system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Greta Thunberg is a poor choice as the voice for climate change due to her age, rhetoric, and lack of academic and political experience.

To start off, she is no doubt inspiring and clearly doing good for the world. I wish her nothing but the best, and I would much rather have her than *no one* advocating for these issues. 

Despite that:

-	I think it’s fair to say that most, especially older, people will not listen to a teenager with no experience regarding climate science, no matter how accurate or precise her statements are. This is less an inadequacy of Greta, and more so that of those listening to her. The drama surrounding her age is a polarizing point that causes both sides to entrench in their positions. To further make my point I’d like to generalize a bit. Most non-conservatives will find her ideas to be self-evident, and take any criticism of her as personal attacks (against her person). However, the topic is climate change, not unnecessary attacks on teenagers. And, most conservatives will not want to “argue” what they believe as the proper climate change argument with a teenager, so unless they’re particularly open-minded, this aspect of Greta cause more damage than benefit. 

Respectfully, I believe a proper college-aged candidate that could rip into conservative counter points with painful accuracy and not draw unnecessary attacks on age and inexperience would be better. Lastly to this point, the authenticity of Greta is curtailed by how painfully obvious it is her speeches are not completely her own. Despite that logically not being a big deal, audiences see her speeches the same way we see parents of 9 year olds “quoting” some enlightened thing their child has said. 

-	A rhetoric of fear, combined with any emotional misperceptions due to her age as stated in the last point, could cause the public to not take her seriously. Climate scientists, despite being right more often than not in the last few decades, have unsuccessfully predicted climate disasters throughout the years. Opponents of climate change are focused on these instances, and the rhetoric of fear and disaster (implied to be in the moderately short-term to those uniformed of climate change time-scales) could very easily make them believe this is another one of those instances.

Unfortunately, I am not educated on what alternative rhetoric would work best. Perhaps framing green energy as a missed opportunity or climate change as more optimistically avoidable would work. 

-	This is probably my weakest point, but I think it’s fair to say that unless Greta has politically experienced people behind the scenes helping her, she will most likely miss political opportunities, or get taken advantage of. A more experienced spokesperson would have better odds of avoiding obvious political mistakes and taking advantage of political opportunities.

Lastly, as a general point, I think Greta makes it too hard for conservatives to “lose” this argument against her. Despite how nice it would feel, making it easier on opponents’ of climate change egos would probably have a net benefit in the long run.

Editing for any spelling and grammar mistakes.
gpt
I have trouble understanding this view.  She is not "the" voice for climate change, she is "a" voice for climate change. Political figures and scientists alike have been saying that it is an issue for 30 years so why would we not want an additional perspective voicing their thoughts?