Greta Thunberg has often described her autism/Asperger’s as a “superpower,” suggesting that it gives her clarity and moral focus. As someone who is also “high functioning” autistic, I do not share that view.

Autism is not a superpower —it is a disability. It comes with strengths, yes, but also with limitations, including a tendency toward tunnel vision and difficulty navigating complexity.

Greta needs to be humbled by another autistic person. I will point out that an autistic person can have stupid opinions like anyone else.

When I was younger, I saw issues in stark moral binaries and struggled with nuance. It took maturity, life experience, and intellectual growth to understand that many global conflicts and political realities are layered, historically rooted, and morally complicated. My concern is that Greta’s youth combined with the cognitive rigidity that can accompany autism may contribute to an oversimplified framing of complex geopolitical issues.

I disagree with Greta Thunberg on her climate change policy and the level of certainty often presented in her public discourse. Greta does not have any qualifications except her adolescent temper tantrum at the UN. Greta rides around in a plastic boat (made of petroleum products) and is unable to explain her hypocrisy.

I believe climate debates should rely primarily on long-term scientific expertise. For example, Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and former MIT professor, has argued that climate sensitivity to CO₂ may be overstated and that significant uncertainties remain in modeling projections.

Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for “highly significant research in the atmospheric sciences”. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.

My concern is not about denying environmental change, but about whether catastrophic conclusions are presented as settled science without sufficient acknowledgment of uncertainty. I also question symbolic gestures within climate activism, since modern society—including activism itself—remains deeply dependent on fossil-fuel-based infrastructure. In my view, climate policy should prioritize open scientific debate, realistic risk assessment, and practical technological solutions rather than relying primarily on moral urgency.

I disagree with Greta on her position regarding Israel. In my view, her public statements on the conflict have repeatedly failed to confront the documented war crimes committed by Hamas, particularly the deliberate targeting of civilians. There are moral absolutes that should not be negotiated away: rape is wrong, murder is wrong, and intentionally attacking civilians is wrong—regardless of political grievances or power imbalances.

What concerns me most is the postmodern framework often used to interpret this conflict. It reduces morality to power dynamics: Greta seems to be able to explain away war crimes with postmodern mental gymnastics and contextualizing. Israel is strong; therefore, Israel must be the oppressor. Palestinians are weaker; therefore, they must be the victims. I reject the idea that power alone determines moral legitimacy. A lack of power does not erase moral responsibility. Violence against civilians does not become justifiable simply because it is carried out by those who claim oppression.

My position is grounded in moral clarity and historical fact. The Jewish people are indigenous to the land, with a continuous historical, cultural, and religious presence that predates modern political narratives. To frame Israel solely as a colonial aggressor ignores that reality and oversimplifies a deeply complex national and historical conflict.

Human rights must be universal to mean anything at all. We can criticize policies, debate borders, and argue over political solutions. But moral consistency demands that atrocities be condemned unequivocally—no matter who commits them. When violence is contextualized or excused based on ideology, we lose the very ethical foundation that allows us to defend human dignity in the first place.

Greta Has a Disability (Like Me) Not a Superpower

In the end, my disagreement with Greta Thunberg is not just about climate change or Israel—it is about how we think. I do not share her views on global warming, nor do I accept her framing of Israel as a simple oppressor–victim narrative. Both issues are complex, layered, and historically grounded, and they demand more than moral absolutism applied selectively or political analysis reduced to power alone.

As someone who is also autistic, I know firsthand how strong black-and-white thinking can be. It is part of the disability. It can create clarity, but it can also flatten nuance and oversimplify reality. Autism is not a superpower; it is a condition that requires self-awareness, humility, and growth. If I have learned anything over time, it is that maturity means moving beyond rigidity toward deeper understanding. Sometimes it takes another autistic person—one who has wrestled with the same cognitive patterns—to say that clearly.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)