Teenage climate change
activist Greta Thunberg has explained how the “gift” of living with Asperger
syndrome helps her “see things from outside the box” when it comes to climate
change. “It makes me different, and being different is a gift, I would say,”
she told journalist Nick Robinson. "I don’t
easily fall for lies, I can see through things."
It's optimistic, unfledged self-confidence, but alas it's the opposite of the truth. She is doing everything she thinks she isn't doing - she is falling for lies, she can't see through them, and she is thinking too narrowly inside the box, not outside, in participating in a mass delusion. She is trying to tackle complex questions she doesn't understand with over-simplistic answers she thinks she does understand. This child-led mass hysteria, and political fawning from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas, is quite a sad thing to see.
The appropriate response
to Greta Thunberg's Kumari-like cult following is to give her, or anyone on the
side of climate change alarmism, the opportunity to do something they never do,
and seemingly never will do - to show there is a problem that needs solving; to
show they understand that it can be solved with radical new measures, and to propose viable solutions to
solve it.
The fact that they can't
do this, and never attempt to, is reason enough not to take them seriously,
because if they really did care about this issue as they say they do, and genuinely
thought there was an intelligent solution, they'd be happy to shout it from the
rooftops. Given the foregoing, in my submission, here is the only way they can show themselves as a
credible group to be listened to seriously:
1) Give us a proper,
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the present relationship between
industrialised human progress and its effects on the environment, showing why the
resultant analysis yields a net cost against the industrialised human progress in favour of a radical interventionist alternative.
2) Given the efficacy of
number 1, propose a practical, realistic method of implementation of a series
of mitigating actions within the current technological capacities, stating
timescales, expected empirical results, and why this series of actions won't knock
on to have a net detrimental effect on the positive elements of human progress
we are trying to sustain.
3) Given the combined efficacy
of 1 and 2, present an empirically demonstrable, fully costed plan of action,
explaining how this allocates the required resources more efficiently than the
market, and how the leading two dozen world economies can best come together to
achieve this without it having a net negative economic impact on their citizens.
4) Given the combined
efficacy of 1, 2 and 3, justify why all these impediments to market growth won't
have a net detrimental effect on the developing world - on the planet's poorest
billion people, who most urgently need a global, industrial market in which to
participate, to help them climb the ladder of prosperity.
No one, child or
otherwise, can even begin to call themselves a serious climate change thinker
until they've produced a detailed analysis based on those 4 assessments. And
that is the challenge that should be presented to all of them, every time they try
to propagate their agenda - because they have earned not one jot of credibility until they do. Until they accept this most necessary challenge, they are
simply crying out to be treated as a deluded, brainwashed cult of hysteria, with no real handle on the way the world operates, and the underlying complexities to which human endeavour is subjected.
