As a scientist, I think science ought to have taken center stage at the recently concluded United Nations climate summit in New York City. The reason is obvious: climate change is a scientific issue. 

Instead, we witnessed a political spectacle. Media outlets and celebrities (on Twitter) celebrated Greta Thunberg’s climate summit speech, making it the highlight of the summit.

In a fiery speech, based on a hand-written note, Greta condemned world leaders for making excuses and not acting on climate. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she cried. “And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

She ended her speech with a warning, “You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.”

But no one in the mainstream media even dared to question the claims Greta made in her now famous speech. German lawmaker Roderich Kiesewetter accused Greta of “attempting to bully those who seek respectful, fact-based dialogue about environmental issues.” Attempts to critique her unscientific speech were quickly reprimanded by the mainstream media.

Greta’s speech and the subsequent glorified projection of it in the mainstream media can be classified as “Appeal to emotion,” a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the audience’s emotions, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

For instance, her claim that “people are dying” is true. But it is happening at a considerably lower rate than at any time in human history. Global life expectancy has improved a lot in the past several decades.

Life expectancy was just 50 years in 1960. It improved to 63 in 1985 and reached 71 in 2015. In Sweden, Greta’s homeland, life expectancy was 71 in 1975 and jumped to 83 in 2014. In India, where I live, life expectancy jumped from 51 in 1975 to 68 in 2014.

Greta claimed that her future has been “stolen” by world leaders. A claim like that is totally unsubstantiated. No one knows the future state of climate, neither the computer climate models nor the best climate scientists at the United Nations.

Both the scientists and the models have failed to predict the onset of the major climate events in the past two decades. They had no clue about the slowdown in warming during the first 14 years of this century. Neither did they have any clue about when the harshest El Niño would occur. Also surprising to them, were the harsh winter of 2017–18 and the hundreds of record cold events since the end of the El Niño in 2016.

Moreover, the unwillingness of a large number of countries to reduce their emissions, despite being part of the Paris agreement, is a testimony to the fact that the scientific bodies of those countries see no immediate threat to climate from rising greenhouse gas emission levels.

If it were so, one would have witnessed desperate efforts for climate action in most of the countries. Instead, India and China, for just two examples, facing the immense pressure of rapidly rising demand for energy, have not even drafted plans to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Surprisingly, the resistance towards the Paris agreement is visible in developed countries like Germany and France, too. With the United States leaving the Paris agreement, Germany and France were informally viewed as the leaders of climate fight. But they, like Japan and Russia, understand that the world will not end as Greta claims and have chosen to backpaddle on their Paris commitments.

Because of this, Greta and a few other children have filed lawsuit against France, Germany, and three other nations for their climate inaction. Absent in the lawsuit were the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, India, China, and the United States.

But this lawsuit is only by a handful of children. They do not represent their generation or other children. There are millions of other children across the world who don’t think the same way. Among them, the popular examples are a boy in the U.S. who was censored by Instagram for challenging Greta for a debate, and a schoolgirl from Sweden targeted for not participating in the school strike for climate. 

For scientists and science lovers, Greta’s speech at the climate summit was not a surprise. She is a school girl, not a scientist. Expecting her to understand the finer details of climate is unfair, and her lack of understanding was evident in her speech.

Unless Greta actually experiences a dangerous and inhospitable climate system, she cannot make the assertion that the world is crumbling or that it is doomed. But she has been told to do so by those around her, undermining evidence based science and promoting pseudo-science.

The real culprits for Greta’s sorry state of affairs are the people like her parents and teachers (and those in the United Nations) who have made her believe that the world is in a climate crisis and that she has no future.

In the midst of all this drama, science took the back seat, and drama took center stage. This sets a dangerous precedent for the scientific community and the world in general. 

When scientists are side-lined and “appeal to emotion” is used as the ultimate driving force behind public policy decision making, it is safe to assume that something more than science is at play. 

Featured image of Greta at the School Strike for Climate by Frankie Fouganthin [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]