Despite the 'urgency' of Paris climate talks, a U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last

And this result comes despite the fact that these other concerns are not being hyped in the media and by politicians, day in day out, year in year out.
Where is the media and political campaign for ‘Affordable and Nutritious Food’? Where is the GreenPeace campaign for ‘Affordable and Nutritious Food’? All GreenPeace want, is more and more expensive organic foods that only the rich can possibly purchase.
Politicians play to the audience. That, is the nature of the political game. If a comedian in a theater tells the same joke every night, and receives a stoney silence in return, hesh will soon drop it. If a politician gets a zero response on hesh climate campaign – that issue will be dropped just as quickly.
The only fly in the ointment is the BBC, which is a Communist enterprise does not have to worry about income and popularity. But the new government’s proposal to cut its funding may make them think twice.
Ralph

Of course it’s the lowest priority. It’s a problem for the grandchildren. The rest are the issues that are ours to deal with.
And if we deal with our responsibilities our grandchildren will find it a lot easier to deal with their problems. Because they will be richer.
Almost everyone knows that.

The most interesting thing about these sort of surveys is actually the trends from year to year – I would like to see results of similar surveys taken in the countries with a high HDI index in say, year 2000, 2005, and 2010. Can anybody put their hands on such surveys?

Will make no difference. The UN Paris meeting will follow the historic Iran nuclear deal.
Actually, more like a Venezuelan election – the pre-cast votes have already been put into the “machine”.

Why is affordable housing not on the list? And where is the actual survey? – is that documented anywhere (not on the site)? The list of “Partners” on the site is a joke – a lot of them are dead ends (I can’t believe all the “organizations” at the bottom of the list with just 1 vote each) I think this whole survey thing is just a bad joke – a figment of the UN’s imagination. And if so, why didn’t they put “Climate Change” at the top of the list – that is really curious…do a search on some of their Partners – crazy…

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
The reason folks in very high HDI countries have so many problems is because we have no real problems.
It is telling that food and water are so low on the list. It seems people are willing to sacrifice the physical needs of the body today in hopes of better education that may empower the descendants of the future.
Despite the evidence that people really don’t know what is good for them, and the obvious fact that elitists try to take advantage of it (and people seem to not care so much), people still innately know that they cannot do anything about the weather and climate.

This is why the public is not concerned with global warming.
There is no global warming problem to solve. The planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. More than 75% of the warming in the last 30 years was due to solar cycle changes. The planet is about to abruptly cool which will bring an abrupt end to the cult of CAGW madness.
The real problem/issue is forced spending of limited public money (percentage of shrinking GDP and all of the developed countries are running yearly deficits and hence of run out of money to spend on everything) which we do not have on green scams that do not work, do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions but do triple the cost of electricity. All the pain for no gain.
It is pathetic that the cult of CAGW and the many green leaches are pushing green scams that do not work for basic engineering and economic reasons.

beyond astronomical

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

It is pathetic that no one in the media and/or in the Democratic party has gotten to the bottom of the green scams.
It is pathetic that no one in the Democratic party and/or the media has the guts/integrity/courage (We need Heroes) to speak the truth.
The green scams fail without including the cost and energy input for battery systems. The costs and energy input for battery systems are never discussed as the cost and CO2 ‘savings’ calculation becomes ridiculous, absurd if battery systems are included.
1)The number one pathetic analysis fact is the CO2 saving calculation does not include the CO2/energy required to construct the green scams and the reduce grid efficiency which is a consequence of forced on/off/on/off/on/off hydrocarbon back-up for the green scams. There is almost no energy savings and almost no CO2 savings from using green scams if the calculation is unbiased, accurate.
2)The number two pathetic analysis fact is due to fact one, it is not possible to say reduce CO2 emissions by let say 40% using green scams, regardless of how much money is spent. We are at point A in CO2 emissions, can never get to point B in CO2 emissions with the green scams. CO2 savings decrease exponentially as more green scams are added and cost increase exponentially. The green scam plan does and cannot work.
Comments:
A fundamental error/scam in the calculation and discussions is the cost comparison is not ‘green scam’ vs hydrocarbon, as 100% hydrocarbon backup is required in addition to the green scam. ‘Investing’ in green scams mean doubling the installed power equipment to power the grid, in addition to more power lines as power must move from region to region.
The second fundamental issue which is not understood by most people is implications of the fact that wind speed varies independent of load requirements.
The power generated from a turbine varies as the cube of wind speed and can vary 30% in less than an hour and does vary from 0 to 100%. As a power system must always be balanced when the wind blows other power sources musts be shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and so on.
The wind power scam is power is rated as nameplate power which is the maximum output of the wind farm. Germany average wind power output is less than 20% of nameplate.
As the amount of wind power increases it is no longer possible to use high efficiency combined cycle power plants for base load. This means if a country mandates wind power at a certain breakpoint there will be a net increase not decrease in CO2 emissions, as it is no longer possible to use high efficiency combined cycle power generation (20% more efficient than a single cycle gas turbine) that takes 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off.
The last part of the green scam, scam is that the calculations do not include the cost and energy to replace the worn out wind turbines (wind turbines and supports have a life time of 12 to 15 years) and battery systems (battery systems have a life of around 7 years and degrade as they age.)

This is actually bad news. People aren’t concerned about climate change also means people aren’t concerned in regard to what the politicians are going to DO about climate change. Both climate change and the proposed mitigation schemes seem like far away things that have no direct bearing on their immediate lives. They don’t understand or care about climate change because they see no direct impact on their lives, and they don’t care about Paris because they don’t see any direct impact on their lives. By the time they do, it will be too late.
We need to stop debating the science. We long ago won that debate, that’s why the other side never shows up. What we need to start debating is what the price of gasoline, electricity and food is going to be if stringent mitigation options are committed to. After the deal Obama just negotiated with Iran, Americans should be woken up to the stupidity this president is prepared to sign your country up to.
Gasoline at $20 per gallon? That’ll get their attention. Hopefully before someone signs anything in Paris because “after” will be too late.