Guest essay by Eric Worrall
You couldn’t make it up – a week ago GOP Governor Candidate Scott Wagner called a young climate fanatic who questioned his integrity in a public meeting “young and naive”.
Now much of the climate activist movement, including Al Gore, are rushing to social media to declare how “young and naive” they are.
Young and naive: GOP candidate says climate change ‘important’ after clash with teen
Candy Woodall, York Daily Record Published 12:51 p.m. ET July 28, 2018
Three words said by a Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania have started a national fight.
That fight largely began on social media, where a video of Scott Wagner calling an 18-year-old environmentalist “young and naive,” has been viewed and shared more than 5 million times. The fight has continued on social media with people across the country, including former Vice President Al Gore, saying they are proudly young and naive, too — if young and naive means believing in climate change and holding leaders accountable.
Today, that fight is hitting the streets and knocking on 1,000 doors during the Young and Naive Rally: Our Time to Rise at Acker Park in Exton, where John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor and Gov. Tom Wolf’s running mate against Wagner, will be a guest speaker.
“Our goal is telling Scott Wagner we are a movement of people ready to fight back and take action on climate change,” said Rose Strauss, the 18-year-old woman Wagner called “young and naive” after she asked him a question during a town hall meeting earlier this month near Philadelphia.”We’re taking his ‘young and naive’ comment and turning it into a rallying cry.”
…
OMG. 🤩. Star-struck, fanboy, moment- selfie with @rose_strauss at the Young and Naive event.
Rose- 1
Wags- 0 pic.twitter.com/devv9u54dX
— John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) July 28, 2018
…
Al Gore’s declaration of his youth and naivety;
If being “young and naive" is holding our leaders accountable and demanding a sustainable future, call me #YoungAndNaive. https://t.co/9SfsziEMFm
— Al Gore (@algore) July 26, 2018
The episode which sparked off this farce – GOP candidate Scott Wagner’s response to an unfounded accusation of corruption;
All I can say to Al Gore is, naive maybe, young, in your dreams pal.
Let’s face it….when you’re 18 you’re young and naive
I just want to live long enough to see these walking Etch A Sketch’s get saggy, fat, and wrinkled
Most democrats don’t get much beyond that from what I have seen. Look at Ocasio-Cortez as an example.
She is a train wreck, that kid.
I think Ocasio-Cortez gets a break, even if you don’t agree with her politics (I don’t). At least she’s honest and draining the swamp from the other end.
She deserves a break given the fact that she’s young and naive. My concern is that if she gets real power, she will try to implement her naive policies.
As the old saying goes… “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
And the accumulated “paving cost” for only 5 States to pay for said “good intentions”, to wit:
Illinois $30 billion in debt
Connecticut more than $53 billion
New Jersey more than $104 billion
New York more than $356 billion
California more than $428 billion.
She doesn’t want to drain the swamp, just replace the current critters with ones more acceptable to her.
philincalifornia (and you have my condolences for living in that political sess-pit of a state) I give her that she’s honest about her socialist agenda, but as markw points out she’s not interested in draining the swamp, she’s interested in making sure the swamp is populated with her fellow travelers.
A friend of mine calls her Occasional-Cortex.
Naive is one thing, but believing that intermittent energy sources can be relied on to run a modern economy, together with unspecified “storage” whose technology, location and cost are not even vaguely described, isn’t “naive”, it’s plain stupid.
Also it can cause anxiety for a child to see so called adults who claim to believe that.
“… if young and naive means believing in climate change and holding leaders accountable.”
… which of course it does not ! Neither does it mean old over-fed and cynical like Al Gore.
It means young and naive.
Young you can grow out of.
For many, naive tends to be permanent.
Magical thinking. Believing in simple explanations for complex problems. Thinking you can legislate morality. Assuming you can dictate the rates of technological advance. Unwavering faith in you sides leaders.
Young or old, the Climate Faithful show many ways in which they are ‘Naive’.
~¿~
There are two types of technological advance.
One type of technological advance is incremental. Incremental advance develops already known knowledge and skills. Generally speaking it can be sped up with more resources.
The other kind of technological advance requires a breakthrough. Trying to plan breakthroughs almost guarantees that they won’t happen. link
It should be clear to any disinterested, impartial observer that renewable energy, as it now exists, can’t fill our needs. Breakthroughs are required, especially in energy storage. We have no idea when such breakthroughs will happen, nor can we have such knowledge.
Everyone is familiar with Moore’s law. Some benighted souls think it applies generally. It does not. In fact, Eroom’s Law is just as common, or maybe more so. The dreamers who don’t know about Eroom’s Law need to have a clue stick liberally applied to their crania.
re: Eroom’s Law. From what I’ve seen, Eroom’s Law is simply a restatement of the law of diminishing returns,
Would a “clue stick” be the proverbial 2 by 4?
also know as a clue-by-4
Why is anyone surprised that Al declared himself “young”. It’s just more of the word play and deception found in all of the climate movement. Lies are nothing—it’s the end goal that counts, you know.
‘Young ‘ is a relative term: it all depend on what baseline you chose….
Yes, for a tree, Gore hasn’t even hit his teenage years.
if he were a tree..I’d wanna be the dog to pee on him!
Gore is old , fat and cynical , just about the antithesis of young and naive.
It is all just solar panels, windmills, biofuels, and BS carbon credits in the Al Gore fantasy land.
I usually call the condition “young and stupid.”
Fortunately, it is usually not fatal but, on occasion, it does lead to posthumous Darwin Awards.
Rose Strauss has the disadvantage of living in proximity to Philadelphia’s Main Line— a place where climate brainwashing and groupthink is endemic. Independent thought and verification of data integrity is not encouraged.
Scott Wagner was being polite to the young lady.
In Gore’s case, there’s no excuse. The man has a bad case of stupid.
Gore’s not stupid. He’s gotten rich off this spiel. He’s a consummate con man.
He’s gotten RICHER off of this spiel and a lot of people are poorer because of it. He was already rich.
Stupid all the way to the bank!
I would not say stupid. Seems this lady has worked out how to attract a Govn’t funded grant, for life.
I wonder what Clair Masters thinks on this topic. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/07/the-making-of-a-climate-skeptic-at-university/
The young and naive ‘believe’ naive things like … the science is settled. Which is rather convenient, since they don’t really understand science at all.
Too bad these young and naive don’t have a REAL cause, like the VietNam WAR … to hold their leaders accountable for. So they invent ‘causes’.
Now some of you might think that I am being harsh and insensitive, but I’m going to say this anyway:
People running for public office need to realize that they are stage performers, and I believe that stage performers who look fit and healthy are less likely to make the impression of being clowns for one political circus or another.
A fit, healthy, poised candidate making this response might be viewed as less of a pig. Al Gore, even in his massive delusion, could come across more seriously to more people, if he were a little more healthy in physical appearance.
In dance and acting, performers used to be taught that their bodies were their instruments. A politician’s “instrument”, thus, is much more than his voice. If he/she looks like a fat slob in a suit, then a lot of people have a hard time getting past that.
Careful now, your Sizeism is showing. Some of us gravitationally challenged folk might think you’re deplorable. 🙂
There are many reasons for gaining weight as you age. As soon as I turned 40 I began putting on weight also, and nothing I did would get it off. Even to the point of 1 meal per day resulted in no weight loss at all.
For me it turned out to be sugar. I loved Coca-Cola and would drink it as a mixer ever night. Chocolate was another, and potato chips. I learned about sugar but I didn’t believe it.
So I did one thing; I cut out the Coke. One month later there was a remarkable difference in my weight and body shape.
I know there are other reasons for weight gain, but if somebody learns from my experience, then I’ve done a great service for them at least. Cheers.
Are you running for office? If not, maybe we can cut you a little slack. But he’s right, a fat slob in a suit is pretty distracting from what the fat slob is trying to say.
“Sizeism”, yes, I admit that I am afflicted with this prejudice. I’d be lying, if I said that I wasn’t. I was a fitness instructor and dancer for over twenty years. I have seen nurses and other health-care practitioners who smoke and who seem to have zero connection with the conflict between their professional appearance and their professional principles. I once taught for a semester at a small college where the head of the physical education department sported a beer gut, and he smoked. I saw nursing students standing outside the nursing building between classes smoking. I mean, come on !
Mr. Gore, for example, professes that we exercise certain restraints in our choices to use fossil fuels, yet he himself seems to lack restraint in his own energy management, where his physical health is concerned.
I would be much more inclined, for example, to listen to a fit person telling me that I was naive than a person who looked bloated and appeared as if leading a lifestyle that lacked attention to his bodily well being.
I think Obama got elected when he did, largely as a result of his physical appearance. I know this is a primitive reason, but I think people respond viscerally and reflexively for such primitive reasons.
Politics is showbiz for ugly people. Read this on a wall somewhere.
Al Gore is not ‘young and naive’, he is ‘old and crafty’. However, most socialists and collectivists remain ‘young and naive’ because if they were not they would notice that their ideas are not working out and would no longer be socialists or collectivists.
Maybe it’s a form of IQ test.
Gore is not a conservative and therefore …
Really? I think he’s a conservative pathological liar and fraud with a good sense for duping people, and he won a Nobel Prize for it.
The quote was about normal people, not the fakers.
There is a lot of truth in that quote, but I think there is a little more to it – specifically concerning the age at which the change happens. A comment below refers to studies showing our brains do not mature until age 25 to 30.
Surely one doesn’t have to reach full mental maturity, nor maximum I.Q., to be able to see that liberal ideas for government control of society don’t work out as liberals expect.
I think high school kids who opt to study hard sciences learn to check results in their lab classes. As soon they apply this way of thinking to other parts of their lives they become conservatives. These kids often become conservatives by age 18.
High school kids who opt to study liberal arts do not learn to take a reality check – until they take a few classes in the School of Hard Knocks. These may be the ones becoming conservative at ages 25-30.
Affluent liberal arts students often do not have to attend the School Of Hard Knocks. This explains rich liberals, especially Democrat politicians who have never held a job.
SR
“Take action on climate change” WTF does that mean? She can take action by stop using fossil fuels.
Or she can take action by running around in circles yelling The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
About as useful as anything else proposed to stop it.
No no, you misunderstand. She means YOU take action, not her.
I once was chastised for suggesting that some organizer pass out his own pamphlets. The gist of the chastisement from one of his followers”inactive” was ‘ he’s an activist and too busy to do that work. How dare I suggest that!’.
What does “Take action on climate change” mean? It means to take actions that force *YOU* to alter your lifestyle and shell out more of your money into taxes to pay for her lifestyle.
http://holisticdrugrehab.com/blog/the-average-adult-brain-not-fully-developed-until-25/
https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/
As the websites above suggest (and there are others), the human brain is not fully developed until a young person reaches his or her mid-20s, and some suggest not until one gets into his or her 30s. I would imagine that this is what makes younger people more susceptible to being sucked into the climate alarmist narrative and other cults without really or fully understanding (or even trying to understand) all of the elements of the issue they are committing themselves to.
I fully admit to believing and doing ignorant and stupid things when I was in my teens and twenties, and I now understand why I did. Can anyone else here deny that he or she did ignorant and stupid things in his or her youth?
I am not defending the involvement of young people in the climate alarmist movement here especially since I am fully aware of the scientific issues with CAGW. Its just that people like Bill McKibben (with his cheer-leading of the recent Youth Climate March) and Al Gore no doubt understand how naive and gullible youth are when the brains of the young are still under construction. That is why I suggest that this should be more a matter of cruel manipulation of youth by older adults in the CAGW movement rather than calling young people stupid.
Caring about your future and the future of the planet is one thing, but getting the science and facts straight about the climate and the environment is quite another. In one’s youth, your belief systems are going to be formed by the “information” you get from people you trust and believe in. Sometimes it just takes time and education (and maybe a lot of growing up) to realize the people you trusted were feeding you B.S.
You may well have noticed over the past several years when young people of 18 to early twenties are charged with a heinous crime their lawyers talk about their immature minds and can find many psychologists and psychiatrists to back up that idea. Taking this idea a step further, I think no one under twenty-five should be allowed to drink, drive, smoke or vote. The age of maturity should be matched to the maturity of the brain.
“Maturity” is not a thing
It’s not a thing, it’s a state that one hopefully reaches. Eventually.
it’s certainly not a thing with you simple-touriste. for the rest of us it’s something we achieve as we grow-up and become more knowledgeable about the world around us.
I can recall giving myself pep-talks: “You’re 18 now, you’re supposed to be an adult. How would an ADULT handle this mess you’ve gotten yourself into?” It actually worked, to a certain extent.
@Red94. Glad to hear that you actually did that. I wish I had done that when I was 18.
@jon Salmi. Jon, my comment above was referring to young people’s views on political, social and science-related issues like climate, energy and environment. I fully accept that, even when they are only in their teens and early twenties, they are far enough along in their mental development to know the difference between right and wrong.
So no, they should not be let off the hook simply because of their ongoing mental development when they have committed a crime. I believe that the legal system understands this and does incarcerate them. Using psychologists or psychiatrists (with the underdeveloped brain argument) to try getting them off the hook for a crime is an attempt to undermine the legal system, and the courts should take such attempts with a large grain of salt. Thanks for your comment.
A very nasty rallying cry for a cult of dangerous young and naive idealists being led astray by and older and more devious charlatans. A cult who just doesn’t care about souls, but whose credo states that anybody who does’t practice their religion isn’t only imperiling one’s own soul, but is endangering the future of the world.
I call it a religion because it seemingly requires no proof, and as it has no truly defined concept other than climate change (which is always happening).
If being “young and naive” means the same as stupid, old, ugly, fat, liar, then yes, he’s “young and naive”.
“Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.”
– “Sacred Emily”, by Gertrude Stein, 1913
I hate being unkind, especially to young people.
But I would like to ask Rose:
1. what education she has to date,
2. what does she know about the scientific method,
3. what research has she done to verify that global warming is a serious problem,
4. what she thinks should be done about it to make things better.
I have a bad feeling that the answers will be, approximately:
1. part of a degree program in a non-scientific subject
2. little or nothing
3. nothing
4. Whatever Al Gore says.
Having studied this subject since 1985, and with two Engineering degrees, I conclude that climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and there is no real global warming or wilder weather crisis. None! It is a false crisis.
To Rose and her fellow-travelers, I say:
There are real problems in the world, both internationally and in your own community. Go find a real problem and try to improve it. Don’t waste your life and your talents on the global warming lies of deceitful old men.
Best personal regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Rose (or someone else) is paying over $50k per year in out of state tuition for her to attend UCSB and study Environmental Science. That’s a quarter million all up when and if she graduates.
And we wonder why the Chinese are kicking our arses. Our “best and brightest” are wasting their live studying nonsense, while they are learning how to build and program things.
If she’s and example of our “best and brightest” we are in a lot of trouble regardless of whatever she’s wasting her time on.
The problem is that too many people are going to college who will never be able to benefit from a degree.
Those who want to build and program things still can go to college.
Indeed they can, but 90% of what they’ll be forced to “learn” in college will have zero use in building and programming things and for the “privilege” of having nonsense forced on them, they’ll also have a mountain of debt. I’m glad my college days were back when it was still affordable without saddling yourself with tons of debt. still had to put up with a lot of mandatory nonsense courses but even those were not as much or as bad as todays college kids have to put up with.
If she is actually paying the sticker price ($50K), then both she and her parents are truly idiots.
To qualify for any kind of partial scholarship or discount all a kid needs to do is be able to fill out the application by hisself.
Many of those scholarships and discounts come with a means test – ie you/your parents make “too much” money and you don’t qualify. But you can get a nice student loan easy peasy. Good luck paying it off in your lifetime.
Allan, I find the argument that CO2 is an insignificant player in climate to to be an intellectual pitfall that undermines many sceptics’ positions. I realize most conflate temperature with climate on both sides of the argument. However, “1 molecule in 10,000” supports the most remarkable feature of this planet, its biosphere!
I know the reason the greening of the planet, 18% growth over the past 35 years, is a fact that must not be spoken, ironically, by the Gang Green. Here is their Holy Grail human finger print that they are treading underfoot. But this, the only evidence of of palpable climate change, doesn’t get much mention by sceptic’s either. It’s amazing to me how such a spectacular event, that perhaps humans can take credit for, hasn’t twinged the imagination of what must be smart people.
I’ve commented on the subject many times here and sceptics arent impressed by it. Hey, this huge benefit of carbon should swamp the idea of the “cost of carbon”. We should be payed a dividend for expanding habitat and biodiversity and for doubling harvests and wiping out hunger! We should have won the argument handily, but we choose to fight the battle of the enemy’s choosing. They know it and show it with their silence on this wondrous development.
Well I’ll repeat my prediction of a Garden of Eden Earth ^тм by 2050, with a stable world population and the end of Malthusian and marxbrothers diseases.I regret I’m unlikely to be here to see it in full flower (although 112 years of age wouldnt he impossible).
It’s been mentioned many times here and elsewhere that CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere. It’s not a question of whether skeptics are sending the wrong message, but more whether the message is ever received.
Hi Gary, do you mean something like this?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/15/globalization-could-undermine-efforts-to-reduce-co2-emissions/#comment-2355921
[excerpts]
The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.
This and other evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the fevered minds of warmist propagandists.
There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of life on Earth.
ON CO2 STARVATION
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf
Summary
1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with up to 4000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.
2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
_________________________________________________________________________
It’s only possible to make that claim if you completely ignore the error bars in the data.
In reality, the temperature could have gone up a few tenths of a degree, or it could have gone down a few tenths of a degree.
We just don’t know.
All we can say with any certainty is that any CO2 signal is less than the noise in the data. We can not say that it has no impact.
I would agree that, strictly speaking, we cannot say that CO2 has no effect, but impact?
Impact is a word that implies an appreciable effect that makes a practical difference i.e. that changes something of importance to a degree that matters. So methinks we can and should say that CO2 has no discernible impact and certainly not an impact on the Earth’s climate on the scale that gets us even remotely close to the climate crisis that big Al and the climate gang speak of when frightening the young and the naïve.
Hi Mark & Michael,
Did I wrote “no impact”? Don’t think so. I wrote:
“The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant. This and other evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the fevered minds of warmist propagandists.”
The above is just one of many lines of evidence that point to a very low climate sensitivity. I like it because it is a full-Earth-scale test over a period of ~35 years.
Some people have stated that “if global cooling resumes, that will disprove the CAGW hypothesis”. Well OK.
BUT WE ALREADY HAVE ~35 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING DATA!!! THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO DISPROVE THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS!
IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THE GLOBAL WARMING PERIOD, WHICH STARTED ~1977 AND ENDED ABOUT 20 YEARS LATER.
BTW, I AM NOT SHOUTING AT YOU – I AM EMPHASIZING THESE POINTS FOR THOSE SO-CALLED “ADULTS” WHO STILL BELIEVE IN DANGEROUS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING, THE TOOTH FAIRY, THE EASTER BUNNY, ETC.
🙂
“BUT WE ALREADY HAVE ~35 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING DATA!!! THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO DISPROVE THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS!”
Yes, it is!
The bastardized surface temperature charts are the only “evidence” the climate alarmists have and their “evidence” is obviously bogus when one looks at unmodified past surface temperature charts from around the world that show cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.
The unmodified charts look like Hansen 1999 (below) with the 1930’s being hotter than subsequent years and showing a cooling trend from the 1940’s:
A comparison of Hansen 1999 to a bastardized NASA Global surface temperature chart:
Hansen 1999 (U.S. temps) is on the left and the bastardized global surface temperature chart is on the right (Hockey Stick).
Now does anyone believe that the U.S. temperature profile and the Global temperature profile can be so different?
You wouldn’t believe it if you saw unmodified charts from around the world which resemble the U.S. chart and certainly do not resemble the bogus, bastardized NASA Global surface temperature chart.
Which chart does this unmodified Greenland chart resemble more, the Hansen 1999 U.S. chart with the 1930’s-40’s showing to be as hot or hotter than subsequent years, or the NASA global Hockey Stick chart?
How about Finland. Which chart does Finland’s chart resemble?
How about Argentina. It shows cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.
How about Cape Town, South Africa. Look at how the Climate Charlatans bastardized this chart and tried to turn it into a Hockey Stick by cooling the 1930’s-40’s. Lucky for us, we have a “before” and “after” of it:
And there’s more where those came from.
Thank you Tom for your posts.
Tony Heller posted this sequence – all “global” surface temperatures – see the cooling of ~1940-1975 disappear?
Source: Tony Heller
https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
Well said, sir.
Actually, one has to pity poor Rose. Now she will have her “Andy-Warhol-15-minutes-of-fame” episode forever etched in her memory. Within the next five or so years, she most likely will have to make her own way (and livelihood) independently in the real world . . . that is, outside of academia. It will be only a short time thereafter, assuming she develops any sense of objectivity and knowledge of the scientific method, that she will regretfully say to herself “What in the world was I thinking?”
I suspect this will be Rose’s ticket to becoming a Democrat political candidate. In a few years she will be one of the people who help govern the USA.
There is such a thing as regressing to the mean. Low IQ individuals who experience success through blind luck will most assuredly find out that life is not so easy very quickly.
A fool and his money…
Gordon you are overlooking 2 other possible scenarios
1) she never makes her own way (and livelihood) independently in the real world. She spends the rest of her life living off her parents and/or off of whatever poor sucker who marries her.
2) she becomes a politician elected to office as a Democrat by other young and naïve fools on the left. woe to the district that elects her to office.
From the article:
“If being “young and naive” is holding our leaders accountable and demanding a sustainable future, call me #YoungAndNaive. https://t.co/9SfsziEMFm
— Al Gore (@algore) July 26, 2018″
It looks like Al forgot to include “climate change” in his tweet. Perhaps the language is being changed again.
In quieter moments, Al can be heard muttering –
“I coulda been a contender . . . “
Amazingly, something thats patently true raises “progressives” ire. Its the perfect metaphor for feelings trumping empirical findings in this dark post post normal age.
When I was around Rose’s age, I had a heated argument with my father and said that I cant believe how stupid he is. He replied to me “You’ll find Ive gotten a lot smarter when you get to be thirty.”
I have no doubt my father was a lot smarter than Walker. How stupid of a man who would presume to lead us to be so unprepared for such a softball question at a townhall which gets attended by a lot of detractors. How stupid to make unkind remarks. What about a whole range of policy issues? Just wing it for them, too. A politician whose any good should have a mission, not just a plummy job at the trough. It’s this kind of hubris that has filled the swamp with both parties.
… and his last comment, “are we here to elect a governor or are we here to elect a scientist?”
how stupid of a man indeed.
Al Gore’s Jungvolk.
Old and stupid
They will win under these signs:
https://www.google.at/search?q=magic+wand+princess+parties&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbosfqtsPcAhVWGsAKHfGgAfYQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=560
For all those that gave me a – last week this is what happens when supposed “old and experienced” people do their best work. Scott Wagner has given them a free kick, a clarion call if you like, besides looking like a buffoon.
I said “….Put downs like this are rude, crude and probably have a negative outcome!!…”.
You must always respect your opponent’s point of view, just as you expect them to respect yours!!!
Science of Gina McCarthy’s EPA:
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=288&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=Nj9dW-ajFqGegAbA9LyoBw&q=kids+magic+drawings&oq=kids+magic+drawings&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.3.
These people are clutching at straws. Every time something like this pops up, they think it’s going to become some kind of decisive turning point that will disperse the yawning apathy to their cause.
After it blows away in a few days, they’ll be looking for something else. When it comes along, there will be another round of this temporary euphoria. Rinse and repeat.
The climate fraud industry was really counting on youth to buy in but alas it is not to be .
Too many years of climate porn hype and enough time to replace fiction with fact just let the hot air out .
Climate fretting has fallen off a cliff because most of the marketing has been proven to be just made up crap .
The MSM media have lost interest in pumping air into an inner tube with ten holes in it and trying to sell
something nobody’s buying .
somehow venal and mendacious are the words I think of when the goracle is mentioned
Only one way to solve the issue. Give her, her opportunity to show she is not (at least) naive. Maybe if she can prove that, she could have a go at the other half of her complaint.
Hardly surprising that Gore claims to be young. Getting things spectacularly wrong, is what he champions.
‘Old yellow-bellied chickenhawk’ might be more apt…
I feel very lucky that I am young enough (33) that young people assume I’m ‘with them’ and listen but old enough that I can completely dismiss their opinions on the basis of evidence and life experience. I point out that before they were born (the mid-90s) there were scientists insisting that by 2010 the poles would be gone and by 2020 the earth would be (simultaneously) a desert and under 20 feet of water.
The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous they look and the more their claims are shown to be ridiculous.
GROUPTHINK!
group dynamics !
– huddling together in their “save spaces” where one can’t stand the close presence of THE OTHER.
I think I’d rather have wisdom over naivety any day it has such a lot to recommend it.
Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men,
from men whose words are perverse,
who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways,
who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil,
whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways.
Proverbs 2: 12-15
I think the above describes those involved in the climate scam don’t you?
James Bull
When I was growing up, one of the stupidest sayings I ever heard was popular, “Don’t trust anyone over 30”. Back then I knew that with age comes wisdom,(though not always) and that I was, in fact, young and naive, lacking the experience to make good judgments in many situations. Not only that but I saw that most of those my age were, in fact, dumb as rocks and totally untrustworthy.
“lacking the experience to make good judgments in many situations.”
–> last exit Ideologie.
Some things never change…….youth are always willing to give their elders the benefit of their naivete and inexperience.
We are warming because earth is getting much closer to he sun.
– Wagner, old and naive
It must be great to be naïve and proud of it.
Stupid is as stupid does.
“Young and Naïve” huh?
We here in Oz had a Prime Minister who used a very similar excuse to dismiss anything non flattering about her past.
So from my point of view “Young and Naïve” isn’t about holding our leaders to account, it is about our leaders denying their suspect and possibly illegal pasts.
It’s not a rallying cry, it’s a confession that you wouldn’t do it the same way again, just don’t feel guilt about it.
If you aren’t a socialist by the time you are 19, you have no heart. And if you aren’t a conservative by the time you are 40 you have no head.
Didn’t bin Laden say something similar, slightly different, but more or less the same? And every Communist in the world has used alleged ” youth ” movements as a means to take over or stay in power. Just until the youths learn that they’ve made a terrible mistake. Mao anyone? Call Gore the new Mao… not a shred of truth in AGW… how many ppm/v does it take to raise the temperature 1 C? Surely, there must be an AGW believer out there that knows.
People, mostly young folks are happy to gain recognition for anything anti-establishment. Being young and naive, or a snowflake, or even eurotrash is taken on as a badge of honor. They’ve embraced the poem our parents tried to get us to listen to: “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” As for me, I don’t care if they call me denier or dumb-cracker-arse – as the saying goes – just don’t call me late for dinner.
“No no, not NAIVETY — NATIVITY.”
“That was CELEBRATE! Not CELIBATE.”
“A snake offering an apple?? I said SNACK.”
Then on the 8th day, He disabled autocorrect.