Hi @whatsup, thank you very much for this post!

As you expected, all the arguments of Greta supporters boil down to this:

It's not a "narrative" it's scientific studies led by real scientists using the scientific method.
I am not a climate scientist, but I know how science works.

Soooo, you're not a climate scientist, but you know how science works? XD

Of course, because all those decades of studying people invested in order to be able to even understand complex and difficult phenomenon can be actually replaced with couple of hours/days of internet surfing. Especially when you have the right sources ;)

I'm a molecular biologist with a PhD and several years of working experience in scientific research, so I know very well what I'm talking about.

Nowadays, everyone thinks that they can think scientifically, not being aware that scientific thinking is a extremely difficult way of thinking for humans, since it's in collision with our nature to see the world through biases.

Even most of the scientists are having an extremely hard time to learn how to think scientifically (yes, it's something you learn for years how to do), and to remove all personal biases from the experimental method. What do you think, what percentage of scientific papers get rejected from good journals? Way more than it gets accepted! :)

it's scientific studies

And I'm sure all of you people actually read those studies, and assessed them critically, using your highly developed scientific way of thinking, since you cannot name a single one of them :)

In best case scenario, those who decided to really dig into it, they will refer to certain article or video made by some journalist, who understands science the same way they do :)

led by real scientists

The same goes for this one - which scientists, what are their scientific background, how many references and citations they have, etc?

using the scientific method

Again, I'm sure all of you people know everything about scientific methods, and what represents high quality scientific method. Because after 7 years of working as a scientific researcher and training my brain to think scientifically, I still have struggles determining what is a good scientific method for the hypothesis I want to test.

But I'm probably just dumb, unlike all of you, shiny, spotless minds :)

In the end, when they fail to provide an answer to any of the reasonable questions, and when you don't swallow the "convincing story" they gave you, the conclusion is always the same:

Like I said, there is no point "engaging" a discussion with the new conspiracy theorists.
It's just a waste of time.

Rhetorical and psychological manipulation of complete devaluation of a person asking questions, to the point where that person is nothing but a dumb, crazy "science denier" and one shouldn't even try engaging in a dialog with such person.

It's useful as engaging in a dialog with a cockroach, for crying out loud! XD

Really appreciate your post and your willingness to jump into the boiling water and get burned!

Resteemed for visibility!