Greens plead for more climate questions in debates
Environmentalists are pressuring the moderators of the presidential debates to spend more time asking Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton about climate change in the coming debates.
The League of Conservation Voters and a collection of other environmental groups said on Friday that they have gathered 100,000 signatures of people who want moderators to ask more climate change questions.
“As the moderators of the 2016 presidential debates, you have the opportunity to ask questions about the most pressing issues facing our country — and climate change must be at the top of the list,” the petition reads.
The first presidential primary debate will be held Monday night. It will be moderated by NBC News’ Lester Holt.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Climate change made its way into nearly every Democratic presidential primary debate but was just barely raised in the numerous Republican debates.…
Hillary Avoids Saying ‘Climate Change’ In Speeches, Talks about ‘Clean Energy’ Instead
…As Americans Tire of Eco-Panic, Hillary Quietly Drops ‘Climate Change’ Rhetoric
A Yale University study released in July revealed that only 17 percent of American voters describe themselves as “alarmed” about climate change, or would rank it as a top tier election issue. Republican candidate Donald Trump has successfully positioned himself as a climate-change skeptic, and Hillary seems to have registered how little the issue resonates with voters.
Climate Home, a UK-based environmental advocacy group associated with the left-wingGuardian newspaper, searched for the words “climate change” in all speech transcripts published on the Clinton campaign website between January 2016 and early September and found that she had all but abandoned reference to climate change since July.
A broader search for the word “environment” confirmed the trend to back away from climate issues, with Clinton mentioning the word in just four of her 78 official speeches in 2016.
Survey: 42% of US adults don’t want to pay even $12 a year to ‘stop climate change’
This is the devastating question few surveyors are willing to ask. Survey teams usually use mindless motherhood questions instead, like whether we “believe” in climate change. (Who doesn’t?) Or they ask if we want clean energy… (doh, like I want my energy dirty?) But the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research actually did a nationally representative poll of 1097 adults.
Everyone wants a nice climate, but hardly anyone wants to pay for it:
When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month. Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
The answer has flummoxed people. Sam Ori in the Wall St Journal can’t make sense of it:
This is despite the fact that a whopping 77% said they think climate change is happening and 65% think it is a problem the government should do something about.
This is an upside-down result. The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great…
He thinks that people don’t see this as a threat to themselves personally. But the answer is mostly within the survey, at Q20 which basically asks if people are confident that greenhouse gas obligations will be met. Fully 31% of people don’t think the US will reduce emissions, and two thirds don’t think India or China will. So who wants to pay for something that is likely to fail?
They didn’t go on to ask how many people thought that windmills or carbon markets would cool the planet. The answer to that would scare the pants of the lobbyists, and blow the whole charade. The real story is that everyone wants a nicer climate, but most people know it’s a waste of money. That’s why this is a dead topic in the election.
Physicist asks: Why didn’t ‘Sarkozy tell us about his climate skepticism earlier?’
Sarkozy is a climate skeptic
TheLocal.fr brought us some surprising news:Sarkozy comes out of the closet as a climate skepticBetween 2007 and 2012, Sarkozy was the president of France and we could often see him as a member of a powerful European couple along with Angela Merkel. I think that during Sarkozy’s times, France was viewed as a more important part of the couple than it is now. The effect of a switch to Sarkozy seems self-evident – although some unspectacular evolution of the French economy relatively to the German one could have contributed, too.His fresh statements to AFP make it clear that he is no lukewarmer.Climate has been changing for four billion years. Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.Yup, if you are as non-arrogant as women are :-), except for Catherine Hayhoe or the Latin American female crackpot on top of the UNFCCC whose name I have forgotten (update: something like Figueres), you know that global warming is a pile of šit.He seems to be as skeptical as you or me. The climate has been changing for quite some time. And desertification of Sahara – which, by the way, I also consider a vastly bigger issue than the change of the global temperature by a degree – wasn’t caused by men.In other parts of the statements, Sarkozy suggests that other topics – such as terrorism or, more controversially, high population growth – are far more important problems than the climate change.It sounds great except we can’t resist to ask: Why didn’t mess-yeah 😉 Sarkozy tell us about his skepticism earlier? He became a president in 2007 when the climate hysteria probably reached the peak. For example, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded for being some of the nastiest crooks in the world’s history and received the Nobel Peace Prize.Also, 2007 was a year right before the relatively cold years 2008 and 2009 which helped to calm the hysteria, along with the ClimateGate scandal in late 2009.Nevertheless, Sarkozy used to be at most ambiguous. I believe that folks like Václav Klaus must have known that Sarkozy was “actually” a climate skeptic. He kept confidentiality but I think that at some moments, Klaus implicitly suggested that some very important politicians actually appreciate him – Klaus – for his courage on …
UN poll of World Citizens Rank Climate Change Dead Last As Concern – 16th out of 16
Alarmism Not Working: World Citizens Rank Climate Change Dead Last As Concern
Over the last year and a half, the United Nations has been conducting an online poll, asking the world’s citizens —well, those fortunate enough to have access to electrical power, a computer, and the internet — what is most important to them, what concerns them most, or what issue they view as the highest priority for action. In all, there are 16 priorities to choose from, ranging from phone and internet access to building more roads, protecting rivers and forests, better health care, etc. Over 9.7 million people across all nations and age groups and educational and income levels have voted so far. And, shockingly, of the 16 listed priorities for action, “Action taken on climate change” ranks a distant 16th, or last. The world’s citizens are more concerned about access to paved roads and phones than they are about taking action to combat the greatest threat facing mankind. Sadly, even citizens of wealthy countries couldn’t care any less than they do about climate change as an issue. In the U.S., for example, in a Gallup poll ranking the levels of concern about 15 pre-selected, randomly-ordered national problems, “Climate Change” again comes in a distant last place. Just yesterday, a poll conducted by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and reported by the Associated Press revealed that 43% of American citizens would refuse to pay more than $1 a month to fight climate change — though we’re not exactly sure what fighting climate change means. And the refusal to pay rises as the relative cost of fighting the climate rises: 61% would refuse to pay even $10 a month, about 70% would refuse to pay $20 a month, and 80% of Americans would refuse to pay $50 a month. Are More Alarming Studies Needed To Elicit Belief, Concern? Perhaps there aren’t enough alarming studies linking climate change to personal catastrophes to generate more public concern about climate change as an issue. Maybe there needs to be more analysis that says Antarctica will soon be the only place on the planet to live if we don’t start fighting climate change. That could garner enough attention to move up a notch or two in the polls. Beer is quite popular nearly world-wide. What if there were more stories that affirm global warming will make beer taste worse? …
A new study shows why we’re polarized about climate change
…GOP Should Follow Trump’s Lead on Climate Change
…The Democrats foolish War on Climate
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/17/the-democrats-foolish-war-on-climate/
The party platform adopted at the Democratic National Convention, on page 45, calls for a national mobilization on the scale of World War II. What enemy deserves the wrath endured by Hirohito and Hitler? Climate change! Democrats want to declare a war on climate.
Here is the amazing declaration: “We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations, to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II.”
This scale of mobilization is incredibly expensive and disruptive to people’s lives, something to which the Democrats seem oblivious. Great sacrifices by average Americans were required for mobilization during the Second World War, enforced by massively intrusive government authority. Is this what the Democrats want, the supreme government control that comes with a wartime effort?…