[Tepix]

Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.

> what actions does she recommend

She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.

[krona]

She recommends we listen to the science.

Consensus is a probability distribution.

Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus.

Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.

[lonelappde]

Care to explain what you are talking about?

I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.

[garmaine]

The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.

[protastus]

How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.

Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.

[garmaine]

> The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario.

“Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case...

> This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.

All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus.

> Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.

That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?

[lone_haxx0r]

> Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.

Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.