Climate Putdown: “Are we here to Elect a Governor or Elect a Scientist?”

Pennsylvania Governor Candidate Scott Wagner

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

What do you say to someone who throws a baseless accusation of fossil fuel corruption in a public forum? GOP Governor Candidate for Pennsylvania Scott Wagner‘s gentle putdown of a young activist has gone viral, with liberals expressing shock that an experienced political candidate might call a teenage climate activist “young and naive”.

‘Young and naive’ teen to GOP candidate: You don’t need to be a scientist, but must know science

She has a name, but for the last two days she’s been known as the “young and naive” woman who asked a question during a town hall with a Republican candidate for governor.

Rose Strauss insists she’s not the one who was naive Wednesday evening, though she can’t argue 18 years old is young.

By not addressing climate change, Scott Wagner is more naive than she’ll ever be, she said.

During a town hall near Philadelphia two days ago, Strauss said the GOP hopeful for Pennsylvania governor proved his naivete when he said, “Are we here to elect a governor or elect a scientist? Okay? I’m here to be the governor.”

His response was: “Well, I appreciate you being here. You’re 18 years old. You know, you’re a little young and naive. But are we here to elect a governor or elect a scientist? Okay? I’m here to be the governor,” he continued. “I appreciate – and I understand – the question. But I have one for you, Rose.”

Read more:

The following is a video of the exchange;

Children and teenagers often take climate change more seriously than adults, because they really are young and naive.

Greens have been targeting children for indoctrination for a long time. In my opinion taking advantage of kids this way is cruel, but politically it can be a very effective strategy.

Adults are less influenced by climate propaganda, because we have had more time to notice that most climate activists are utter hypocrites. Very few climate activists behave as if climate really is a serious issue. Whether you’re talking about gigantic fly-in climate conferences, the competition amongst academics to rack up the most air miles, the private jets, (or fleets of jets, in the case of Richard Branson), the seaside villas (rising sea levels anyone?), the behaviour of our climate heroes just doesn’t square with their climate message.

The breathtakingly flamboyant high energy lifestyles of most of our wealthy climate “leaders” makes a total mockery of their demands that the rest of us cut back for the sake of the planet.

Teenagers like Rose, the young woman who challenged Scott Wagner, might have “studied” environmental science for a few years, but they have a lot to learn about how the real world works.

350 thoughts on “Climate Putdown: “Are we here to Elect a Governor or Elect a Scientist?”

  1. Wow, right/wrong or in between, that man just committed political suicide.
    Just say’n.

        • Big difference between polling in a guv race and president, but in fact there were polls showing Trump winning. He did better in head to head with Clinton polls than those including Johnson and Stein.

          The aggregate of final polls were off from the actual result by about a point:

          Of course, millions of her votes were from ineligible “voters”.

          But the polls found far from a landslide. Since the decision is by electoral votes, state by state polls are required. PA, MI and WI were razor thin.

          • That depends on the timing. It has become quite obvious to me over the years that many polls tighten by a considerable amount in the last few days before the actual election. The LA Times was telling people Trump was ahead but for the most part the major polls showed Hillary well ahead right up to the last poll before the election.

            Why do you think it was such a major shock that Trump won if the polls were showing the tight race you claim they were?
            Hell the NYT had Hillary to win with a 98% probability right up until the actual returns, not exit polling, started coming in. Every MSM network was shocked by the election night results. Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight had Hillary getting 300 electoral votes and a 2 to 1 favorite the day before the election.


            You can’t put lip stick on the that pig. The major polls almost universaly missed it badly. Even the guy the Clinton Campaign hired to do the analysis said so.

          • The polls didn’t miss it badly. They were pretty good, but underestimated both Clinton and Trump, because of undecideds, and maybe people unwilling to admit they were leaning toward the Donald.

            From RCP Average link above:

            Final Results:
            Clinton 48.2 , Trump 46.1, Johnson 3.3, Stein 1.1; Clinton +2.1
            RCP Average:
            Clinton 45.5, Trump 42.2, Johnson 4.7, Stein 1.9; Clinton +3.3

            The problem was that the national percentages didn’t decide the election. Clinton ran up big bulges in CA and NY, but lost the race in the swing states of FL, OH, IA, PA, MI and WI.

            State polling is never as good as nationwide.

            It could well be that some of the polls associated with MSM outlets fudged results until the very end, in order to affect the outcome, yet still appear valid.

            But the fact remains that the aggregate polls were very close to the actual popular vote. But the election wasn’t decided by the popular vote.

            In PA, MI and WI, the race was so close that no polling could have called the end result.

            FWIW, I contributed to the Trump campaign.

          • PS:

            Silver admitted that he should have paid more attention to the polls. He couldn’t believe that Trump could possibly be doing that well. His methodology was flawed.

          • The same methodology that had nailed the last two elections.
            I’m not saying that your judgement is biased one way or another by partisanship. We just disagree about the accuracy and validity of public polls.

            What is supposed to be the function of these public polls? To determine in advance who is ahead and who is most likely to win. It is also quite clear that some polls are meant to try and influence the results.

            They failed miserably on all counts in my book. You can argue the math and stats all you want but the tell for me was in the reactions on election night. It was quite obvious that everyone opposed to Trump expected Hillary to win big. Where did they get that confidence from? Why did commentators and so called “journalists” on every network use descriptions like “historic upset” or similar expressions to describe the Trump win?

            The answer to a great extent was because of polls and what the pollsters were saying. Show me a single time the RCP average had Trump ahead in the general. I frequent the site and can’t remember a single time. I also read the RCP post election analysis defending the accuracy of their consolidated polls average and relegated it to denial.

            If the pollsters and the likes of Silver really had a viable formula they would have seen the possibility of Hilary’s “Blue Wall” being breached. As it turned out it wasn’t just breached, it was demolished. And really quite conviningly so in Wisconsin.

            And as for the argument of the popular vote. Is there any doubt that illegals in CA made up a significant proportion of it. Since the polls we’re talking about are of likley voters it seems to me even the accuracy of that is even in question. Not saying didn’t take the popular vote. Just saying the published margine is probably significantly less than claimed.

          • My partisanship is conservative.

            But I know that polling can be reliable.

            The facts speak for themselves. The aggregate of polls correctly showed Clinton getting more popular votes, but by less than she actually did.

            Much of the difference is likely from illegal voters who weren’t polled.

            At the end of the day, however, it wasn’t the national popular vote that mattered.

            Silver didn’t use exactly the same methodology as before, because then he believed the polls. In 2016 he relatively discounted them.

          • Still proud of my native OK being one of the two mono-Republican-red states. Even our urban centers of OKC and Tulsa returned Trump majorities. Needless to say, Harpy Rob’Em Clinton did not grace us with her presence during the campaign, for which we are not particularly disappointed.

          • Hillary knew there was no point in campaigning in Oklahoma. She would be wasting her time.

          • But she campaigned in Waste of Time Arizona, instead of Wisconsin, and Michigan, where her campaign presence was needed. Seems like she did waste a lot of time.

          • Good post, Chimp but Trump’s victory, though narrow, was absolutely decisive. He took Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania off the Demonstratorcraps. The Obama phones couldn’t get out the vote to stop him.

          • Without Stein, he would have lost PA, and (I think, not sure) MI and WI. But without Johnson in the race, he might have gotten a majority in those states. He was close in MN.

          • Election night it looked like Hillary was cruising to victory all night long. It was a sickening feeling.

            I finally laid down in bed about 1130pm and turned the lights off but kept watching the tv, thinking Trump had lost. And then Pennsylvania came in for Trump and he was still in the game!!!

            And I got back out of bed, turned on the lights and continued watching and getting happier by the minute. Without a doubt the most excruciating and exciting election I have ever experienced.

            Like a miracle from Heaven. The Wicked Witch lost!

            Saved at the last minute!

            To tie a bow around it, we now we need to put the Wicked Witch and her minions in jail where they belong.

          • “Election night it looked like Hillary was cruising to victory all night long. It was a sickening feeling.”

            Didn’t look that way to me. But then I wasn’t watching the “journalists” nattering on TV/cable, I was looking at the results on the web as they were coming in. While it started out looking like a slim chance for Trump, as the night progressed, it became more and more obvious that he had a good shot at winning. I remember in particular watching PA’s numbers. They started out strongly in favor of Hillary (the Philly/urban vote was the first numbers in) but as the night progressed that gap kept shrinking to the point that I said “If Trump can flip Penn, he’ll win the election!”. Even though I went to bed before Penn flipped, it was so close that I went to bed feeling good that Hillary just might not be the president-elect when I woke up the next morning.

          • “The polls didn’t miss it badly.”…

            Until the pollers come to grip with the fact that conservatives do not poll…they hang up

            ..and liberals will poll for can’t get them to shut up

          • Conservatives hang up or lie to the pollsters; that is, when the pollsters bother to call conservatives. Most polls are skewed democrat by 5% or more.

          • Polls are not based on people who hang up.

            The main problem with 2016 polls was that
            the harsh demonization of Donald Trump (still in progress)
            caused some Trump supporters
            to falsely claim in public they supported Hillary.

            People were afraid to put a Trump sign on their lawn,
            because the leftists were so hostile, and still are.

            I know several people In Michigan who voted for Trump,
            surprising me,
            but they only told me that (in confidence)
            well after the election.

          • A good pollster doesn’t just total up all responses, but tries to get a mix representative of all adults, registered and likely voters. Different firms do this in different ways.

            Rasmussen, for instance, monthly runs a separate poll to determine how many Democrats, Republicans and Independents they need, and from where, as party affiliation changes.

            Like most candidates for state and federal office, I’ve used polls. When done properly, they’re helpful.

          • NBC polling is always suspect. State polls are less accurate than national. Also, dunno when in 2016 those results came in.

            It got NC, PA, MI and WI wrong. It was very close in the latter three, where Johnson and Stein made the difference, and Trump didn’t get a majority.

            Trump won the “toss-ups” of FL, GA, OH, IA, but lost NV. So that map isn’t as bad as it looks.

            It has the split in ME right.


            State: Trump Clinton

            PA: 48.18% 47.46%
            MI: 47.50% 47.27%
            WI: 47.22% 46.45%

          • What’s up with so many TV people’s face? They got that strange paralysis, almost always to their left.

    • Not in PA, lots of people here are cheering him for that. Funny, you get away from the metro areas in eastern PA and Pittsburgh and we are a totally different state, which is why Democrat Party is fast tracking a gerrymandering scheme before this up coming election. THAT has lots of us in PA pissed off and we are getting the vote out. The economy here has done a huge turn around in the last 16 or so months and people do not want it screwed up by Democrats yet again.

    • So what is the woman voting for, governor or state scientist? Fair enough question. She may not have the maturity to comprehend the answer.

      • You don’t have to be a scientist to have an informed opinion on her question. Just like you don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to have an informed opinion on whether or not you support nuclear power plants, or a medical researcher to have an opinion on vaccination.

        • Chris: And you don’t have to be a republican candidate to smell an astro-turf green children’s crusade, and give it the response it deserves. Does help, though.

          • He could’ve answered her question. He did not, he deflected and criticized her. No wonder he is down by 20 points in polling.

    • If you’ve got nothing to loose, then you may as well go out guns blazing. It frees ones mind and soul and allows one to think more clearly. /cheer.

    • You would think in a state where fracking is making people rich, his statement would resonant (though the school are teaching propaganda at a high rate while getting rich off the fracking money). I say “would think” because the idiots in Wyoming, with the exception of one candidate, think wind energy is great in a state where oil, gas and coal are what keeps us from having a state income tax, etc. So, voters can be complete fools, using doublethink to the max. I even wrote a letter to editor pointing out that so-called businessmen want the competition (wind and solar) in the state and think it’s “part of the mix”. It’s very difficult to judge outcomes when voters are too stupid to understand where their economic wealth comes from. It’s like trying to get preschoolers to embrace quantum mechanics.

  2. “Teenagers like Rose, the young woman who challenged Scott Wagner, might have “studied” environmental science for a few years, but they have a lot to learn about how the real world works.”

    Science is supposed to be the study of the real world.
    What does the above tell you about environmental “science”,
    at least what today is being presented to young people as “science”?
    And, ultimately, who is paying for this “education”?

    On the 49th anniversary of humans first setting foot on the moon,
    these are unsettling questions. They do not bode well for the future.
    Under today’s post-modern “education”, where ideology rules and
    questioners are ostracized, Apollo 11 would have never cleared the gantry.

    • So the winner of the NY 14th congressional district, graduated 4th in her class at Boston College with a BA in foreign policy and economics, is ten years Rose’s senior yet can’t answer even the most simplest foreign policy questions or explain why unemployment rates are low.

      Yeah, the American education system has utterly failed the last generation and seems to be making promises to completely gut what constitutes functional literacy in the current class of victims.

      So when Rose, barely an emancipated adult, who probably has eaten Tide Pods in the last year, arrogantly claims that “Scott Wagner is more naïve than she ever will be”. Translation: “I know everything and have no need to learn more but must commit myself in enlightening all the idiots around me.”

      Basically, this is what teenagers have thought since Cain and Abel first achieved puberty.

      Sad part is, they don’t know what they don’t know, and are convinced that malinformed hot-takes and emotion are valid substitutes for logic and reason.

        • Dumpocraps would love it where the Constitution amended to allow 18 year olds to be president.

          Somehow the Framers knew what has been discovered by science that the human brain isn’t fully mature until age 35.

          • Usually, female brains are smaller, more dense and more efficient. Female brains also mature well before men, men maturing between 25-30. And there is plenty of brain science.

          • That is true. I didn’t comment on differences in brain.

            Female brains are more mature than male brains at least from puberty until men catch up in their 30s.

          • As a man of science, you must be familiar with the scientific maxim that the big head follows the little head.

            In those of us of least brain, that’s still true at 65. Just more slowly than at 25.

          • joelobryan :
            OR should that be “JELLY BRAIN” ??? TOO BAD
            that you were “just a stupid bag of hormones until age 25”
            BECAUSE your Testosterone PEAKED between the ages
            of 15 and 19 and it has been all downhill at roughly
            1% per annum ever since you hit 30 !!
            True……WOMEN mature earlier than MEN ……
            .but given that their fertility also curtails much sooner ,
            it’s a pretty poor trade-off… .it’s just as well they get
            to live about 8 years longer then , or you would HAVE
            to say that the “Universe” is a pretty unfair place !

          • Patrick MD

            Female brains also mature well before men,

            Iffen you are calling the “onset of puberty” as being maturity, then you would be right.

            There are two types of “maturity”, ……. one is sexual (procreative) maturity, ,,,,,,, the other is nurtured (environmental knowledge) maturity.

          • It is true that female brains are, on average, smaller, that is easy to prove. The more dense and more efficient part is not that easy. The whole argument looks made up by a feminaz¡.

          • simple-touriste;
            ! There is no such thing as “fully mature” or “brain science” !?

          • My brain was fully mature when I was 11 and my position on most issues did not change since.

          • “My brain was fully mature when I was 11 ”

            Yeah, hate to break it you, but that’s called arrested development.

          • Voting age should be raised to 26, since you’re still a child on you parent’s insurance.

          • I have been seeing a commercial on tv lately where two retired people, a man and wife, are talking about getting some money out of their insurance policy and the woman explains that they no longer need the insurance since their youngest child just turned 40 years old and recently left the nest.

            Maybe we should raise the voting age to 40.

            It seems the younger generation is not maturing as fast as previous generations. Of course, that may the the fault of the parents for coddling them way too much.

            When I was sixteen and just starting high school I asked my dad if he would buy me a car, and he said, “Son, if you want a car, you need to get yourself a job and earn the money to buy it yourself.”

            I can just imagine my dad’s reaction if he thought I was planning on staying at his home until I was 40.

            Anyway, according to the commercials, it is ok to allow your children to stay in the nest until they are 40. No wonder so many of them get triggered out in the real world.

          • The issue of voting age is a tough one. The knee jerk reaction of this veteran and many other people apparently was and is that if your old enough to serve in the military then you should be old enough to vote. I used to believe that strongly but no longer. These days I think 21, where it was before it was last changed is probably too young also.

          • I’m a firm believer that if you’re old enough to smoke and go to war, you’re old enough to vote…

            Which is why I think the age for all of those should be raised to 21.


          • Not sure about that.

            I had 18, 19 and 20 year-old soldiers ask me what was the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

          • “ask me what was the difference between Republicans and Democrats”

            I bet you couldn’t answer.

          • Simpleton Terrorist,

            You are pathetic. I’m a former Republican elected officeholder at local and state level.

            Everyone is smarter than you are.

          • Think a minute before jerking your knee. The characteristics needed for a a fighting man (sorry, ladies) are not the same that are required for evaluating political candidates. Young men…strong and naive…make good warriors, but maybe not such good voters.

          • I served in the military when I was 18 in 1967 and was not eligible to vote. The voting age was 21 at that time, which was subsequently changed to 18 in 1971 in the USA.

          • My take on reforming the federal vote:

            Age 25, you can register to vote in House elections and run for a seat in your state.
            Age 30, you can also register to vote in Senate elections and run for a seat in your state.
            Age 35, you can also register to vote in the Presidential election and run for the office.

            Those citizens who’ve displayed exceptional service to the nation, may receive waivers to register to vote in all of the above, regardless of age.

            (e.g. decorated military personnel, which includes wounded veterans, because every American soldier wounded in action receives the Purple Heart)

          • Being wounded makes somebody more responsible?

            Then McCain should vote 10000 times.

          • I’m trying to decide if you are deliberately missing the point, or just weren’t smart enough to understand the point in the first place.

          • You can always tell when Simple has lost an argument, because he starts calling people ‘shill’


          • You might have something there… you’re not old enough to vote for an office unless you’re old enough to run for that office.

          • D: And some have had three…count’em…purple hearts. And were not elected President. Oh, the agony!

      • “Thinking” that is symmetrical in three dimensions: Narrow, shallow and short term memorization.

      • Dunning and Kruger at Cornell University in 1999 observed experimentally and described the phenomenon of individuals perceiving themselves to have more expertise than they actually have in areas wherein they have little knowledge.

      • “So the winner of the NY 14th congressional district”….and is so cock sure of herself (her isolated world)…she does interviews on national TV…and erases all doubt

      • Sad part is, they don’t know what they don’t know, and are convinced that malinformed hot-takes and emotion are valid substitutes for logic and reason.

        It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so. Will Rogers

        • What complicates the voting age discussion is the fact that everyone of every age is exposed to enormous amounts of political propaganda on a daily basis, and a person has to be rather sophisticated to separate the wheat from the chaff properly.

          Younger voters would know how to vote if they were told the truth, but they don’t get the truth, they get distortions of the truth. If the young were given the truth, socialism wouldn’t have a chance of being a viable political option.

      • It is a general proposition: We do not and cannot know what we do not know. Not that we lack information, but that we cannot identify the unknowns that beset us.

  3. Accurate or not, their are characteristics of people you really shouldn’t invoke. I mean unless your taking about a Republican. Then, hair, face, weight, face, hair accent…. all legititimate…

  4. I am on the fence about Wagner, he has said different things to different crowds on the same day. That said, Tom Wolfe has repeatedly said he wants to shutdown all coal mining and use and massively tax gas and oil operations which will effectively kill our economy. Gas, oil and coal companies, and their employees and customers, already pay billions of dollars in taxes and Wolfe wants more. THAT is what people in PA need to pay attention to, not some empty headed teenager who can’t even properly address a question to someone at a public event.

    • The brain dead Dumpocrap shouldn’t be up by double digits, in a state whose finances could be rescued by fracking. But urban PA is dead dog Dumbo country.

    • Is it important to understand the difference between ‘currency’ and ‘money’?

      Is it important to understand the difference between ‘memorizing’ and ‘learning’?

      Is it important to understand if there is an important difference between ‘skepticism’ and ‘factualism’?

      • Don’t really see where you are going with this. Let me clear it up. Climate changes, constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Hope that helps.

  5. <>

    The “litmus test” IMO is that if they really thought it was an actual problem and if, in fact, it really was a problem, then it wouldn’t be people like the nincompoop activists at the forefront of solving the problem.

    Why did an image of Bill McKibben just form in my brain?

  6. It would be a very bad idea to let scientists run the country. Their overconfidence would lead them to do disastrous things.

    What we need for governor is someone who’s been knocked around by life and realises the limits of her situation. This isn’t to say that I haven’t seen overweening hubris and arrogance on the part of politicians, it’s just that scientists would be an order of magnitude worse.

      • Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer and a renowned classical scholar who, with his wife translated the remarkable 16th century latin opus on mining and metallurgy (De Re Metallica ) by Georgius Agricola. The book contains the method of fire assay for gold, essentially still used today as described for accurate assays for gold. It also described underground mine surveying, using geometric observations on veins for locating them underground, smelting etc. It is a great read.

        • And yet, the point remains untouched, that the only two engineers who have been president are generally recognized to have been failures.

          • Hoover wanted to act but was reluctant to do so without the support of the new President-to-be. Remember, there was a much longer span between election and inauguration way back then.
            FDR refused to cooperate, for…political reasons.

        • Hoover was a geologist who worked as a mining engineer.

          He was wrongly blamed for the Depression. In fact, it was FDR’s Democrat cronies in NY who were more to blame than anyone else, like Joe Kennedy and J. J. Raskob.

          • I agree with you that FDR extended the depression with bad policies. But protectionist tariffs imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 played a big role in turning an asset bubble recession into a global calamity. I’m not sure how much to blame Hoover beyond his signature on the bill, but face it, his response to the crisis was ineffective.

          • When the slowing economy started to cut into government revenue, Hoover supported a bill that raised taxes to make up for it.

          • Yes, he tried many of the same fixes which also failed FDR.

            But he did so to a less harmful level.

            For instance, he believed in government projects as counter-cyclical employment. But his projects were useful, like Hoover Dam. FDR’s shovel-leaning CCC, not so much.

            Although Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood is nice to have.

          • +Rich Davis, the consensus of economists after 3 generations of debate and research is that the tariff hikes had only a small effect on the subsequent course of the depression.

          • lol
            A consensus of economists!
            And how about the witch doctors and climate scientists?

            The economic impact on Americans was not the only impact that I had in mind. Trade wars and competitive currency devaluations contributed to the environment for the rise of fascism and rabid nationalism.

          • Hoover suffers the same stigma as John Quincy Adams. For both men, their presidency’s were low points in their political careers, whether through no fault of their own or otherwise. JQA was a distinguised diplomat, responsible for much of the early political dealmaking that established US presence on the world stage. And Hoover saved potentially millions from starvation post-WW1 through his food stockpiling and distribution program, known at the time as “Hooverizing”.

          • He was demonized by Democrat demagogues. MacArthur broke up the Bonus Army campers without his approval, but to his credit, Hoover accepted responsibility.

            He has also been blamed for anti-Catholic rhetoric against Al Smith, but there was no way he could stop it.

    • I expect that included concern about the climate was placed under “Environmental / Pollution”. Still a pretty low score.

      • The whole enviro was a 2…..when you include contaminated water, air, etc…..climate change wasn’t even in it…climate change got a 0

    • The question is something like “What is the nation’s most important problem?”

      If you don’t ask people about climate change, they don’t think about it. It’s simply not on most peoples’ radar.

  7. Let’s be fair Scott Wagner is an idiot when it comes to science and climate change. He is on record as
    stating that the cause of climate change is body heat and the earth spiralling closer to the sun. Even 18 year olds know that that is nonsense and are not afraid to say so.

    Also asking a candidate whether political donations have affected their views and voting records is a serious question that should be asked more often. It is also noticeable that Scott refused to answer that and decided to act like a jerk instead.

    • Compare that to the Dumbocrat that said Guam would “flip over” if we added more American military personnel” …. D’OH !

      • It was the military hardware that was being stored and staged on Guam wot dunnit. The original comment to the effect that the island was going to tip over and sink was made sometime in the 1963/1964 time frame by some wise-ass rat-ass GI who was stationed there and who likely is now anonymous (If not dead, he’s at least now an old fart who has seen a lot of weather).

    • Let’s be fair Scott Wagner is an idiot…

      Once you contradict yourself, why should you expect me to read further?

    • I too am surprised by his response/non-answer. Actually it was two questions but regarding the part about climate change as a politician he should have been better prepared. For example, he might have stated that climate change was an issue that was unsettled and that he would prefer to deal with more immediate issues such as XXXX. Or something equally neutral. He’s a candidate for governor. His handlers should have prepared him for such obvious contentious issues. Knowing what questions will be thrown at them and being able to neutralized them is why they’re called politicians.

      He’s a loser……

      • Yeah, his rude brush-off of ANYONE asking a question makes him sound a lot like Hillary. Not a good move on his part. He might be right, she is young and naive, but he was just as rude as if he had said “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.” I mean, really, what did any of these have to do with the question? Answer it already!

        But don’t listen to me for political advise. I sometimes have fantasies of running for office, until I realize that it likely would go something like this: at the very first press conference someone would ask me a question and I would answer it. And that would be the end of that!

      • The unfortunate irony of being a career politician is that the skills considered vital to getting elected are not the same skills that ensure you do a good job once you’re in office.

        • Except possibly for communication.

          Obama claimed to have administrative experience because his electoral campaign was well run.

  8. Young children have an intuitive sense of “it’s unfair” (to them) or finding cheaters in general. That’s why they might see the scams that are climate or vaccine “science” very easily.

    As soon as they pretend to be more “adult”, or adultoid as I call them, they lose that inane sense of unfairness and become very vaxxer and warmist.

    • Vaccine science is as far from a scam as is possible.

      Apparently you’ve never heard or read about the pandemics of the 19th century cured by vaccines.

      Whole families were wiped out around the world by the diphtheria pandemic of 1878. The future Tsarina of Russia, granddaughter of Queen Victoria, survived, but lost her beloved younger sister and mother.–94)

      It hit my ancestral homeland of Eastern Oregon and Washington Territory hard. My great-grandparents survived, but many of their friends and neighbors didn’t. One family lost seven children in two days, but both bereaved parents survived and moved away.

      Maybe you live somewhere other than western America or Europe, such as NY State, for instance:

      Safety and tremendous efficacy:

      Antivaxer goons are enemies of humanity.

      • Typical climatist answer.

        “you deny climate” applied to vaccine. Complete garbage. Sad.

        • As always, you’re totally wrong.

          I’m a CACA skeptic. But I know, as a biologist, geneticist and medical researcher for a scientific fact that vaccines have saved billions of lives.

          You have the ignominy to be a misinformed tool of the enemies of humanity.

          Now please, if you think you can, for once in all your infestations of this blog, present some shred of evidence against the fact that vaccines are vital to the health of humanity.

          You won’t because you can’t. All you have is the lies and antiscientific garbage you’ve been fed, uncritically because you lack the ability to discenr reality.

          • You “know” as in the Pope “knows” God exists. You have cited zero fact. Cause there are none. Your post is pure filth.

            Do you deny the abominable increase of MS following some vaccines?

          • There is no MS increase following vaccines. Where did you get that lie?

            Here’s the truth, which you can’t handle, so blinded are you by your antihuman, false religion:


            I’ve provided nothing but facts. Before vaccines, millions died of infectious diseases. The smallpox vaccine eradicated the virus in the wild.

            Obviously you didn’t read the efficacy and safety stats on diphtheria vaccine.

            If you had your way, billions would perish.

          • You provided zero relevant fact.

            Before the Internet, million died of the plague. That’s another garbage fact like the ones you provided.

            The number of people with MS in France went from 30000 to 80000 in France. Nearly all studies show that hep B vaccinated people have a higher risk of MS than unvaccinated people.

            I wonder what you have studies in biology and how many persons are like you (brainwashed, terrified).

          • You’re brain has been thoroughly washed, spun and rinsed twice, then dried.

            Your French drivel is totally bogus.

            Why do I bother casting pearls of fact before such a swine?

            Clearly you’ve never studied any relevant science, and are incapable of distinguishing fact from propaganda.

            Re neuroscience:





            When I studied neuroscience in the 1970s, some thought maturity was reached by 25, but further study has shown that conclusion false.

          • “especially now that we understand the brain changes in response to environment, at age 18 or 82

            “But you can’t say it gets to a certain point and is mature. The brain continues to mature in different ways throughout your life.”

            So brain science is pretty much like vaccine science.

            And the fascination for vaccines proves that most adults don’t take rational decisions hence are not “biological adults”.

          • And Abigail Adams saved her family from smallpox by doing the same. Without which gutsy move on her part, no sixth president J. Q, Adams, author of the Monroe Doctrine and annexer of Florida while SecState.

            Rural Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t live in filth. They were isolated, hence susceptible to infectious diseases which city dwellers got as kids, providing immunity, such as from measles and mumps. In adulthood, those childhood diseases can be lethal.

            The polio epidemic of the 20th century, which struck my dad, but not me, thanks to vaccine, was because of too much cleanliness, not from filth. For millennia, kids were “vaccinated” against polio naturally from their environment. But early 20th century middle and upper class moms provided to sanitary an environment for their kids, so they didn’t get naturally immunized by “filth”. Hence, they were susceptible to the ravages of the disease when adolescents or adults.

            My dad caught the disease in Puerto Rico after the war, having survived single combat against the Empire of Japan in the Pacific. The feds knew of the epidemic, but didn’t want to harm tourism.

          • Why was “polio” redefined several times?

            What caused the almost elimination of polio in the US after WWI?

          • Ia there no ludicrous lie which you won’t swallow?

            Treatments were developed for polio sufferers like my dad, who wore a leg brace. That’s a far cry from eliminating the poliovirus thanks to vaccines, as happened in my generation.

          • “Treatments were developed for polio sufferers like my dad”

            How does he know he had polio? How was polio defined?

          • I’ve decided to study this for about a half hour. It is easy to see that simple-touriste gets many facts wrong. For example, polio outbreaks peaked in the 1940s-50s in the U.S. and were eliminated by vaccines. This was decades after WWI and more than a decade after WWII.

            The anti-vaccine studies do not adequately account for increases in life expectancy and population growth and demographics in general. They demonstrate improper use of fact and statistics.

            There is seemingly an increase in auto-immune diseases related to environmental cleanliness and lack of exposure of young children to pathogens. This supports the concept of natural vaccination as others have commented on. There are certainly open questions, but those questioning the efficacy of vaccines are worse than silly.

          • “polio outbreaks peaked in the 1940s-50s in the U.S. and were eliminated by vaccines”

            OK, assuming it’s true (it isn’t completely implausible), then what? I’m pretty sure you never had that vaccine.

          • “such as from measles and mumps. In adulthood, those childhood diseases can be lethal”

            Another problem brought back by vaccines which provide only temporary immunity.

          • INcreases in the number of people suffering from a particular disease always go up when you loosen the definitions of that disease.

          • Do you deny the fact that the definition of polio was made more strict over time?

          • Simpleton,

            I’m not terrified, but I’ve seen the terrible things which infections do to humans.

            There is an effective plague vaccine. But now the infection can also be treated with antibiotics.

            That you associate all infections with “filth” shows that you know nothing about contagion and all you imagine you know is wrong. The family of the future Tsarina weren’t living in filth in 1878 when they contracted diphtheria, which killed her mom and favorite little sister. They had modern indoor plumbing.


            As noted elsewhere, diphtheria and whooping cough are spread from person to person, as with smallpox, mumps and measles, chicken pox and other viruses. An example of a disease spread by “filth” is the waterborne pathogen of cholera.

            Because of whackos like you, pertussis (whooping cough) is on the rise, so that now we have to consider vaccinating adolescents and adults whose parents irresponsibly didn’t vaccinate them while their immune systems were developing.


            You’re complicit in the death and suffering of millions.

          • >Nearly all studies show that hep B vaccinated people have a higher risk of MS than unvaccinated people.

            Doesn’t prove cause and effect. The vaxxed might differ from the unvaxxed in other ways. Maybe, for example, they are cleaner and more germ-averse. An excessively clean environment might impede the proper development or “tuning” of children’s immune responses, which could be one reason autoimmune diseases (such as MS) have been rising as a class, at least in developed countries. Anther possible explanation is an increase in meat consumption, which might cause the body difficulty in learning the difference between self and other. Maybe more prosperous people can afford more meat and are also more likely to get their vaccinations. Teasing out the possible contributing factors is not simple. On the other hand, you are undoubtedly right that vaccines are not risk free. The smallpox vaccine, which I received as a child, did in fact cause terrible and sometimes fatal reactions in a small number of recipients, yet I don’t see how smallpox could have been eliminated without it.

          • People used to live in filth. Your understanding of history is a joke like your understanding of biology, medicine, epidemiology. Where did you get your diploma?

          • My undergrad degree is from Stanford, with great distinction, Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year, with early graduation.

            My grad degree is from Oxford, attended on a Rhodes Scholarship, and a Danforth not taken up because I didn’t need it.

            Diphtheria and small pox weren’t spread by filth. You are utterly ignorant. Diphtheria is caused by the bacterium Corynebacterium diphtheriae. It’s spread from person to person, usually through respiratory droplets, as from coughing or sneezing. Smallpox is a virus, the transmission of which requires close contact between people.

            Under modern public health, the diseases still existed. Vaccines cured them. Read and learn, instead of spouting drivel and lies.

          • Many vaccines don’t you non contagious, just less ill. So, why don’t we so these viruses in the wild? The answer is: sanitation.

            Every country has a different set of mandatory or recommended vaccines. One generation ago, very few vaccines were mandatory. Now a child gets tens of inoculations in a few years. It’s pure craziness.

            What about that researcher that signed a study “showing” that there was no link between vaccines and autism and then had to run away from the police? Do you trust people who have to run away to avoid jail? Does your “community” trust felons?

          • You are a gullible doufuss, without enough education or intelligence to know when you are being lied to.

            Vaccines don’t cause autism or MS. There can be bad batches, but vaccines have saved billions of lives. That’s a fact.

            Clearly, you know even less about infectious diseases than you do about immunology. Which means you know less than nothing.

          • MS and the various flavors of autism are survivable, more-or-less treatable afflictions. Smallpox, diphtheria, polio… these have left real body counts that would be even higher if not for modern vaccination efforts. So even if the claims of increased rates of MS and autism among vaccinated children were found to be unequivocally true, that would NOT be sufficient reason to cease or even significantly limit the practice of vaccination. And I say this as one diagnosed with a very high-functioning form of Asperger’s. (I’m basically ‘deaf’ to body language and developed mild social anxiety symptoms because of that.)

            By the way, I remember when I received my polio vaccine before starting school around 1987. It was given orally. Tasted like bubble gum.

          • “MS and the various flavors of autism are survivable”

            Given that one person was awarded 3 million euros for a case of MS, just the indemnification of tens of thousand of cases will bankrupt the health services and the French state.

          • My mother was a student nurse in a ‘Fever Hospital’ in England in the early part of WW2. She was on the children’s ward where there were lots of children with diphtheria. She was left alone sometimes and if more than one child had a crisis, only one could be saved. We, her six children, were all immunised against that appalling illness and made very sure that our children were too. Likewise with the smallpox vaccination.

          • Seriously, need you ask?

            The scourge was eradicated thanks to vaccine.

            The very name of “vaccine” comes from cowpox, which was found to confer immunity against smallpox. Before then, inoculation with smallpox material was the only method of protecting against the dread disease, but ran the risk of giving the subject a case.

            The name of the cow which gave milkmaid Sarah Nelmes cowpox, from whose forehead Edward Jenner got the material with which to inoculate eight year-old James Phipps, his gardener’s son, then exposed the lad to smallpox without effect, was Blossom.

            Do you really not know these elementary facts?

          • “The scourge was eradicated thanks to vaccine.”

            So it isn’t part of the current vaccine schedule therefore irrelevant.

          • Most ‘superbug’ infections occur in hospitals and other facilities which are regularly sterilized, and in patients who are undergoing long-term antibiotic regimens. Through fast reproductive cycles and sheer numbers, antibiotic-resistant bacteria show up all the time. But in a normal, natural environment, those superbugs must compete with other non-supers for nutrients, which keeps them in check. It’s when you kill off all their competition with disinfectants and/or lots of antibiotics that they get the place all to themselves and go nuts.

            Antibacterial soaps and washes always brag on the labels about killing 99.9% of germs. If you ask me, it’s the 0.1% they DON’T kill that you need to worry about.

          • True. Misuse of antibiotics threatens the world.

            One of my best friends died of MRSA contracted after an operation.

            Rapid evolution of pathogens is not our friend.

          • “There is no MS increase following vaccines. Where did you get that lie?”

            Hundreds of thousands of people have been crippled by the vaccines you promote, in France alone.

            This is the worst health catastrophe of recent history. Medicine is the most serious danger for health.

          • Preposterous. The worst public health catastrophes have killed millions of people. MS isn’t caused by vaccines. Period.

            Obviously you didn’t read my link to the National MS Society, anymore than you did the stats from the Wiki entry on diphtheria vaccine success in the late 20th century, not in the 19th.

            How dare you presume to comment on a subject about which your are totally ignorant, and all you imagine you know is false?

          • The worst public health catastrophe before common access to sanitation, etc.

            Obviously, you never tried to see the result of the studies re: MS which almost always show a link with the vaccine, often “not significant”.

            How do you explain the explosion of MS in France?

            Why has the definition of MS been revised almost as much as the definition of “polio”?

            Why do see an explosion of polio like diseases in India?

          • As I keep telling you, there is no statistically significant link between vaccines and MS. Again, please cite the “research” which you imagine was conducted in France. It’s idiotic, as anyone with the least little bit of scientific training would know.

          • 1) There is certainly a tripling of MS in France. That’s the reason why French people reject vaccines and medical imperialism, and why Macon wants to impose those defective products.
            2) The most important factor is the redefinition of MS to include more confirmation. I’ve discussed with people pretending to be medical doctors on Twitter (and who would pretend to have such a shameful “qualification” on Twitter if it wasn’t true) and they changed the definition of MS from one discussion to the next.

          • My comment with neuroscience links is in moderation, because there were so many, but just a few out of numerous.

            I can’t believe that this science blogs allows antivaxers and creationists to post and comment here.

          • Hi Chimp
            be calm, People who have those close to them who are stricken with MS or Autism, look for a cause as to why it happened. Vaccinations are a straw that is grasped.

          • Sorry even mainstream “science” admits that the autism-vaccine is plausible: the gut-brain link is now discussed in the mainstream. If there is a gut-brain link, the rest becomes a priori plausible (not established or likely, just not silly).

            Vaccines are a modern cult. Seeing alleged “skeptics” in the cult is abominable.

          • More lies which you buy without the least little bit of real research or even thought.

            There is no evidence, zero, zilch, nada, for such a correlation.

          • Mike,

            IMO that’s not how the antivax crusade started.

            My first GF died in her 50s from MS, but she never for a second blamed it on vaccines. She was smart enough to know that there is zero evidence in support of that lie and all the evidence in the world against it.

            She has a genetic predisposition toward the ailment, but its full blown onset might have been triggered by the death of her younger son in falling off a grain elevator belonging to a prominent politician, whose career she nonetheless supported.

            Her early death was accelerated by alcoholism and divorce, not by the vaccines which gave her and me so many extra years of life.

          • Mike “Hi Chimp
            be calm, People who have those close to them who are stricken with MS or Autism, look for a cause as to why it happened. Vaccinations are a straw that is grasped.”

            Simple mind has gone simple

            Just a note on autism – there is a very high correlation with autism and the age of the birth parent at the time of birth of the child. The older the parent, the more likely to have child with autism – same with downs syndrome.

            according the the CDC – approx 1 in 162 kids born today have some form of autism which represents a significant increase since the early 1900’s. over the same time period, there has been a significant increase in the age of the parents at the time of birth ie parents waiting to late in life to have children.

            A science correlation question – While there has been a huge increase in the rate of autism, has there been an increase in the rate of autism by sub-groups – ie based on the age of the parent –
            example rate of autism for children of parent age 20 in the early 1900’s vs today
            rate of austism for childrent of parent age 25 in the early 1900’s vs today
            age 30 of parent
            age 35 of parent
            age 40 of parent.

            I suspect the rate of austims hasnt increase nearly as much in each subgroup.
            Chimp can you provide any insight

          • Hi Joe I was 50 for the birth of our second child we home school. Many reasons. Autism is something we are concerned with.
            I believe our current President’s young son has been thought to have Autism.

            Also Neanderthal DNA in populations is suspected.


          • “Also Neanderthal DNA in populations is suspected.”

            if so, that would be primarily caucasin/european descent?

            regarding my first question –
            I realize good data may not be available for for the early part of the 20th century – but is there any data available for comparison autism rates based on age of parent?
            Based in educated speculation, I would think that the rates for the age subgroups hasnt changed nearly as much as the overall rate for all ages of parents.

          • My last comment, but your heartfelt statement merits a response.

            Yes, I think that autism is correlated with mother’s and probably father’s age.

            The last son of a GF of mine has extreme Asperger’s.

            There is no correlation with any vaccine.

          • Yes, I believe that to be the case Mike, based on my own personal experiences. it is heartbreaking when a parent has to deal with an autistic child. There must be an explanation, somebody or something must be to blame! Often the fear is that it was their own fault, bad genes, bad parenting. Inevitably they come across this kind of pseudoscience on the Internet.

            simple-touriste has been with us in previous incarnations, I can’t recall his/her last pseudonym, but the content is unmistakable.

            I would also counsel not to continue engaging. There is no hope of persuasion. Just offer sincere condolences for the loss this person has suffered.

          • In a previous incarnation he declared that the only reason why survival rates for cancer have improved over the last 50 years is because we are better at detecting cancer early.

          • Instead of “persuasion”, why don’t you try real scientific arguments?
            Cause you have none.

          • There is no such thing as “antivaxers” just like no such thing as anti climate. You have yet to provide any evidence showing vaccines are safe or useful. LOL

          • Your argument from invincible ignorance is so bald-faced obvious that it’s not even entertaining. 😐

          • In a strange way, the fact that Antivaxxer trolls like Simple Touriste are posting on WUWT is proof of just how influential and widely read it is.

          • Good point, G…cat. It’s probably best to allow them to post their idiocy from time to time for all to see. Risk feeding them at your own peril.

          • Possibly in the land of Pasteur, you guys arent good at making vaccines. When Salk developed the polio vac, the laboratorises had a difficult time trying to make the stuff. Finally, Connaught Laboratories in Canada developed the best way to make them and they worked beautifully. My parents sent me and siblings to a remote cabin on a lake in Ontario for the worst summer. Neighbors begged my parents to let their children go, too. We had a vey fine time of it!

          • Pasteur was a fraud. The Institut Pasteur is linked to the most serious health scandals in France.

            French people are most anti crook and so anti vax because French people are less dumb than other people.

            Who is a risk of polio in Western countries?

          • When challenged on his lie about MS cases in France, simple simply screams louder that he’s correct.

          • Simpleton, shown facts, denies that he was shown any.

            When asked for sources for his own false claims, he just repeats them, without citing any.

          • I 100% deny the increase in MS following vaccinations.
            There is no evidence of it. The one study that claimed to have found it was later found to be fabricated.

          • guys…you’re making a huge mistake here….and Chimp with your background, I’m surprised at you doing it

            All vaccines are not the same…the are not made the same, are not made to work the same……and your arguing like they are

          • They aren’t all made the same, then again, all cars aren’t made the same either.
            However they do all work.

          • Poor simple, can’t get anyone else to buy into his unsubstantiated lies, so he just resorts to more name calling.

          • The same with all false religions and ideological belief systems.

            The end result is killing those who dare to disagree with you, since they’re right, hence you can’t show them wrong by any other means but violence.

          • And vaccine obtained by modern, “clean” genetic technology like the hep B vaccines seem to be a lot more noxious than the biologic vaccines (when they were not a risk of spreading AIDS in Africa).

          • That’s probably a valid observation, too. But people who deny that vaccines are responsible for the near eradication of childhood diseases are not making a nuanced case that maybe certain specific vaccines have harmful side-effects. They are making crazy wholesale claims that are contradicted by historical evidence.

          • Eradication of which diseases?

            Those that come back later when they are much more dangerous?

          • Latitude,

            I’ve responded to the Simpleton’s specific lies, namely about MS and autism. Complete and total fabrications in both cases.

            As I said, sometimes there can be bad vaccine batches, just as with any other manufacturing process.

            He’s also wrong about Pasteur, one of the greatest applied scientists of all time, to whom billions owe our lives.

        • The evidence for the effectiveness of vaccines is copious and sold.
          The evidence for CAGW is non-existent.

      • “Antivaxer goons are enemies of humanity.”

        Vaxxism is a mental disease. Vaxxists should be prevented from assuming any decision making role, anywhere.

        • Support for vaccination is as far from a mental disease as is possible. It has saved billions of lives.

          You clearly are not just a dupe but deeply, seriously mentally deranged, unable to connect with reality.

          • And yet you repeat deranged talking points like “billions of lives saved”, a preposterous idea.

          • Just the fact.

            Before vaccines, there were fewer than a billion people on earth. Now, thanks to vaccines and public health, there are going on eight billion.

            You really have no clue.

          • Like the climate warriors simple-t rails against, he only reads the side of the vaccination story that he already agrees with. Any anecdote is immediately promoted to the realm of absolute truth.

          • Which anecdote? The explosion of MS following mass hep B vaccination is an anecdote?

            Is the gradual decrease of an infectious X disease after X vaccination an anecdote, when it started before?

            Is the decrease in the US after WWI of “polio” (whatever “polio” meant at the time) an anecdote?

            Is the explosion of what used to be called “polio”, but not modern polio, in India, after polio vaccination, an anecdote?

          • Pasteur is a well known fraudster. He is also the hero of the vaccine crowd.

            Glad that you mentioned him.

          • Before the Internet there was less people in Earth.

            And before electric trains.

            And before turbo reactors.

            And before the photoelectric effect was understood.

            You really win this thread.

          • Yes simple, pointing to facts is often a winning strategy.
            Perhaps you should try it sometime.

          • Ok, let’s assume for a minute that I believe Simple isn’t just a wack-job* and might have a point.

            They said;

            The number of people with MS in France went from 30000 to 80000 in France.

            Ignoring that this statement was apparently produced by the American Association for Redundancy in America, what is the timeframe for this nearly 4 fold growth? What was the Population of France at the beginning and end of it? What were the rates of other diseases? We’re there any other possible influences that could have accounted for it?

            I can’t help but assume that, as we appear to be talking about the Polio vaccine, that the time frame would be something like the last hundred years. Needless to say, the population of France has increased by quite a lot in that period. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t by more the 4X, or even 10X. This is also a country that has always had a large percentage of very poor people, even before they opened their borders to every 3rd worlder who could reach them.

            Add to that just how many diseases HAVE been reduced or wiped out. If people aren’t dying from them, they WILL die from something else (which is why so many more people die from Alzheimer disease then before)

            In short, I’d need to see some very, VERY convincing data to believe there was any kind of connection to vaccines.

            *actually I don’t think Simple is a wack-job. Their posts don’t quite match the profile. Most anti-vacs fall into one of two broad categories. Either Leftist Anti-Corporists or full on conspiracy Nuts. But the Leftist aren’t usually climate skeptics, they follow other left wing beliefs like anti GM and anti nuclear. And the conspiracy nuts believe almost everything, even if they contradict. But conspiracy nuts usually link to lots of conspiracy websites believing their wild rants somehow ‘prove’ what they want to believe. Simple doesn’t really do that. Instead, Simple usually claims to hold one of the more common right wing beliefs (which ones seem subject to change) while trying to link that belief to widely discredited conspiracy theories. Almost like they were quote mining (or planting) for an alarmist like Sou.


          • So you admit you know nothing about the rise of MS following hep B vaccine?

            You should work for the DNC.

          • So you admit you know nothing about the rise of MS following hep B vaccine?

            Actually, yes I’ll admit that. I know nothing about any rise of MS following Hepatitis B Vaccines.

            And after your many posts, I still know nothing about it. You haven’t actually provided any evidence. Maybe you think that just having you insist it’s true is enough, but (like many of your beliefs) you are Simply-Wrong.

            I won’t even say that what you claim is impossible. There have been many instances where what was widely believed has been wrong. But if you want to convince people of something that goes against most accepted science then you need to provide a LOT of concrete evidence.

            And more importantly, you need to not make ridiculously extreme statements. You are clearly not just claiming that ONE vaccine has an undocumented side effect, which many will agree might be possible. You have by now stated that ALL vaccination is fraudulent and more dangerous then the diseases they were created to prevent. (With specific mentions of Polio, Hepatitis B, and Pasteur) And to anyone with even a basic understanding of History, that comes across as mad.

            So, if you actually want to convince anyone (and aren’t just a troll or false flag sockpuppet), you need to bring the data so we can all examine it. Because this is WUWT, and we don’t just give you and your theories a free pass because you claim to be a Climate Skeptic. A fact more then evident to anyone following any thread involving the Sun, Volcanoes, The PDO, Clouds, or a host of others.


          • “Almost like they were quote mining (or planting) for an alarmist like Sou.”

            Could you elaborate? Who or what is Sou? What would be the purpose of “planting” quotes?

          • ‘Sou’ is the writer of a rather pathetic Climate Alarmist blog. At least 90% of her articles are simple mocking of WUWT articles. She routinely pick quotes to highlight, often not even from the article in question but from individual posts, and NEVER links back to the original article, lest her dozen or so followers be exposed to actual skepticism.

            She and a few of her followers have been caught on several occasions using sock puppets to try to derail threads. They love getting arguments going based on conspiracy theories or other areas with disagreements, to get better quotes they can point to and say ‘look at how stupid the skeptics are’.

          • The guy is a conspiracy theorist. Next thing, Sou is controlling Donald Trump and writing his speeches.

          • Score -10 for saying that there is no evidence that billions of lives were saved, then there is no evidence even millions were saved. People reading this thread are really, really dumb.

          • Simpleton,

            There is all the evidence in the world.

            You just can’t handle the truth, so won’t even read the links I’ve posted showing the success of vaccines.

          • Pathetic shill,

            You couldn’t cite any argument for the demented US vaccine schedule.

            You can’t explain the explosion of MS.

            You are clueless and useless.

            Go away.

          • “Support for vaccination is as far from a mental disease as is possible. It has saved billions of lives.”

            This thread has reached peak stupidity. Until other vaxxers turn on you and say you are inane and your diplomas are worthless, I’m out.

    • They don’t, but we’ve nearly reached the point where tax-consumers outnumber tax=payers.

    • 50% of Americans don’t pay Federal taxes…(and vote democrat) …….Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm !

      • Please provide a reference for the 50% number. And I suspect that you are referring to the 44% who don’t pay Federal income taxes. They still pay other taxes – Social Security and Medicare taxes (yes, I know, there is still the fiction that they aren’t taxes), plus Federal excise taxes. And, of course, if they haven’t gotten medical insurance, they pay the fine, called a tax by the SCOTUS.

          • I don’t have a real problem with the working poor paying little or no federal income tax. They are working, most likely at a job that under utilizes their skills. My thoughts have always been “but there by the grace of god go I”.
            They are working .


          • Odd question. Not everyone has employment. The teens of all ethic and racial backgrounds have huge unemployment rates. This is not a criticism against them but rather recognition that opportunists are few for them. They are competing not just with each other but with older citizens.
            To qualify I also do not have a issue with those who cannot find employment due to the lack there of. Many have given up.
            With the Trump administrations aggressive policy to bring back jobs from abroad and impose tariffs to protect American jobs hope is starting to return.


          • Since about half of those who file federal income tax returns pay nothing in income taxes, your statement would only make sense if you are suffering from the delusion that half of income tax filers are also “working poor”.

          • Hi Mark.
            Define what your definition is of working poor.
            It differs from State to State of course, and remember it takes a good sized nest egg or some type of help to leave one State in the hopes of a better life in another.
            Also note many families have both parents working to earn enough money to pay taxes.
            But as I said there is hope maybe with President Trumps policies we will have more people employed in higher earning jobs and one of the parents able to stay home and rise the kids.
            As I said cheer up there is hope new steel and Alum. mills a opening. As well as coal mining. And remember To make steel you need coal.
            Build Mills set tariffs and watch coal demand jump.


          • Mike, you were the one who brought it up.
            I can say one thing for certain, someone who’s making the median income is not a member of the working poor.

          • Okay Mark I was yanking your chain a bit, there are some things we disagree on. But yes every one should pay some tax . Instead of a state deduction for federate taxes maybe the taxpayer should get to deduct their fed tax on state income tax. Might limit the greed of some states.
            I like Trump I hope to vote for him again

          • Everyone should pay SOME tax. I have no research to back that up, it’s more like a thought experiment. So take person X, whose ENTIRE income is government checks of one kind or another. They should pay a federal tax on that, same as everyone else, including those who have jobs producing something that a consumer can buy, i.e., they create actual products, not just “value”. So some crazy socialist wants to raise taxes, the welfare queen also sees her taxes rise. Think that will change how they vote?

          • SS taxes are really savings? So if you die before you spend it you can will your savings to your children? What, it doesn’t work that way? Outrageous! Someone should appeal this to the Supreme Court! Oh, wait, that has already been done, at least twice. SCOTUS says it is just another tax which Congress may spend any way it pleases and which you have no contractual right to get back. I know it was “sold” to the public as a sort of pension plan, trust fund, etc., but, legally, it is not.

        • You are supposed to get SS and Medicare back when you retire.
          Nobody tries pushing that lie regarding the other taxes.

          PS: I’ve seen that near 50% number in several places for years.
          Regardless, the bottom 50% of income tax payers only pay about 0.1% of all income taxes. So even if they are paying something, it’s a pittance.

        • Retired_Engineer_Jim — Yes, to be grammatically precise, Marcus should have said “50% of Americans don’t pay Federal INCOME taxes,” but everyone knew that’s what he meant.

      • I came across this back when GW proposed his tax cuts. It still is relevant.

        Tax code explained in Beer
        Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

        If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

        The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
        The fifth would pay $1.
        The sixth would pay $3.
        The seventh would pay $7..
        The eighth would pay $12..
        The ninth would pay $18.
        The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

        So, that’s what they decided to do..

        The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

        The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

        They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

        So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

        And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
        The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
        The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
        The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
        The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
        The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

        Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

        “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

        “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

        “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

        “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

        The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

        The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

        And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

        David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
        Professor of Economics.

        • Now that the federal government has stopped subsidizing CA and NY’s high tax rates, the number of wealthy people leaving both of those states has increased dramatically.

          • “Now that the federal government has stopped subsidizing CA”

            Why has this been going on for so long?

          • Because leftists are hypocrites.
            They want to to portray their virtue by supporting high taxes, but they don’t actually want to pay those taxes themselves.

  9. 7-year-olds being recruited now (1min video):

    and ABC calls it a “crowd”!

    22 Jul: VIDEO: ABC7: Youth Climate March held on National Mall

    21 Jul: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Gore Effect Strikes again: DC Youth ‘global warming’ march met by very cool summer temperatures

  10. this video is unbearable to watch, but shows the pathetic turnout:

    22 Jul: Youtube: 8:15 LIVE! DC Climate Protest with Xiuhtezcatl of Earth Guardians – Zero Hour

  11. “…..Children and teenagers often take climate change more seriously than adults, because they really are young and naive…..”
    Whether this opinion is true or not young and naive votes have the same value as what “old and wise” votes?
    Put downs like this are rude, crude and probably have a negative outcome!!
    Quite silly really!!

  12. You don’t need to be a scientist, but must know science…
    Given that Klimit Scyence and Money are as linked as Love and Marriage and Horse and Carriage……How about…..You don’t need to be a Finance Officer but must know Finance?

  13. If I got the correct sense of the politician’s knowledge and views —
    I would advise the GOP to replace him with someone better educated.

    The young lady has been indoctrinated into the AGW cult. That’s a shame.
    Maybe she can find a way out of the “climate science” mess but I doubt she will.

    Perhaps Judith Curry would visit with Rose and deprogram her.

  14. 38 States of the US (> 2/3) needs to repeal the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    Backgrounf; he 26th Amendment provided the Federal vote to those US citizens under 21 but at least18 years of age. It was the latest Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971.

    The Democrats have relied for decades on the Dead vote, the Felon vote, and the illegal vote. Those are coming their end in terms of ROI. Since that isn’t enough, they pushed in the 1960’s for the teenage vote, the young and naive vote, i.e., The young and stupid vote.

    Now with many Red States successfully pushing voter ID laws to stop voter fraud and more Democrat’s dead votes being stopped by dead voters being removed from voter registration rolls by Red States, the Left is being pushed to expand its “stupid teenager vote.”

    I support repealing the 26th Amendment — our Constitutional framers understood even teenagers in the 18th and 19th Centuries were too naive to the ways of the world ro participate in adult politics.

    • In the original republic, 21 was a big deal as a matter both of law and custom.

      Sons were expected to work for or with their dads until that age. Lincoln didn’t get along with his dad, but honored the custom rather than running away at the first opportunity.

      Same went for apprentices to other older men.

    • I wrote the correct number of states i.e. 38, but that is 3/4 (not 2/3) per the US Constitution for amendments.

      • That age is a time-honored compromise. In the best of all possible worlds, only tax=payers over 35 would be allowed to vote.

        But with 18, 19 and 20 year-olds fighting and dying in Vietnam, America decided to depart from the wisdom of the ages, to let teenagers vote. At first it made little difference, because so few actually did. Voter participation rates plummeted after teenagers were allowed to vote.

          • That’s a good idea, which hasn’t gotten much ink.

            The record of 25 year-old Reps and 30 year-old Senators isn’t all that good. IMO we could go to 30 for the House, 35 for the Senate and 40 for President and Veep without losing a lot of talent. As in none at all.

        • “But with 18, 19 and 20 year-olds fighting and dying in Vietnam, America decided to depart from the wisdom of the ages, to let teenagers vote.”

          It was the military draft. College students were afraid they would get drafted and sent to war so they demanded to be able to vote.

    • joelobryan wrote: It was the latest Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971.

      Correction! The latest amendment was *not* the 26th, but the 27th!–ratified in 1992, although it was submitted by Congress for ratification in 1789, the longest gap between submission and completed ratification of any amendment. If it were up to me, though, I would repeal every amendment after the 11th.

    • Do you think he had that teenager’s vote to begin with?

      Likely that teenager was a plant, with a planted question, and with her mind already settled. He had nothing to gain by patronizing her.

      • Was she not from another state?
        No matter. He seems to be a jerk. She seems to be of the AGW cult.
        It would be of interest to see each of them 10 years in the future.
        One or the other might improve.

  15. “Teenagers like Rose, the young woman who challenged Scott Wagner, might have “studied” environmental science for a few years, but they have a lot to learn about how the real world works.”

    but perhaps they know assholes when they see them.

    • Trump is an asshole. I saw that. And I voted for him anyway.

      The other viable choice was a criminal who would sell the White House to enrich herself at the expense of national security and allow the socialists within her party who owned her to take further control of the US domestic agenda.

      An Easy choice. An Adult choice.

      • A crook or a clown?

        When the thoroughly corrupt crook is also a pathological liar, mentally and physically ill and a screaming hell bitch.

        Easy peasy.

      • I bet Russia had all sorts of blackmail material on Hillary. They know just who they bribed to do that Uranium deal, as one example. They, along with other intelligence agencies also probably have a copy of Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails, which they got before they were deleted.

        Trump ought to ask Putin or Chairman Kim to slip the U.S. a copy.

  16. “Greens have been targeting children for indoctrination for a long time. In my opinion taking advantage of kids this way is cruel, but politically it can be a very effective strategy”

    Ever heard of Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream? The oil industry is no less guilty of propagandizing to children.

    Scott Wagner has suggested that climate change is due to the Earth moving closer to the sun, and humans’ body heat. Miss Strauss asked a perfectly reasonable question: whether his stance on climate change has anything to do with over $200,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry. That is not a “baseless accusation of fossil fuel corruption,” it’s a perfectly reasonable question. In return, Wagner simply insulted her.

    Launching into a diatribe about the “hypocrisy” of those who are concerned about climate change is redirection; it has nothing to do with the story.

    • Utterly ludicrous of you to imagine that the “oil industry” has even a tiny fraction of the influence over children of unionized public school “teachers”, ie indoctrinators.

      Besides which, the “oil industry” supports the CACA scam, as evinced by all the payola it has showered upon Mickey Mann, yet none upon our gracious host.

      Wise up.

      • The oil industry benefits greatly from the scam, as it can sell more nat gas, knowing that the nuclear alternative is suppressed anyway.

        • simple-touriste

          And where does the energy come from to power your computer?

          If fossil fuels are the enemy you clearly imagine they are, you’ll surely be happy to stop using all the conveniences reliant on them, like running water, lights, transport, medicines, roads, the house you live in, and of course, your aforementioned computer. Hopefully, that will be the first thing to go, then we won’t have to suffer your inane drivel any longer.

          • simple-touriste

            And your computers manufacture? Your mobile phone? Your car? Your winter heating? The fuel for your car? Or perhaps dishwasher, washing machine, dryer, roads you drive on, food you eat, toiletries you use, the medicine you take, the watch on your wrist, your shoes and clothes.

            Don’t give me your sanctimonious drivel that because much of France’s energy comes from nuclear it absolves you of the responsibility you preach, just because you preach it.

            You’re a hypocrite with disillusions of elitism. You can have it all, but no one else can.

          • “And your computers manufacture?”

            That wasn’t the question.

            You can stop polluting this discussion now.

          • Simpleton,

            Apparently you’re unaware that France imports a lot of fossil fuel-generated electric power. You use more than you produce. As of 2015, you imported over 44% of your electricity.

            Hence, combined with national non-nuclear, your electricity supply is not mostly nuclear.

            Yet again, wrong about everything.

          • “Apparently you’re unaware that France imports a lot of fossil fuel-generated electric power”

            I’m “unaware” because you made it up or read it in some fake news outlet.

            “Yet again, wrong about everything.”

            Yet again, you are.

            I’m done with you.

          • You lie again. I gave you the proper link to a website with all the answers. Stop polluting the thread!

          • Mods,

            Why is my factual response in moderation?

            Since I keep getting moderated for no good reason, and because this site promotes such antiscientific spew as creationism and anti-vaccination, I’ve had it.

            Alarmists are right that this is an antiscientific site, spewing every kind of lunacy and lies. While genuine science gets moderated.

            So long. Nice to know you.

          • Chimp

            There’s problems with the moderation. Every one of my comments was going in until it was discovered I had 750 previous comments. The site’s new and needs time to bed in.

            And look at the idiot spewing the anti-vaccination nonsense, and the arguments he/she makes, none other than simple-touriste whose most compelling argument to date has been “Go away”, directed at MarkW.

            It’s the trolls on here that reduce the site’s value, not the regular contributors.

            Reconsider mate, I for one enjoy reading your post’s.

    • Kristi Silber

      “Ever heard of Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream? ” Nope.

      But it doesn’t stop schools in the UK from cranking out drivel ‘climate science’ to indoctrinate our kids.

      I recall some loony Democrat seriously stating that Guam was at risk of tipping over. Politicians sometimes say stupid things, big deal.

      And equating Wagners campaign contributions with his position on climate change was an ambush question. That child didn’t compose that question independently, she was primed with it.

      How about I ask you where your pension will be coming from? A rarely mentioned fact is that the majority of institutional investors include fossil fuels in their portfolio and have done so for generations. So if Wagner’s a corrupt fossil fuel shill, what does that make you? And I mean other than a hypocrite.

      Cheap fossil fuel energy has given the world everything. Your house was built thanks to it, your car, the PC you’re tapping on, the food you eat, the medication you take, even your virtue signalling bicycle is reliant on fossil fuel energy for its manufacture.

      Just how much do you, and this 18 year old brat stand to gain from fossil fuels. I suspect $200,000 is a drop in your personal lifetime ‘carbon footprint’ ocean.

      Fossil fuels have created untold wealth, employed billions of people directly and indirectly. It has driven economies, fuelled progress, and allowed people leisure time. Nothing in human history comes close to fossil fuel derived energy as an agent for good in the modern world.

      Yet this manipulated brat turns on it like a rabid dog, and you support her.

    • “…Launching into a diatribe about the “hypocrisy” of those who are concerned about climate change is redirection; it has nothing to do with the story….”

      Watching climate activists contributing to the demand for fossil fuels in their lives while bashing the country for its dependency on them matters to the credibility of the activists themselves. It matters a lot.

      Hypocrisy is one of the things one always watches for when determining whether the person you are arguing with has a sound basis for his/her argument. What does that hypocrisy tell us about their commitment to “The Cause?” What does it tell us about how much they really believe?” What does it tell us about how much they really understand the issue?” Does Al Gore really believe knowing that he lives the lifestyle that he does? Does Michael Mann?

      Somehow I seriously doubt that an 18-year-old really understands the complexity of the climate change issue enough to argue with a skeptical scientist who has a PhD in a climate or climate-related field and years of experience in it. Don’t know how much that politician in the video understands climate, and maybe his response to the young lady should have been a little more thoughtful. But arguing a scientific issue from a position of scientific illiteracy is never a smart thing for anyone to do.

      If you are going to be concerned about something–anything, make sure you have enough information on the subject to justify being concerned in the first place.

      • Until those who spend all their time whining about other people’s fossil fuel usage start living their own lives as if fossil fuels where the danger they claim it is, then the charge of hypocrisy is valid.

        Like most leftists, Kristi is eager to pass laws for other people to live by.

      • What kind of knowledge is needed to refute climatism? Or vaccine propaganda? Or Trump-Russia?

        NONE. ZERO.

        In fact knowledge is very often a burden. It confuses the mind of people with modest abilities.

        Of course a random teen is probably not going to argue on IR bands, energy level, degrees of liberty of molecule, relaxation, gray body, lapse rate, Effective Emission Height. Or the meaning of the central theorem in measurement of diverse values later averaged. Or the use of that theorem to wave away the measurement error below calibration precision of the instrument. Or the definition of a “forcing”. Or principal components. Or what p<.05 means vs. the certainty levels expressed in IPCC reports.

        That is not the point. Simple questions will do instead.

        The question a child can ask about climate is: why do you get it so often wrong with the weather of the next season? What's the difference between prediction over a season and the next 100 years? Do you keep your past predictions around for analysis? How often were you wrong in the past?

        Treat all issues at once. What is Trump-Russia? Anything. Meeting with a Russian ambassador counts. Meeting in public with reporters with the ambassador. Somebody talking on RT ("RT might be linked with Putin" according to ex-sperts). Selling a combo to a Russia expat can count Trump-Russia, until something more exciting counts. Trump-Russia might be anything, so it means nothing. As a child knows “it’s soooo unfair!” No political story has a bad as low as Trump-Russia. Trump-Russia is a fishing net that catches more useless fishes than the worst decried-by-enviros fishing net. Trump-Russia is an insane narrative.

        What count as evidence vaccines saved billions? Anything does. Any decrease of any disease in the world (incl. countries where the vaccines were seldom used) in a century. No drugs need a media treatment as insanely biased as vaccines. Vaccines saved billions and are the most important medical treatments is an insane narrative.

        These are questions a kid should ask: why do you dismiss evidence of increase of a disease after vaccination? Why is evidence always insufficient in that case and sufficient in the other direction?

        Do you keep around the list of your dismissals of vaccine side effects that you had to reverse? Do you stand by your dismissal of the “biological plausibility” of side effects of vaccines? Do you stand by the claim that the dose of antigens in a vaccine is too low to cause side effects? Which other drugs are considered to have a dose of active substance too low to cause side effects? Instead of insulting critics, as you usually do on all media platforms, do you go around explaining vaccine propagandists that they arguments are insane?

        These are questions any kid should be able to ask after reading pro vaccine “arguments” on liberal brainwashing media (hello Slate). In fact if a kid doesn’t ask those question, I would question whether his mind is functional.

    • It really is sad how trolls have to convince themselves that the only reason why they aren’t winning the hearts and minds is because of evil propaganda from the other side.
      Even when they have to invent evidence for the existence of said evil propaganda.

    • I HADN’T heard of Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream! Thank you! What an awesome book for our young.

      No confusing disagreements on subjects that are hard to judge, like ‘climate change’ or ‘ocean acidification’ just a simple undeniable image of a world without fossil fuels, and all the things that come from them.

      Simple brilliant!


  17. Pennsylvania…so no, if he wants to be elected he doesn’t want to be pushing CRIMATE CHING.

  18. Environmental science studies have little to do with the environment or science and everything to do with politics.

  19. One would expect a governor to be educated in subjects his opponent would use, and to have the ability to answer questions. Being ignorant about a subject that’s discussed quite often isn’t a badge of honor.

    • The young person quoted merely lacks historical context, a common problem with all ages as history is sidelined.

      Here is a self explanatory graph showing the temperatures a person would experience during their lifetime.

      As can be seen, the temperature increase started around 1690 so it is a 300 year long trend. Intriguingly the start date suggests the start of instrumental records was the low point in temperatures and that there were warmer temperatures prior to that low point.


  20. “I thank you Young Lady for your question and obvious concern.
    I hereby give you the microphone and two minutes, using your own words and understanding, to explain the Green House Gas Effect”

  21. Yesterday’s Newsletter from the GWPF – multiple wins!

    1) Climate Campaigners Lose High Court Battle Over CO2 Target
    Belfast Telegraph, 20 July 2018

    2) Climate Lawfare Suffers Another Defeat
    Energy In Depth, 19 July 2018

    3) U.S. House Of Representatives Passes Anti-Carbon Tax Resolution In Landslide
    San Francisco Chronicle, 19 July 2018

    4) U.S. Senate To Consider Bill Boosting LNG Exports To Europe, Taking Aim At Russian Gas
    San Francisco Chronicle, 18 July 2018

    5) Tony Abbott Is Winning The Climate Battle Down Under
    The Australian, 17 July 2018

    6) The Lights Go Out For Solar Hype
    Bloomberg, 19 July 2018

  22. That’s only part of the controversy. The other part is that Wagner’s take on climate change is about 50000% more naive than that of nearly any alarmist. I’ve heard, but not confirmed, that he’s on record as claiming that climate change comes from the Earth getting closer to the sun and human body heat. We shouldn’t necessarily ask that our politicians have science degrees; we should ask that they not be completely ignorant of science. Given that this is an issue that is likely to come up in public forums, we should expect that our politicians at least be able to consult someone knowledgeable and to formulate a working knowledge of the issue and perhaps consider likely policies. Wagner fails on all accounts.

    • “I’ve heard, but not confirmed”…Ummm. maybe you should confirm it first instead of believing “Fake News”

      • Real news is not hard to find.

        “I haven’t been in a science class in a long time, but the earth moves closer to the sun every year–you know the rotation of the earth,” Wagner said. “We’re moving closer to the sun.”
        He added, “We have more people. You know, humans have warm bodies. So is heat coming off? Things are changing, but I think we are, as a society, doing the best we can.”

      • I’ve heard it too, from nearly a dozen different Climate Faithful. Strangely none of them have actually linked to any evidence of him saying these things.


  23. The young generation was propagandized unmercifully throughout their school terms starting in Kindergarten. My girls were forced to watch Al Gore’s false “An Inconvenient Truth” in five different high school classes inside just one academic year.

  24. She’s an obvious plant, sent with gotcha “questions”, meant only to insult. She got what she deserved. Play the game, don’t cry about the results.

    • When direct quotes become “gotcha” questions you have to wonder how Wagner managed to insult himself.

  25. She can vote and she gave him the opportunity to attack his opponent in the race. He should have taken advantage of both.

  26. “Children and teenagers often take climate change more seriously than adults, because they really are young and naive.’

    Or perhaps because they will experience the climate that their elders will not be around for. If she is 18, she’ll be on the earth for another 70 years. Wagner will be around for another 20 or so.

  27. Speaking of “naïve” it seems that only 2m years ago there were forests growing in northern Ellesmere Island. How inconvenient.

    8m years before that there were metasequoia (redwoods) growing in the high Arctic.

    On being 18:
    What a confusing web of harm
    When conscience seeks to raise alarm.

    “Historical perspective…”
    “‘Historical perspective’?? We don’t need no steenkin ‘historical perspective!'”

  28. Seems the Dems have seized on a new attack model by using children to fight their battles as in Hogg/gun control and this young lady/climate change. Look for more in the coming months.

  29. The Gore’s multimegabuck house in Montecito CA mentioned in the link to Huffington Post (the link that mentions “seaside villas”) is not at risk from anyone’s projections of sea level rise, because it’s on a hillside and a little over 450 feet above sea level.

  30. pretty much related

    In a related story, a group of mostly teenage girls have formed a group with the doomsday-ish name “Zero Hour” because of their conviction that global warming is soon to destroy the world. Do you think it’s too much to compare them to the militants in Far Cry 5? Here’s a quote from their manifesto:

    The elected officials must comply with the demands of the youth, therefore they must pass and enforce legislation and support policies that protect life and our future on this planet. This is a revolution.

  31. My response is that there are problems that Governor can help solve. The Governor could help solve the lead paint issue and subsidence issues. There are the problems that need to be addressed. Climate change is primarily a natural issue and even if the problems were manmade, there is no guarantee that the actions taken won’t make things worse. So I think that Wagner should come up with a plan to address problems that can be solved such as lead paint. And, not waste time and resources on things that cannot be solved.

  32. Greens have been targeting children for indoctrination for a long time. In my opinion taking advantage of kids this way is cruel, but politically it can be a very effective strategy.

    Adults are less influenced by climate propaganda, because we have had more time to notice that most climate activists are utter hypocrites.

    And some of us are old enough to remember what the “climate” was like in our youth.
    Nothing has really “changed” much except that old, meant to be humorous, saying, “Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it.” is no longer funny because are trying to do foolish things to change it. The “foolish” things inevitably lead to them having more money and/or power.
    To such, children and teenagers are pawns and useful idiots.

  33. Yet, he’s entirely right to point out that the young are indeed naive. Teaching youngsters rarely (if ever) takes account of changes in scientific thinking – and especially in climate science which is uniquely model based, which has never agreed with reality and which now has many unanswered criticisms.

  34. Body heat? What a maroon. And calling her “young and naive?”

    We are here to elect an intelligent governor, and obviously this guy needs to bow out now.

  35. You likely don’t study climate “science” unless you’ve already consumed the kool-aid and become addicted.

    • Why is science in quotes? Did you ever study biology or chemistry? Are those also “science” or do you get to pick the science you approve of?

      [ hmmm, you seem to pick the science you approve/disapprove of here on a regular basis -MOD ]

      • It’s in quotes because there is no science in climate science. Just broken computer models.

      • I just gave Jim’s comment a + and Alley’s a -.
        Wish I could give MOD’s comment a +.

        Alley, biology and chemistry are “hard” sciences. There are real scientists who study the climate. But they are ignored in today’s “Political Climate Science” circles.
        You back the Hockey Stickers because you like the political outcome behind them, the “climate science”.
        (Or maybe you’re just “young and naive”.8- )

      • “[ hmmm, you seem to pick the science you approve/disapprove of here on a regular basis -MOD ]”

        Physics is no longer a science, but a “science”? I think you should explain.

  36. “He is more naïve that she will ever be” – is she working on becoming more naïve in the future?

    • No. But even if she did, not sure how she could manage to forget enough science to lower herself to “body heat causes the earth’s warming” type comments.

      I don’t think Wagner would need to work on anything to remain well below the naivety of the average 18 year old.

  37. I get the guy’s point, but I think he could have answered that question better. Pennsylvania ranks 2nd in the nation in energy production (2nd in natural gas and 3rd in coal and electricity; link

    A better way to approach the question would have been to ask the girl what percentage of the PA economy relies on fossil fuels. She would undoubtedly not have known the answer, and for the record I couldn’t find a quick reference online. Either way, how can someone expect a gubernatorial candidate to not accept funding from his constituents, especially in a state known for its production of said fossil fuels? Then he could call her young and naive and suggest she take a trip out of her urban bubble into coal country where she could meet the people whose livelihoods she is trying to destroy.

Comments are closed.