blue tile dress

I am with my son at Northeastern University Law School for a day of panels about socialist initiatives. My son told me no writing blog posts in the back of the room. “Can you please just fit in today?”

Fit in? Does he notice that he’s the only high schooler here? I don’t tell him how lucky he is to have a mom who is not thinking like everyone else. My kids do not appreciate my out-of-the-boxness. I put on makeup because fitting-in-people appreciate that.

Get qualifications instead of rebelling against them.
After eight years of vociferous unschooling, I’ve had to backtrack on my school-is-BS ranting because I am now helping my son go to college. To give you an idea of how much I did not flourish in college, I wrote every paper for every class on Lord of the Flies. Did you click? The psycho look of the boy on the cover is comforting to me. A sign of impending old age is that you link to the edition of the book that is out of print.

Using the same book in every course meant illustrating John Locke by describing Piggy’s crushed glasses as a failure of the government to protect private property. And getting an A. Because college celebrates the melding of two obscure ideas to get the effect of geometrically increasing irrelevance.

It’s not enough that I’m capitulating on college. Today I’m disowning my rants about how law school is a Ponzi scheme so I can sit at panels about how climate activism depends on educating socialist lawyers.

Be an activist to preserve the status quo.
I had visions of my kids being rebels, or at least entrepreneurs, but that is so old-school. The only thing Generation Z is rebelling against is centrist politics.

Today progressivism is conservative. Kids in Hong Kong are pushing through tear gas and risking their lives so they can convince China to let Hong Kong go back to how things were twenty years ago. Greta Thunberg is mobilizing her generation by sailing to America like a Pilgrim. I am the rebel, writing a blog post instead of dedicating my brainpower to reclaiming the East Boston shoreline: For the people!

Am I even allowed to say that I have a hard time focusing on climate? I think the only reason I’m even able to talk about climate is because Gen Z is obsessed with climate change and I’m obsessed with generational change.

Be genuine and be suspicious of slick.
A great illustration of the clash between Millennials and Gen Z is that Millennials buy shoutouts from Instagram “friends” for $1000 and then turn wanting more money into a generational chant. While Gen Z sees weird and ugly as their generational aesthetic and they gravitate to artists like Zhanna Kadyrova who find the beauty in making do.

black tile dress

Talk with a global conscience or don’t bother talking.
Generation Z is the collective representation of the kid who seemed like an adult by age five. My kids are horrified by my small-world view as a latchkey-kid expanded by MTV. If the Millennials are conformist, Gen Z is intolerant. There is no room for dissent in crisis, and the youngest generation sees crises all around.

There is a precedent for this conformity: An early-stage startup is a constant crisis, and dissent is a luxury for the stable and well-funded. And the reason Vietnam was a shitshow is that US soldiers replaced a collective mission with individuals making decisions on their own. T0 get something big and serious done, there is no room for dissent. Generation Z knows this intuitively. I am trying hard to get on board before Gen Z takes away my vote.

41 replies
  1. Lisa P
    Lisa P says:

    I don’t agree at all with equating the struggles of Hong Kong protesters with Greta Thunberg’s glorified yacht trip. The former are up against a genuinely oppressive government and are facing jail and death for their views. The latter is basically a child beauty pageant contestant for rich liberals. What negative consequences has she actually faced? Getting her feelings hurt on Twitter?

    I can understand generalizing about people from the same culture to an extent, but there are some who are going through real problems….even young people.

    Reply
    • Penelope
      Penelope says:

      Hm. Well the comparison I made was about how Greta and Hong Kong are both pushing for change that harkens to an earlier era. I was taking about the core conservatism of the generation.

      But, while we are discussing Hong Kong, I do have some opinions. The kids protesting in HK (it’s mostly very young people) all have enough money to leave. And they hold British passports which the British government has hinted that they will honor. And the kids have known for most of their lives that China would eventually curtail rightS. I’m not saying what a China is doing is right. But I actually think The kids from HK represent a similar demographic to Greta: first-world, educated, relatively well-off financially.

      Penelope

      Reply
      • Wailing Chong
        Wailing Chong says:

        What I am seeing is that the majority of the kids on the streets protesting in Hk are the ones that cannot leave. Sure there are some that can leave for good and are privileged but still show up for the fight. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of the financial and progress oppression from Beijing last twenty years on local HKers, from permitting more than capacity can handle visas to mainlanders immigrating into Hk while simultaneously giving them priority on public housing, obviously fake free election where they appoint pro Beijing officials and illegalize democratic parties… these are just a few subtle but not very subtle ways of stripping local HKers their special progressive rights.
        They arent really a typical generation of entitlement. They are actually brave and scared and aware that their future is doomed.

        Reply
    • Graham
      Graham says:

      WTF is it with people criticising Greta Thunberg all the time? Do you believe that being a child denies you the right to make a difference to the world? If so, how do you feel about Anne Frank or Louis Braille? Of course, you might be a climate change denier which would explain it and would, therefore, negate the need to criticise her for being A. a child or B. a rich liberal because the reality would be that you just don’t believe in her cause. Also, do you believe that we shouldn’t take a stand for things that don’t have a direct negative impact on our lives? If so, I guess you think I shouldn’t be against racism (I am white) or the #metoo movement (I am a man), yet I am. As for the comparison with the Hong Kong protests I wonder why we can’t see that both causes have merit, although I am bound to point out that if we don’t do something about the planet oppression will be the least of our problems.

      Reply
      • Windscale
        Windscale says:

        Graham,

        If I can reassure you, you don’t have to worry about the planet due to climate change – the planet will be fine – it’ll just be another blip. The thing most likely to be in a pickle from climate change is the human race and other life. But the planet probably won’t even notice.

        W.

        Reply
  2. Jim Grey
    Jim Grey says:

    “Geometrically increasing irrelevance” — if I ever start a rock band that’s what I’m naming it.

    I look forward to Gen Z righting the wrongs we’re living with now. I’m not sure I’ll always like the way they do it or the solutions they implement. But as a GenXer I’m used to living in the shadow of the dominant generation, and adapting to whatever it is they bend society to be.

    I read an interesting article the other day that blasted the criticism Greta T is getting as ableist, as a shallow lack of understanding of autistic expression. https://theaspergian.com/2019/10/02/kodi-lee-and-greta-thunberg-autistics-in-the-media-a-tale-of-two-ableisms/

    Reply
  3. Laura
    Laura says:

    “Climate despair” is an up and coming diagnosis because all these kids latch on to the latest crisis…and their parents are too busy to read them chicken Little so that they realize the sky isn’t actually falling, but seriously parents need to be there to put these things in perspective. Contrived crisis and media fame are a perfect storm. These kids just want their fame whether that’s narrating a video game on YouTube or following Greta’s example…it’s mostly about following the fame. In the meantime, the youth is more depressed and anxious than ever. Back to my point, parents must be there to influence reality and de-escalate their perspective from being too influenced by the media’s propaganda.

    Reply
    • Nick
      Nick says:

      It’s not just media propaganda. Educated kids know how to find scientific journals and read them online. They also understand science, the scientific process, research processes, and data intricacies most from earlier generations are clueless about.

      The science is all right there. Gen Z has plenty to worry about. They’re going to live through the reality that science has shown will come.

      Reply
      • John Wilder
        John Wilder says:

        Hey Nick
        If the science is all there, show me one experiment done according to the Scientific Method which proves CO2 caused warming. I have spent a lot of time looking for such proof and so far have been unable to anyone even referring to the Scientific Method much as less abiding by its rules

        Reply
  4. Penelope Trunk
    Penelope Trunk says:

    Graham, I totally agree. Though I do find myself trying to keep up. Trying to understand ideas as fast as gen Z spews them out. I did not know the history of HK until I had to understand why the kids are rebelling and not the parents (parents who hated China already left HK years ago.) I did not know why Greta was sailing until I had to understand why gen z thinks travel is profligate (traveling for tourism is dead for kids who grew up with video games with no national boundaries.)

    Penelope

    Reply
  5. Sean Crawford
    Sean Crawford says:

    Vietnam was not a war, not when the citizens stayed on their couches without feeling involved, without shaking pom poms about demonizing the enemy. In a war for “hearts and minds,” (to chose democracy over communism) the average suit in Washington could not have passed an easy one-semester community-college test about hearts in Vietnam.

    Sort of like their sorry excuse for War on Terror, come to think of it—a war so important (sarcasm) that the G.I.s would “recruit for the insurgency” by kicking in doors at night, while no sympathetic American civilian female Arab speakers would leave their couches to go be interpreters to reassure those civilians having their doors kicked in. Some wars the U.S. deserves to lose. Again, no knowledge of hearts and minds, (to chose democracy over traditional dictatorship) although only decades before The Ugly American had been a best-seller, endorsed by President Kennedy.

    Dissent is needed to tweak even the best plans. “If everyone is thinking alike then no one is thinking.” During the Cold War crises we had air raid sirens—I would hear them tested on Sundays—but not, thanks to tweaking, coast to coast fallout shelters.

    Reply
  6. susan martin
    susan martin says:

    the current generation(s)- ages 35 and under- have suffered no hardship, only imagined trauma. Let’s look back at the Great Depression, WWII, and other (even earlier) eras, in which true and selfless sacrifices were made – and/or true suffering occurred (think: Polio, for instance)..and people struggled so for the most basic of necessities. Those who have gone before the “under age 35 group” didn’t have time to contemplate how much they despised their parents or grandparents for their (seemingly) poor decisions. The shift is sad, really.

    Reply
    • Graham
      Graham says:

      Bit of a generalisation to say that that current generations have suffered no hardship, isn’t it? Try being homeless or abused in any generation and see how that feels. Isn’t the whole purpose of history to help us avoid making the mistakes we made in the past? If so, “imagined trauma” should be exactly the trauma we focus on preventing. But wh haven’t learned because, if we had, Trump wouldn’t be president and we wouldn’t have a narcissistic clown for a Prime Minister whose stated objective as a child was to be “World King”. God help us all.

      Reply
  7. Carol of Kensington
    Carol of Kensington says:

    F. E. Smith, Winston Churchill’s great friend, said “When Winston was right he was right but when he was wrong, My God!”

    That’s how I feel about you Penelope. You get so much right. So you’re allowed to write bonkers posts like this.

    I’ll be humming “Tomorrow belongs to me” for the rest of the day which is super annoying.

    Reply
      • Sean Crawford
        Sean Crawford says:

        Graham, be careful that you don’t create a chilly climate for other commenters by being personal. If you wish to support Penelope, it would be better to state your views using “I” statements. The rest of us will be smart enough to know who you are disagreeing with, without needing any person to be attacked.

        In other words, please disagree with people’s viewpoints, not people’s personality.

        Reply
    • Mysticaltyger
      Mysticaltyger says:

      That’s how I feel about Penelope as well. Personally, I think the whole climate thing is a scam. Weather manipulation technology has existed for at least 60 years now. But saying that makes me a pariah (and Penelope think’s she’s the only oddball.)

      Reply
  8. Sarah M
    Sarah M says:

    Oh my gosh this post is a freaking link smorgasbord. I thought it was just me noticing the Ugly and Weird, but someone wrote about it and it’s actually a thing? Gen Z taking away votes because of ageism? (That actually scares me.)
    I love the art, too. Please never stop showing us different artists.

    Reply
  9. Craig
    Craig says:

    There is an irony to discussing the Hong Kong protestors, who are fighting against a government that does not tolerate dissent, alongside the presumed values of “Gen Z” who we are told won’t tolerate dissent. Is there not consideration at all with Gen Z (or at least with PT and her son) about what happens when you decide dissent won’t be tolerated? Is the Chinese model good or bad?

    Reply
    • John Wilder
      John Wilder says:

      Just like liberals not tolerating differences if people don’t absolutely follow blindly their very hard left agenda. They have people advocating violence against conservatives. Of course we got that by the bat shit crazy guy shooting up a practice squad of conservatives practicing to take on the liberals in a ball game. You have Maxine Waters advocating getting hyper aggressive against conservatives minding their own business and just trying to have a quiet family dinner in a restuarant. You have many hard left vomiting HATE SPPECH against conservatives. ironically they are the ones advocating for hate speach legislation which I heartily endorse because they would be the first one prosecuted for it.

      Reply
      • Nick
        Nick says:

        Painting a polarized picture of liberals and conservatives and completely ignoring the vast majority who are not on the far extreme sides is incredibly misleading. Yes, there are bat shit crazy people out there, but the vast majority of people are rather rational, good people. As much as the media would like you to believe it, the vocal minority does not speak for everyone.

        Further polarizing the “two sides” just exasperates the issue. It removes the space where people can feel negotiation and compromise are still possible.

        Reply
  10. John Wilder
    John Wilder says:

    I too am an outside the box thinker with a genius IQ as well.

    Here are the facts: It is scientifically impossible for CO2 be a “greenhouse gas”or cause global warming.

    Google the specific gravity of CO2 and it will take you to numerous scientific sites all stating that it is 1.57
    or in other words it is literally 157 % heavier than air and therefore does not rise into the atmosphere,

    For further proof, Google CO2 powered fire extinguishers. It will tell you that the CO2 sinks to the ground when
    discharged and starves the fire for O2.

    Google how they make that spooky ground fog in scary movies. They take dry ice (frozen CO2) and melt it and it does not
    rise but clings to the ground.

    It is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer that is taken in by the plants and the plants expel O2 in standard
    photosynthesis. Google greenhouse owners flooding their greenhouses with CO2 at the rate of 4 times
    the amount of CO2 we have in the air and it QUADRUPLES THEIR PLANT YIELDS!

    Al Gore said The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting away at a dangerous rate. Not only is it not melting,
    it has acutally INCREASED IN HEIGHT SINCE JUST 1942 BY 268 FEET! Go ahead and ask me how
    I know this. The problem with liberals is that they are ultimately incable of debating the facts but instead
    when challenged they call you racist names and insult you but NEVER EVER ACTUALLY DEBATE THE FACTS.

    They keep screaming that the science is settled but this too illustrates their absolute ignorance of science. There is a
    word for this called pseudo-intellectuals (look it up on Wikipedia) The only way that science can be settled is the Scientific Method
    which states that first you come up with a theory and then devise a scientific experiment to prove your theory that any other
    scientist anywhere in the world can replicate with the same results. In spite of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDING
    THERE ARE ZERO EXPERIMENTS PROVING CO2 caused warming

    More if you are interested.

    John Wilder

    Reply
    • Nick
      Nick says:

      Okie dokie… One at a time then.

      Co2 as a greenhouse gas:

      The light from the sun that reaches earth it is primarily in the form of solar radiation, infrared radiation, and ultraviolet radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Infrared radiation, when absorbed, produces heat. For a concrete example, this is how infrared burners and grills work. So Co2 absorbs infrared radiation and heat is the result.

      Now, you seem to think the particular density of Co2 exempts it from being a greenhouse gas. Thing is, our atmosphere is everything from the ground (the troposphere) to 100k-190k kilometers above the ground (the exosphere).

      Now, in the 80s, which is probably what you’re think about here, there was a big focus chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. These greenhouses gases are light and do live way up in the stratosphere. But, these are not the only greenhouses gases. Carbon dioxide very much does absorb infrared radiation and as a result contributes to the heat retention of the planet.

      So sunlight comes in through the higher layers of atmosphere, reaches the troposphere, and the Co2 in the troposphere captures some of that infrared radiation and retains it as heat.

      Yes, Co2 is retained by plants and crucial for their health. In fact, most of the Co2 in the atmosphere gets absorbed by plant life on land in the ocean. But as we burn fuels we release captured Co2 and it floats about in the troposphere waiting to be reabsorbed, all while capturing infrared radiation. As Co2 levels increase, more heat is captured, thus greenhouse effect.

      I’d link you some scientific papers on this, but I’m worried Penelope’s blog will moderate the comment. But since you have a genius level IQ, I’m sure you can follow what I’m saying, then consult scholar.google.com to find research. That’s what Gen Z does.

      Your next false claim is that the GIS has grown. This one is really easy because there are plenty of researchers measuring the mass of the GIS. And yes, it’s mass that’s important, not height. Mass.

      Now this is pretty sciencey and I’m just going to paste it here for you. It comes from PNAS.

      Greenland’s SMB averaged 422 ± 10 Gt/y in 1961–1989. It decreased from 506 ± 18 Gt/y in the 1970s to 410 ± 17 Gt/y in the 1980s and 1990s, 251 ± 20 Gt/y in 2010–2018, and a minimum at 145 ± 55 Gt/y in 2012. In 2018, SMB was above equilibrium at 449 ± 55 Gt, but the ice sheet still lost 105 ± 55 Gt, because D is well above equilibrium and 15 Gt higher than in 2017

      Did you follow that? The GIS still lost 105 ± 55 Gt. Gt = Gigatons.

      It goes on to say: In total, the mass loss increased to 286 ± 20 Gt/y in 2010–2018 due to an 18 ± 1% increase in D and a 48 ± 9% decrease in SMB

      You read that right. The mass loss increased.

      I very highly encourage you to apply leverage your genius level IQ and please go read the full report from PNAS. The title of the paper is “Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018”. It’s by Jérémie Mouginot, Eric Rignot, Anders A. Bjørk, Michiel van den Broeke, Romain Millan, Mathieu Morlighem, Brice Noël, Bernd Scheuchl, and Michael Wood.

      Ok, the real doozy. You are stating that no scientific research exists to prove Co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and increases heat retention on our planet.

      You are right, because that’s exactly how science works. Scientists have not proven that Co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and increases heat retention on Earth. What has happened over the last several decades is that scientists have disproven all other theories about rising temperatures (something that we have measured, and is very much real) while experimentation has strengthened the only remaining scientific theory (Co2 as the cause).

      Scientists measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. Less radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases (fact). Increased radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths (fact).

      Apply your genius level IQ and put the dots together. Alternatively, do the research and experiments, then publish a peer reviewed paper and disprove Co2 as a cause. That’s the only scientific way to counter the current scientific findings and strong evidence that suggests Co2 is the culprit.

      Reply
      • John Wilder
        John Wilder says:

        I DEFY YOU TO SHOW ME ONE EXPERIMENT DONE ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVING CO2 CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. The simple fact is that CO2 is still a heavier than air gas and does not rise into the atmosphere. The amount of free floating CO2 is 400 ppm according to the scientists.
        The fractional equivalent of that is 4/10,000ths of 1% No where near enough to be a greenhouse gas even if it did float up into the atmosphere which it does not. Let us look at a model or retarding thermal transfer, called thermal pane windows. They consist of a window fraime with 2 or 3 panes of glass separated by dead air space and filled with a heavier than air inert gas of Argon or Krypton to a MINIMUM OF 80% TO RETARD THERMAL TRANSFER THAT IS NOW WERE NEAR THE 4/10,000THS OF 1% WE HAVE FLOATING IN THE AIR.

        Now as to the Greenland Ice sheet the second largest ice sheet on the planet is growing rapidly. Simply Google a 2 word phrase GLACIER GIRL. It was about a scientific expedition of some veterans who went back to Greenland to rescue one of the P-38 Lightining fighter planes being ferried to the war front,. They got lost and ran out of gas and had to land on the ice sheet. They saved the pilots but left the planes in place, Once they returned, they actually had to melt down into the ice sheet 268 feet deep to reach the plane and disassemble it and remove it piece by piece. Now if the ice sheet is melting away, how did it accumulate a 27 story tall building equivalent of ice since 1942?

        Reply
        • Nick
          Nick says:

          You clearly didn’t bother to read what I wrote. Let me just copy and paste this part so you have another opportunity to read it:

          You are right, because that’s exactly how science works. Scientists have not proven that Co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and increases heat retention on Earth. What has happened over the last several decades is that scientists have disproven all other theories about rising temperatures (something that we have measured, and is very much real) while experimentation has strengthened the only remaining scientific theory (Co2 as the cause).

          Scientists measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. Less radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases (fact). Increased radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths (fact).

          Now see, I said right there, you’re right, there’s no PROOF. You know what else there’s no proof of? All sorts of things that we understand to be true. Like bicycles. Science can’t prove that bicycles will stand upright when you ride them. There’s no proof for that. There’s ample evidence that suggests it’s true, it’s readily observable. But the math, the proof for that just doesn’t exist. In the 70s we thought it was due to the gyroscopic effect, but we disproved that theory.

          See that’s what science does well, it disproves a lot theories all the time and when you can disprove all current theories except one, and have strengthened evidence to suggest that one is correct, surprise, you have a strong theory which becomes accepted as a general truth, until it and and only if it is disproved.

          You’re doubling down on the claim that carbon is too heavy to be in the atmosphere, too. Did you bother to look up what the atmosphere is? Did you read about how the troposphere (part of the atmosphere) starts at ground level?

          It’s pretty clear you don’t understand science. You’re arguing nonsense, and not bothering to educate yourself on the matter.

          Reply
          • John Wilder
            John Wilder says:

            Nick: You keep throwing crap against the wall in an attempt to obfuscate. I have a degree in science and worked in a scientific field for a number of years. First of all, granting that we have 400 ppm of CO2 in the air which I don’t but will accept it for argument’s sake. The fractional equivalent of that is 4/10,000ths of 1% To understand how we retard thermal transfer go to thermal pane windows which are a frame with either 2 or 3 panes of glass separated by dead air and that dead air is then filled to a density of A MINIMUM OF 80% of the inerrt heavier than air gas of either Argon or Krypton to retard thermal transfer. 4/10,000ths of 1% is in no way going to retard thermal transfer. It is a TRACE AMOUNT BY ANY LEGITIMATE STANDARD. The government even allows trace amounts of rat droppings in our food.
            5 i

          • John Wilder
            John Wilder says:

            The Scientific Method was formulated to thwart assumptions and popular belief. We used to think that the earth was flat. We have a clinic in Minneapolis dedicated to Sister Kenny, not a nun but an Australian physical therapists that took on the world wide medical community telling them that iron lungs was not the correct treatment for kids with polio. She rightly proved all the doctors wrong in that physical therapy was the best treatment. I could go on an on here but bottom line is that CO2 is still a heavier than air gas and does not rise into theatmosphere. The only way that we can detedt CO2 in the air is the windblown particles just like the wind picks up dust and blows it around in the air but when the air dies down so does the dust and the CO2. Scientists tell us that CO2 is a pollutant. Not so. Google greenhouse owners flooding their greenhouses with 1,600 PPM and quadruplig their plant yields. In spite of this so called heavy concentration, greenhouse owners walk into their greenhouses without any masks or breathing apparatus because the fractional equivalent of 1,600 ppm is 16,10,000ths of 1%.

            Now as to Freon eating a hole in the ozone, it is bullshit as well. The only so called holes in the ozone were not holes at all but atmospheric thinning. The poles are where the Earth spins on its axix which creates a vortex effect thereby reducing the concentration at that point, Freon is also a heavier than air gas as well. The theory is that somehow Freen developed this magical magnetic protperty that caused it race away from where it was released in the temperate zones without doing any damage and then when it gets to the poles it somehow recondenses to a toxix level and magically renounces its heavier than air qualities and jumps up into the Troposphere where the actual thinniing takes place. This quaity is disproven by the Diffusion Principle which states when a liquid or gas of greater concentration is released into a liquid or gas of lesser concentration, the liquid or gas will diffuse equally throughout the medium, not concentrate itself to eat a hole in the ozone.

        • Nick
          Nick says:

          You would like me to believe you have a degree in science and have worked in a scientific field for a number of years, but you don’t understand that the troposphere starts at ground level, is part of the atmosphere, and energy from the sun reaches it and can be absorbed by CO2?

          You also keep repeating the “proof” part, but seem to fail to understand the fundamentals about the scientific method and how proofs work.

          But let’s just entertain you for a minute here. If CO2 is not the cause of increased warming, what do you propose is?

          Reply
          • John Wilder
            John Wilder says:

            So glad you asked. We have had a 1 degree rise in the average worldwide temps in the last 100 years. There is a very simple answer. First Google the invention of the asphalt shingle. it was invented 100 years ago and immediately went into widespread usage as they were so much cheaper than the conventional hand-split wood shake shingles. But here is the rub. If you point an infrared thermometer at a shake shingled roof on a 100-degree day it will register 100 degrees. Point that same thermometer at an asphalt shingled roof and it will register 140-170 degrees. In addition, we have hundreds of thousands of miles of asphalt roads which also superheat the air and blast it upwards. In addition, we actually have 5,000 jets in our airspace 24/7 spewing exhaust temps at 1,800 degrees. I am surprised that the increase is only 1 degree.

            For the record, you are a typical liberal always assuming that you the smartest in the room and taking a condescending attitude towards conservatives instead of just debating the facts

        • Nick
          Nick says:

          John, let’s see if Penelopes blog will let me comment with links.

          CO2 is a greenhouse gas (observable, fully tested):
          https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

          More detail on how that works:
          https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

          The PPM increase of Co2 in the atmosphere (yes John, it is in the atmosphere).
          https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

          Increased temperatures over years (measured history):
          https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

          A very nice summary of statistics (including the loss of ice mass, which is a real thing):
          https://climate.nasa.gov/

          But wait John, maybe these scientific sources aren’t enough for you. Maybe you need a higher governance to lead you.

          The catholic church wants catholics to care:
          http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/why-does-the-church-care-about-global-climate-change.cfm

          LDS church wants their members to care:
          “Climate change is real, and it’s our responsibility as stewards to do what we can to limit the damage done to God’s creation.”
          https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-moral-imperative-of-environmental-stewardship-elder-steven-e-snow

          Evangelicals understand the responsibility, too:
          http://www.bpnews.net/43446/evangelicals-and-environmentalists-cooperate

          Now John, you can keep pretending to be a scientist, and and argue against the NASA sources all you’d like. But we both know you’re not a scientist. You see, digital natives uncover the truth, John. We don’t just listen to the ramblings of pseudo intellectuals and take them at face value. We know how to test sources and make informed decisions about real factual data.

          So John, take a seat and let Gen Z take over. They’ll do this better than your generation did, and better than mine ever could. Your time unknowingly harming the planet is over and the generation that my generation created is ready to fix the mess that my parents (your) generation created, and my generation couldn’t make headway on.

          Gen Z’s got this John. It got passed on to them, let them do their thing.

          Reply
        • Nick
          Nick says:

          John John John…

          The Scientific Method was formulated to thwart assumptions and popular belief. We used to think that the earth was flat…. Yada yada ad nauseum…

          Yes.

          And to do all that we disproved working theories. Nobody has disproven the CO2 theory. That’s why it’s still the accepted theory.

          Now go take you BA and return to dispensing marital advice. You’re out of your zone of expertise.

          Reply
          • John Wilder
            John Wilder says:

            Nick, you keep on ignoring the obvious. The Scientific Method is THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE A THEORY OR DISPROVE IT. 4/10,000ths of 1% is a trace amount and does not have enough to retard thermal transfer. I am done with you so just keep cackling I am done. If you ignore CO2 powered fire extinguishers and CO2 BEING SPOOKY GROUND FOG IN SCARY MOVIES YOU JUST KEEP IGNORING YOUR LYING EYES,

          • John Wilder
            John Wilder says:

            I am sure that Al (I invented the internet) is your hero but his DVDs were not allowed in British schools because of all of the scientific errors in it but I am sure you will just credit that to conservatives as well. If it takes 80% fill to retard thermal transfer in windows, how do you account for 4/10,000ths of 1% retarding thermal transfer, do you even understand trace amounts. Insutls does not prove your point it just illustrates how woefully undertrained you are and that you are a pseudo intellectual. I did my own research, I did not memorize some crap that I read written by some other liberal

        • NIck
          NIck says:

          John: The Scientific Method is THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE A THEORY OR DISPROVE IT.

          Yes, again John, you are right. So where is your peer reviewed research to DISPROVE IT?

          Reply
          • john
            john says:

            RIGHT HERE
            Read it and be blown away

            HomeCurrent NewsChemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming
            Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming
            Published on February 9, 2017

            Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

            Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

            Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

            Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

            In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

            This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

            The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

            The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

            Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

            In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

            So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

            Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

            That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

            And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

            Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

            Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

            So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

            The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

            The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

            All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

            If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

            Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

            Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit http://www.drchemical.com.au

            Read more at quadrant.org.au

  11. Sean Crawford
    Sean Crawford says:

    Speaking of Al Gore’s movie, if you search engine his name, UK and schools, then you get a court case where British school teachers now have to expose nine factual errors when they show that film to children.

    Reply
    • John Wilder
      John Wilder says:

      I am not aware of that but am very much aware that they overestimated the sales of their DVD and tried to dump the thousands of DVDs into the British School system and a judge denied it because of all the factual errors. Gore has no scientific credentials much as less any scientific education. This narcissism is what caused him to make the outrageous statement that he invented the internet and he and Tipper were the basis for the movie and book Love Story I believe it was. No matter which story is correct here, the judge denied the DVD because of all the documented factual errors. Gore refuses to debate because he is not nearly bright enough and he knows it is all BS

      Reply
      • Sean Crawford
        Sean Crawford says:

        Yes, there’s lots of B.S. out there.
        Before Michael Crichton died, in 2008 when Barak Obama was elected, he said that the cries of, “We have to act by the year XX,” were based on computer models. But no scientists were checking the models years later, during his time, to see if they had been valid. He died over ten years ago. I wonder if any models from before then have been checked.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *