Well, bombing a country after appointing a 22 year old heritage foundation intern as head of terrorism prevention seems like a good attempt at changing that.
Worse than unaddressed, purposely preventing data collection / publication that would allow us to better assess the effects of climate change.
> In alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) will no longer be updating the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters product.
and people like Greta Thunberg are labelled self-serving narcisists who deserve getting more scorn than our political leaders who we accept as being "just so".
Greta does get called mean things not because of her beliefs, but there is something about her (personal) behavior that makes her unlikable to many people.
The "she is unlikable" argument is just working backwards. It is a mechanism to criticize climate activism without having to talk about the ways in which climate change is a crime against our children. There is no possible behavior that she could take that would not produce this "she is unlikable" response except to never speak in public whatsoever.
I will. I am not demanding that you end up as a supporter. What I'm saying is that I do not expect that me choosing different words would make you a supporter even if I tried.
You really don't have to personally like someone for them to have useful information
The nazi party member Pascual Jordan contributed significantly to quantum physics but it's rarely mentioned because of that association. On the flip side, also the nazis ignored his suggestions for advanced weaponry, to their detriment I would imagine, because he valued jewish scientific contributions and so was considered unreliable politically. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan, discovered via AstroGeo podcast)
Also consider that you're on hacker news. Hacker ethics, or at least the version I've internalised, include judging people by what they say, not who is saying it (race, gender, and authority are commonly mentioned, but charismacy could also easily fall in that category)
I'm confused about your argument. At first, i didn't contest her cause or beliefs or usefulness of information. And second, I'm talking about how she speaks. I do not have good words to describe it (inflammatory, immature, full of self?). I do not believe this is a bogus criterium in the sense of the hacker ethics.
Are you sure you are not just buying a narrative being pushed to you? Who benefits from Greta Thunberg the outspoken activist against climate change and Israel’s campaign in Gaza being labelled a narcissist?
A brutal war leaving untold numbers of children dead is a reasonable thing to focus on, is it not?
Additionally, military operations are terrible for the climate. The US military is (was?) responsible for more pollution/emissions than most countries, for instance.
She has of course the right to get involved in any issue she cares about, just as everyone else.
But I think it was a bad move of hers to make the organisation "Fridays for Future" she had founded pivot towards other issues other than Climate Change.
She should have kept her engagements separate.
Is that the case? she supports many other causes too, and they do not conflict the idea of climate change being the greatest risk. In her own words climate justice and social justice are inseparable and I can see that point.
We are now discussing the narcissism of Greta, a well meaning activist, rather than that of the president of peace, who just bombed Iran. The narcisism of the man who ran on "drill baby drill" is somehow acceptable, was exactly my point.
> And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
That the climate crisis is the biggest threat to our security is the biggest fallacy of our times. It's not that climate change is unimportant, just that it needs to be evaluated to its fair potential consequences, compared to e.g. an all-out war.
