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.”
…
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.
“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”
Yesterday’s Newsletter from the GWPF – multiple wins!
https://www.thegwpf.org/
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
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.”
Why believe anything that you haven’t confirmed?
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.
~¿~
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.
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.
She can vote and she gave him the opportunity to attack his opponent in the race. He should have taken advantage of both.
“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.
Nope, that’s just a cover. Her youthful enthusiasm for the climate issue is based more on emotion and on the bandwagon effect than actual knowledge.
Based on a quote (fact) and science. Emotion has nothing to do with either.
How do you know that?
She’s got a better chance of seeing the coming cooling.
MarkW
Assuming for a moment that man’s CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming, if we subtract them from observed temperatures, wouldn’t that just about pitch us into global cooling, in which case, mankind is doing itself a favour by keeping the planet gently warm.
Speaking of “naïve” it seems that only 2m years ago there were forests growing in northern Ellesmere Island. How inconvenient.
https://www.livescience.com/9128-2-million-year-mummy-trees-reveal-harsh-climate.html
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!'”
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.
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.
Here is a prime example of the Greens targeting children, and using them to tug on the heart-strings of parents. This was a UK government TV advert (propaganda piece), for prime-time television.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm4hp1LPesw
.
pretty much related
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/young_dumb_teenage_girls_form_doomsday_cult_to_fight_global_warming.html
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.
Yep, the dumber they are, the more easily indoctrinated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Put Wagner in a cage match with “young and naive” Maddie
“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.
Rose Strauss is with the Sunrise Movement — a nonprofit youth climate advocacy group, the paper said.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/07/20/pa-gov-gop-nominee-wagner-calls-climate-activist-young-and-naive-after-her-question-at-town-hall/amp
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 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=PA)
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.