This is quite a persuasive argument @madamswer as it provides...

This is quite a persuasive argument @madamswer as it provides reasons for why her speech could be viewed as ineffective in terms of achieving the things she may have set out to achieve.

A counter argument might run along the following lines, all publicity is good because it serves to draw attention to the issue and acts as a catalyst for debate. Therefore the more controversial or perhaps "extreme" the speech is the more effective it ultimately is. Someone on here might hear the speech, find it abrasive or annoying, might get on HotCopper to comment and then might find themselves getting interested, doing more research, even if simply to better argue with their fellow posters etc. Someone might be getting their haircut and hear people talking derisively or positively about the speech and might research more and ultimately be inspired to take some action etc.

An historical example is the suffragette Emily Davison who famously threw herself under the king's horse. She is the only suffragette whose name I sometimes remember though I am sure there were others who were more learned and persuasive etc. We can bet she got the tongues wagging at the time.

Did Greta thurnberg bungle an opportunity or did she very effectively grab it with both hands? Perhaps we cannot properly answer that question yet.

Apologies if this point has already been made, I haven't read the whole thread.

Note to all - we must discuss these matters without resorting to personal slurs. We can do it!