The problem I have with this assessment, is that the scenario in which Greta is not a pawn, but someone that struck a chord, does not look any different.

I have a seven-year-old daughter. It's not about money with me. I have done enough physics to understand that global warming is the probable outcome of our emissions. Money doesn't influence that. I sense that Greta has done the math, and is responding in a reasonable manner.

I have an email group that has been meeting for the last 19 years. Every year we each present on a topic. This year I chose sea level rise as I wanted to educate myself more on it. I'm primarily interested in how much can be expected, and how quickly will it come. Here's two interesting things I learned: 1) Historical sea level tracks CO2 reliably. Going back 50M years, when CO2 has been around the current 412ppm, sea level averaged 24m +7/-15m (+9m to \+31m) over the current level. 2) In their 2007 sea level projections, the IPCC only included thermal expansion in their projections, because they could not agree upon the contribution of ice shelves and glaciers. Thermal expansion has accounted for 30% of sea level rise since then.

I learned a number of interesting things that don't seem to be common knowledge. One thing is that sea levels are going to continue to rise significantly. The conditions for that have already been met.

What's happening is that we have created the conditions for global warming, and we continue to increase the rate and the extent of that warming. That's what's physically happening. The fact that industries are taking positions doesn't change the underlying physics.