the thing Elizabeth – your mischaracterisation of “conservative women” and I would presume men, embedded in your rather crude and ham-fisted rhetoric is more telling about who and what you are.

    Perhaps you might pause and take some time to think about the meaning of the word “conservative” you might also take some time to reflect on this – just because someone might disagree with you – it does not make them your enemy – other – to be vilified, to be assigned motives, beliefs, perspectives and “evil intentions”

    What people like you don’t seem to get – the vast majority of human beings – now – whatever their “political” perspective is, CARE about this planet, CARE about “the environment” CARE about protecting this planet – and ALL those who call it home – INCLUDING human beings.

    One should always be careful about clambering up onto “the moral high ground” it can get very draughty up there – it also exposes you to having your claim to that “moral high ground” questioned, scrutinised, examined under a microscope – and in this current climate, a global microscope.

    Much better – don’t you think Elizabeth to accept that as a human being you are subject to all the frailties of human beings – willing to concede you might be wrong about something, or you’re not sure about something?

    What the left does, and is doing, is politicizing and weaponising “the environment” as a political tool – to gain political power – and using this young woman as a mask to hid their real agenda behind – THAT is the substance of the current debate.

    Again Lady – apologies – I’ve gone on a bit – but if I may I’ll address briefly some of Elizabeth’s other little swipes.

    “I honestly think she’s just as much of a Leftist pawn as Trump is a right wing Pawn. “

    What the heck is this never-ending mantra about anyone who disagrees with anything being a “Pawn”? Good grief – you do realise that just because someone doesn’t agree with you it isn’t because they are a “Pawn” of anything or anyone – you really should give people a bit more credit Elizabeth.

    “It’s sad to see that environmental concerns is now considered a “liberal” thing. “

    Sigh – “concerns about the environment” are a HUMAN thing – Elizabeth – again – take some time, reflect, and in this instance do some homework – the driving political agenda behind the manipulation of this young woman, using the mechanism of ‘concern for the environment” as a ploy is not “Liberal” it is Leftism/Socialism/totalitarianism.

    Elizabeth – you are making the classic mistake of someone driven by emotion (and badly articulated emotion) you are attempting to “have an argument” in the classic strawman mold rather than “make an argument” to support whatever your point of view is – you will never persuade anyone of the correctness of either your point of view, perspective or interpretation of anything if you descend into taking nasty underhand little swipes at the person making the argument, rather that addressing the substance of that argument.

    Your comment is incoherent, juvenile, immature and wooly-headed – I’m sure you could do better.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • I’m in awe with the maturity and what I think is a neutral bias of this writer. It was just a well thought out article on several fronts.
      Of course you probably know that Greta has been excused to go on a one year sabbatical to further her agenda.
      So, what is wrong with this picture?
      Sincerely,
      Kerry Likis

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I think a kid that age should either be in school , unschooled, or in a tech program. I feel like she is a pawn who was pushed into this. She has different needs than an average kid. I think her parents/others have manifested this in her.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Your observations on the Jet Setting -Media Darling High school student/political activist are 100% accurate. Of course she has fully ascribed to the Left’s one sided, self serving agenda. How could she and others like her not when our “educational institutions” and the majority of a pervasive media are marching in lock step to make certain that the Left must stay in power . All about power and control. Children used as tools for the Democrat’s agenda ie: -you pick the subject dejour, Me Too, Russia Collusion, Rampant Racism (in a country that twice elected a Black President), Judge Cavanagh, The end of the planet in 12 years -far too many to list . I lost count long ago at how much unsubstantiated , Fear inducing , non factual propaganda has come and gone and then come back again for another round in the fervent hopes that these indoctrinated young people will pony up the votes on mass for the Left.

    It may work but once they do get back in, these disgruntled, angry , disenchanted young people will not be able to be “put back in the bottle” or controlled. It will get very ugly as the Left’s constituency in this age group begin to “eat their own,”… At that point , I’ll point out that, “As Ye sow, so shall Ye reap.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. A very thought provoking post. Like you, I’m a skeptic on the global warming issue as well as on any calls such as from the Parkland kids to curb the 2nd Amendment. The point of your post, however, is Greta Thunberg’s age and it’s relevance to her voice in the climate debate. I’m old enough to remember the ’60s and how many dismissed the anti-Vietnam war protesters because of their age so I know what it is like to have those in authority dismiss my views on account of my youth. Given that history has now demonstrated that the kids were right and the older generation wrong as regards the “domino theory” it seems reasonable to be skeptical that age automatically confers wisdom. On the other hand, at my age I also can look back on the opinions that I’ve formed over the years and reflect on how much I’ve changed my mind on things as well.

    In my old age, I’ve grown cynical and don’t put much stock in what anyone says regardless of their age. I let facts and logic be the deciding factors regardless of whether they come from a 16 year old or a septuagenarian. I’ve heard both reason and hogwash from people of all ages. It’s common to use the emotional appeal of children to sell all sorts of things from baby food and car insurance to global warming and gun control. I haven’t heard of any independent arguments or climatological breakthroughs that Ms. Thunberg has made, so I’m inclined agree with you and those commentors who opine that she is being used as a political tool and to dismiss the hype around her as another attempt to appeal to emotion rather than reason.

    You mentioned the Parkland kids in your post so I would like to point out what I see as an inherent contradiction in their position. Among other things, they have called for laws prohibiting anyone under 21 from owning a semi-automatic rifle, essentially saying that those under that age lack the requisite mental stability and emotional maturity to possess such a firearm. Given that they themselves are under 21, doesn’t that mean that they too lack the requisite mental stability and emotional maturity to prescribe firearms policy or any other policy for that matter? If we accept the Parkland kids’ position, doesn’t that mean that we should discount 16 year old Greta’s views on account of her age? Is she too immature to own a firearm but mature enough to decide international economic and industrial policy.

    I suspect that we are inclined to underestimate the maturity that kids of Greta’s age can display given the right environment. I don’t know much about the Swedish educational system but if it’s anything like that which prevails in the U.S. it simply fosters immaturity emphasizing indoctrination over education. On the other hand, during the Napoleonic Wars, midshipmen in the British navy, who were younger than Greta, often took command of vessels and, navigating using map, compass and sextant, sailed to ports thousands of miles away. I know people in rural America, flyover territory, who received their first rifle as young as 6.

    Although younger people lack experience and tend not to see both sides of a question, over the years I haven’t been all that impressed by those allegedly more mature either. I just look at the facts and make up my own mind.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  12. Damn.. I think the “child” here is the author, and those who agree. I could write a book on all this. For one thing.. have any of you “old” folks forgotten the 60’s and all the politics “we” used to profess we knew better than the adults of those times? Of course this young person, and others like her (like the Parkland bunch), lack a significant amount of knowledge depth that comes with life experience. Generally speaking the young lack the application of their knowledge to bring forth a broader perception.. ramifications, trickle-downs, collateral effects. Telling this young person that her thoughts and ideas are the result of some idiot perception of some Liberal conspiracy that has been “brainwashing” the young and vulnerable in the education process.. well, pretty much makes YOU sound like a complete fool for not having learned a thing about this in your own life. We were all that age once and likely every one of us can look back and say that the stuff we thought at the time that made us passionate we look now as being essentially a comedy of errors. We matured our thinking, changed our minds as we evolved our opinions on life.
    Education, public, private, university.. it’s been known for the last hundred years that there’s a general liberal bias. This is no new “conspiracy”. Your fear.. and again, it’s another Trump-inspired fear… is that some of these kids are getting too much media hype and will somehow convince the countless gullible adults from “your side” to what YOU perceive is the correct side. The Parkland kids?? I don’t give a damn if half of them filled with passion didn’t confront the shooter directly… it happened to them, their friends, inside their school. Until this happens to you, YOU have no concept of what these kids went through. All you want to do is circle the wagons around protecting the Second Amendment against some misguided threat. Again… Trump-inspired fear.
    This is undoubted one of your most arbitrary and misguided posts, IB.
    “Shut up, Kids! Don’t make an embarrassment of yourself by screaming to the press your political passions. It isn’t real because you’ve been brainwashed!” Sheesh.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Doug

      Crikey! We have a word for people who jump into an argument feet first, spluttering and foaming at the mouth by attacking the “author” first – amadán – look it up.

      T’is the mark of someone who cannot convince his/her listeners/readers by the power of rhetoric and áititheacht (aw – cha – acht) “persuasiveness”

      Considered an unfortunate disability and more to be pitied than condemned. But there ya go.
      I read the rest of your comment a couple of times, couldn’t make head nor tails of it – a lot of dogmatic statements, resting on some seriously flawed assumptions.

      Ah sure – no doubt this was just a bit of a practice at “áititheacht” Way too many words crashing into one another and making a great clanging noise.

      Anyway – the only part of this “comment” that is even worth addressing is this:

      “All you want to do is circle the wagons around protecting the Second Amendment against some misguided threat. Again… Trump-inspired fear.”

      Second Amendment

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      I’m going to presume the “circle the wagons” comments is some reference to pioneers under attack from hostile forces during the time when America was still in a process of growth?

      Not really getting the point of what it is you are struggling to articulate – what does the Second Amendment have to do with the issue under discussion – i.e. This young girl and her exploitation by ideologically driven lunatics?

      As for “Trump-inspired fear.”

      The democratically elected President of the United Stated of America? So, you don’t endorse, subscribe to or value Democracy? Interesting.

      Let me see if I can think of any non-democratically elected “Leaders” of any State who actually “inspired fear”? REAL fear. Not the manufactured whiney petulant tantrum throwing of someone who didn’t get what he/she felt entitled to.

      Here’s what I see when I watch Hilary Clinton and her “supporters” whine about not being elected – from their perspective this wasn’t an election – it was supposed to be a Coronation – Hilary Clinton didn’t want to be President because she wanted to GOVERN, she wanted to be President so she could RULE – THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

      Now these people are an example of REAL Evil

      Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945)

      This evil man who rose to power in the 1930s was responsible for the greatest ferocities in human history. He ordered systematic racially based murder of about 11 million of people of which 6 million were Jews, while his foreign policy provoked World War II which claimed 50 to 70 million lives. Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945, to avoid being captured by the Soviet Red Army that was advancing in Berlin.

      Joseph Stalin (1878 – 1953)

      The Georgian-born Soviet leader rose to power after Lenin’s death in 1924. The future ally of the United States and Britain against the Nazi Germany was a paranoid man who brutally suppressed his political enemies as well as suspected opponents. The number of casualties of the Stalinist regime vary but about 14 to 20 million of people are estimated to have died in the penalty labor camps known as the gulags or were executed during the Great Purge in the 1930s, while millions were deported and exiled.

      Pol Pot (1925 – 1998)

      The leader of the Khmer Rouge and dictator of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 was directly responsible for one of the severest genocides in modern history. During the four years he held power in Cambodia, about 1 million people died as a result of starvation, imprisonment, forced labor and murder. He was ousted in 1979 by the Vietnamese but together with his Red Khmer followers he continued to operate in the countryside from Thailand.

      Idi Amin (1925 – 2003)

      The 3rd President of Uganda was responsible for about 250,000 deaths which were a result of his regime of terror marked by torture, extra-judicial executions, corruption and ethnic persecution. He held power from 1972 to 1979 when he fled the country due to the defeat against Tanzania which he attacked one year earlier. He found refuge in Libya and then in Saudi Arabia where he died in 2003.

      Augusto Pinochet (1915 – 2006)

      Military dictator who came to power in a coup d’etat in 1973 held power in Chile for nearly 20 years during which he brutally suppressed his opponents. More than 100,000 people were arrested only during the first three years. Pinochet stepped down as President of Chile in 1990 after the Chileans voted against continuity of his presidency on a plebiscite. In the early 2000s, he was trialled for violations of human rights but the court has ruled that he is mentally unfit for the trial.

      Francois Duvalier (1907 – 1971)

      The Haitian dictator, also known as Papa Doc governed the poorest country in the Americas from 1957 to his death in 1971. During his reign of terror, about 30,000 Haitians are estimated to have been assassinated, while thousands – mostly intelligence fled the country. Many people consider him responsible for the current situation in Haiti. He was succeeded by his son Jean-Claude Duvalier who continued the reign of terror until 1986 when he went into a self-imposed exile.
      Francisco Franco (1892 – 1975)

      The Spanish dictator held power from 1939 when he emerged as the winner of the Spanish Civil War until his death in 1975. His regime was marked by severe repression and systematic suppression of dissidents who were either sent to concentration camps, sentenced to prison which often includes forced labor or executed. Francoist regime became more liberal in the 1960s and 1970s but Spain became a democratic country only after Franco’s death.

      Saddam Hussein (1937 – 2006)

      The Iraqi dictator who came to power in 1979 is estimated to be responsible for about 500,000 to 1 million deaths of which the Kurds account for about 70,000 to 300,000. Hussein was ousted after the invasion of the US and UK led coalition in 2003. In 2006, he was found guilty for 148 Shi’ite deaths in the early 1980 and sentenced to death. He was executed by hanging on December 30, 2006.

      https://historylists.org/people/list-of-top-10-most-brutal-dictators-in-modern-history.html

      You live in the most Free Country in world you stupid man – you nor your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc have EVER lived under an oppressive regime, lived as a vassal state of a more powerful “State” have ever been subjected to pogroms, to ethnic cleansing, have ever lived in your own country without one single RIGHT! Including your right to spout absolute rubbish.

      For a miniscule time in the history of your county you were “A Colony” try 800 years and imagine what that does to a Nation, to a people, try living under any of the above regimes and see how you would like it.

      Evil?

      You really need to re-assess your definition of “evil”

      My apologies Lady for going off on one – but when I read this rubbish from people who have no conception of what real “evil” is – it bothers me.

      Your President was democratically elected by the people of your Nation – in a free and fair election – you don’t like who won?

      Build a bridge – and get over it!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • Glad I triggered your rage. You need more FOX to calm yourself down. Quit watching all that fake news about impeachment and whistleblowers.

        Like

  13. Hi Lady

    First let me say how much I enjoy reading your insightful articles, though you are a tad more “ladylike” that I am – can I use the excuse that I am Irish?

    Anyway, your open letter to that rather mis-guided, but obviously articulate and intelligent young woman hits exactly just the right note.

    I’m commenting on this article because today is my birthday – 58 years old – sigh – and your article resonated with me.

    She is 16 years, am I correct?

    I remember being 16 – like you all fired up about injustice, politics, the world – and like you I was encouraged and supported to explore, question and perhaps most importantly criticize.

    What worries me with regard to this girl is this – while hoping that all this “adulation” doesn’t go to her head – her obvious intelligence will, I believe inspire her to delve into the counter-arguments so that she can better rebut those pesky “conservatives” so that she can “show us up for the flawed, uniformed “right-wingers” we are.

    Here’s her problem – she will find out rather rapidly that her “left-wing” supporters – all those in her cheering squad will turn on her like vicious vipers if she even wonders…..never mind suggests that she is going to “check out” the other side of this “argument”

    Should this poor girl even quote the most neutral, objective, scientific observation she will be pilloried, vilified, hounded by these “social justice warriors” really doesn’t bear thinking about – does it?
    I find myself wondering, are the left so starved of “spokespersons” that they would cynically set up and use this rather charming young woman, while absolutely, inevitably guaranteed to rip her to shreds if she even wonders?

    Greta, they are vicious Darlin, they are using you, your youth, your passion, your untested and untried and unchallenged convictions – you are nothing but a tool, a prop, a ploy – whatever happens – and I do sincerely hope and pray for the best for you – it will not be from THIS side – from the evil “right” or from conservatives like me or Lady of Reason and many many more who will “go after you”

    guím gach rath ort sa saol
    (I wish you the best in life)

    Anja

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      • Great point! They will turn on her in an instant. Maybe then she’ll open her eyes….

        Thank you Lady

        My concerns for this cailin are heightened because I have been observing from afar American politics, and the current shenanigans in your Congress.

        It would be trite to say that Irish politicians are and can be…….a bit bizarre, to say the least – but I can honestly say I have never in life seen public representatives behave in, what can only be described as a completely insane manner.

        What literally leaves me watching all this with my mouth hanging open is this – these people – AOC, Nancy Pelosi (who visited this land a couple of months ago and spoke in our Dail – Parliament) and oh so many others is, the lunatic behavior displayed by “Democrats” (a misnomer if ever I heard one) has given tacit approval to their “supporters” their followers, their hangers on, and anyone with a vested interest to unleash the full gamut of this lunacy in the Public Domain.

        The very lunatics who will go after this child if she even sets one foot an inch “out of line’
        This is a genuine question – do these people have any idea, any idea at all what they sound like, what impression they are making, or what fools they are making of themselves in front of the rest of the world?

        We got an up close and personal insight into Nancy Pelosi – seriously? This is the woman who Democrats send over to Ireland to “impress us”!

        Anyway – the view from the outside with regard to not just the insanity going on in America at the moment, not just in politics but in the public domain causes people like me to watch through our fingers – a bit like watching a scary movie – without really watching it.

        This child is now being used as a pawn by people who appear to want to destroy everything that is good and honorable and inspiring about the idea that is America.

        You’ve never been invaded, never been colonized – you literally built a country from the ground up, on a document that has inspired others to follow suit – your Constitution – your Bill of Rights – including my country – and yet – as we all watch.

        As these people are destroying and tearing down something good – a gift that America gave to the world.

        The idea that we ALL could be free.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Open her eyes to what exactly? That she’ll do a 180 and suddenly decide not to give a hoot about the environment, entertain the fantasy of unlimited resources, consider Trump a genius of his time, and want to become a quiet conservative stay at home wife? I honestly think she’s just as much of a Leftist pawn as Trump is a right wing Pawn. One may be older but they have about the same level of self control and both are currentlythe poster children for two different political wings. Except I believe the young girl is strong in her convictions and didn’t decide on them after 1 presidential run. As much as any conservative wants to reword it in a manner that doesn’t say “no I really don’t care about the environment”, that’s turnes into one of the hallmarks of their beliefs. At the very least, it’s at the very bottom of lists of any concern. Hell, Conservatives would rather advocate for women being returned to the kitchen as a bigger priority than being concerned about the environment. I don’t see how anyone’s “eyes can be opened” to something completely contrary to something they’re deeply passionate about, especially if it’s a worthy cause. It’s sad to see that environmental concerns is now considered a “liberal” thing. I’ve only been here 33 years so far but if there’s one thing I have learned from listening to the young and old, is that age definitely does NOT equal wisdom nor knowledge. So many of our aged politicians alone have proven that ten fold.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. “What concrete things are YOU personally doing to help change the environment?”

    You don’t really expect activists to follow their own advice — do you? When it comes to taking personal responsibility for their cause, their position is strictly “rules for thee, but not for me”.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  16. Oh man, I am sooooo over this girl. She’s still a child and has nothing but the anecdotal evidence programmed into her by the Left. I believe she truly means well, she’s being used as a pawn though. The Left holds her up saying even a child can see the problem and then attacks anyone for criticizing her. “How dare you pick on a child?!?”. More like how dare you put a child in a position to fight your battles for you. Is there anything more cowardly than hiding behind a child?

    THIS is the kind of tactic that gives the environmental movement a black eye. There are real issues that need to be dealt with. Plastics in the environment as one example. Holding up a child and screaming the world is going to end only alienates people who would otherwise be open to working on real solutions though.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment