They are vegan, they get involved at their school on environmental improvements, they make sure they don't waste etc. and they make sure to highlight the plight of the future to others.

I honestly don't know how you can look at Greta Thunberg and underestimate the impact she's had on public discourse on climate change.

In before trolls have a go at them for being vegan, this very respected recent meta analysis published in science clearly finds that going vegan is the number one thing you can do to help most climate change factors https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf

15 minutes of pleasure from eating doesn't justify forcing an animal into existence to a life of suffering and premature death, especially when there are so many great alternatives - without even considering the the secondary effects of animal agriculture, including climate damage, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and the likelihood of bringing forward the next pandemic.

She's a hero, she's the reason why everyone is talking about climate change - even my kids are trying to make better choices and saying they've learned about it because of her, they've never heard of you.

80% of soy is fed to animals for humans to exploit, so not really sure what you're getting at.

A plant based diet eliminates the vast majority of animal suffering (bonus points for reduced climate destruction, antibiotic degradation and future pandemic likelihood)

Worth noting that many non-vegans are vitamin deficient and some medical authorities, including the UK's, even recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. Also, please reconsider using your Internet connection, that isn't very natural either.

So you realise that you're parroting the same thing all over the place and you know it's probably not accurate? Here's a challenge for you - approach this topic like something you've not researched before without your existing opinions and try and reach an answer as to whether electric cars are better or worse for the environment by being as scientific and objective as possible.

Because I keep coming across comments similar to yours, I have taken that same challenge myself to make sure I'm on the right track and there was a lack of compelling sources suggesting that electric cars are worse for the environment.

I invite everyone with the alternative view to the same challenge.

What do you think they have to feed to the animals? If you believe plants to be important enough, you should go vegan to reduce their suffering. Also, do you get really annoyed at people walking on grass? How about if you see someone kick a dog? I swear, when it comes to the veganism devate, normally sensible people completely lose all sense of logic.

It's just not true that we can't make a difference though - it's just easier for people to think that. Even if corporations, China, people on private jets etc. are damaging Earth and its inhabitants, our habits still make a difference also. You know, we can do what we can do personally at the same time as voting, campaigning and protesting for the change we can't control.

This Is Vegan Propaganda: (And Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You) by Ed Winters. I think it's tough to read this book and not be vegan before it's finished, it's an extremely well considered and compelling book for for anyone who likes having their views challenged.

It changed my life profoundly in both outlook and actions, as it did everybody in my life who I suggested read it.

Private jets are bad, agreed... How about making the change to veganism and also campaigning about private jets at the same time? Picking a different item on a menu is all it takes for a people in a lot of places and it's t really the type of problem that humanity should be throwing everything at.

Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?

Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don't eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.

Herbivores must, carnivores must not, omnivores with very high level thinking and moral agency is fortunate enough to choose.

Could you reference some of these claims that our world in data was found to be biased? Sounds like a pretty solid judgement was made, but a cursory search didn't yield anything untoward. Maybe if it's definite, you could update the Wikipedia entry to reference the controversy, as that's always a good place to signpost that kind of thing.

Are you sure?

Exactly, good for you. As individuals, we can choose to make things better, be a part of the solution, and have a big collective impact by making changes.

Bonus points are that it sends a signal to others which amplifies the impact, and also reduces the power of those large organisations who do bad, since our better actions often feed them less money.

With all due respect, I've hunted down rabbit holes and everything I've seen so far has been discredited. Taking Richard Tol as an example (since he's the first on the Forbes article by the philosophy degree guy who gets paid by fossil fuel groups), Cook's analysis of his criticism sounds completely valid and I haven't managed to find anything by Tol which contradicts it https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm.

Googling to try and cherry pick these morsels of criticism from unqualified people just seems like really heavy duty lifting to try and reach the wrong wrong position. Shutting down the absolute masses of evidence which disagree with you in a refusal to align with scientific consensus in a technical field just seems intellectually futile... But here's a challenge: given that Wikipedia is a community effort, pick the most valid sounding critic you can on the topic and edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change article to include it, and people much closer to the topic than I am will follow that chain if it's missing, with others providing their retorts until eventually the truth is reached. Spoiler alert: there are so many vocal, but ultimately wrong climate sceptics, that this will be routinely attempted, and what's left is the pages and pages of truth (Tol is indeed included and that chain has been followed).

I guess we could go around in circles, but you've got to the point of just telling me to do some Googling to disprove the very strong global scientific consensus, which sounds a little like the "do your research" trope you hear from the antivaxers. I simply haven't seen a compelling reason to believe that the climate scientists are wrong, and the onus is on the relevant experts who disagree to chip away at that consensus if they feel it's wrong. The fact they have been failing should draw reasonable people to conclude that climate change is real and is man-made.

Yes, I'm pretty sure a lion would die if he tried eating only plants, while I'd imagine a cow would die on a meat diet. I'm less well versed on non-human animal diets though, as I've never needed to give it a lot of thought.

I do know that humans can be very strong, fit and healthy on a plant-based diet, as confirmed by the world's medical institutions, and demonstrated by vegan athletes of all types.

Unfortunately, that says more about American discussion - America has moved beyond left Vs right to reality Vs "alternative facts". For example, climate change denialism, large vaccines cause autism, the election fraud nonsense. Unfortunately, given that opportunistic morons like America's republican party have politicised and denied climate change, I'm sure they'll be a segment of the population that will blame anything, including Greta.

So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn't warm to her, but they never would have.

I hear you! It's frustrating how much is out of our control. I find some people neglect to do what they can because some people, corporations or countries are a larger problem - sorry for mistakenly lumping you in with them!

We're talking at cross purposes. I am absolutely not saying there is no science in the genetics or psychology of homosexuality, I'm saying that opposing the antiquated idea that homosexuality is unacceptable was, and is, a question of morality that requires no science - that anyone can weigh in on. In principle, can you understand where I'm coming from? The difference between a matter of human respect and challenging decades of PhD level research outside of one's field?

If you're actually a published climate scientist, then you are absolutely entitled to have your view listened to, but with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't mention that morsel up until now, as that would be kind of key to this discussion. Given that I'm also a sceptical person (though in a different way perhaps), I feel a little doubtful and suspect this is the point where you tell me that your identity and your published work is conveniently secret - but please, tell me I'm wrong. Even in that (sorry, but unlikely) eventuality, that would entitle you to your view, but the other rational laypeople like me would be better served by assuming the correctness of the current scientific consensus until you make significant enough traction to be able to convince your fellow climate scientists.