Friday Funny: This is why there weren't presidential debate questions about climate

Yesterday, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth among the usual climate activists over the lack of interest in climate change during the presidential debate. Serial climate doomster Joe Romm, of the hopelessly compromised “Climate Progress’, who has been outed in the Wikileaks Podesta emails as nothing but a paid political operative, called the lack of interest by moderators “criminally irresponsible’, which is hilarious in the context of his own behavior.

romm-criminally-irresponsible

On Twitter, admitted document thief and poseur Dr. Peter Gleick also had some sharp words:

Even the NYT got into the act:

In September, the League of Conservation voters, got into bed with some other politically motivated doomsters (like Daily Kos, Fiends of the Earth, and Media Matters) to get a petition with over 100,000 signatures asking, nay, demanding that climate be given attention during the debate.

lcv-petition-climate-debate

Except, LCV was still running this petition as of this writing today (linked off their main page at http://lcv.org seen here:

lcv-add-your-name

….and somehow, they only seem to have gathered 22,091 signatures according to the signup page linked from the LCV website:

lcv-petition-real-numbers

Obviously, LCV must be using the time honored climate science method of using adjusted data in their press release. Either that, or they wrote the press release to say 100,000 before they actually gathered signatures. In their press release, (archived here) they don’t actually give any data, and I’m sure Steve Mosher will be on their case soon, demanding they publish their data and methodology.

It is pretty lame when even the far left can’t rouse their base and has to inflate numbers. But, given what we’ve seen from Wikileaks lately, I suppose this inflation of climate numbers is more of a modus operandii than we previously realized. Sadly, it looks like the American Geophysical Union (AGU) got suckered in with that LCV press release and didn’t bother to check the numbers. Well, that’s today’s science method, I guess.

Well, geniuses, here’s why there were no debate questions about climate, and it isn’t some failure of the already irresponsible journalism practiced there. It’s just that beyond the climate zealots, in the real world, few people care anymore.There are far bigger problems to be worried about.

In this survey of U.S. Voters, climate change came in dead last:

climate-change-dead-last

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation h/t to “PCGamerLT” on Twitter

Other polls show similar lack of interest in climate. For example, this worldwide poll conducted by the U.N. that we covered on WUWT in 2015, still ranks climate dead last in 2016 with almost 10 million votes cast:

un-poll-climate-dead-last

Oh, the pain!

But most telling is this September 2016 poll from the Associated Press that says:

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.

Almost half say not one dollar, with nearly a third saying it’s only worth the cost of lunch in most cities ($20). Yet somehow, failing to ask climate questions in the presidential debate were a “failure of journalism” and “criminally irresponsible”.

Riiiight.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 21, 2016 5:10 am

Nearly half the people understand that throwing good money after bad never fixed a single thing.
But I see no problem with their proclamation of 100k and the actual numbers. They just have not adjusted them yet by running them through their data sets.

Reply to  philjourdan
October 21, 2016 5:16 am

Radical Greens want crappy RE nature killing Wind and Solar Thermal projects, instead of high energy dense nuclear. CA after shutting down SONGS is burning more fossil fuel due to RE being intermittent. The Raptor, Bat and insect death by industrializing nature for RE earth saving insanity. Break Bad Wind! Build Molten Salt Reactors for cheaper than coal energy http://www.egeneration.org

Reply to  philjourdan
October 21, 2016 8:07 am

The best way to improve the climate is to deport all the climate hucksters…to equatorial Africa.

MarkW
Reply to  pyeatte
October 21, 2016 8:23 am

Would certainly improve the political climate.

Santa Baby
Reply to  pyeatte
October 21, 2016 9:26 pm

They ideological belong more in North-Korea?

henryp
Reply to  Santa Baby
October 21, 2016 10:15 pm

Equatorial Africa gets more rain in a global cooling period…bring ur farmers south!

Paul belanger
Reply to  pyeatte
October 23, 2016 5:33 pm

Trump’s contract with America dropped the one liner, “Elimination of billions of dollars of funding to UN climate change program and diverting the money to environmental improvement inside the US, funding better water and sewer treatment for sites like Flint Michigan.
Game over for the freeloaders and scammers.

Sleepalot
Reply to  philjourdan
October 21, 2016 10:07 am

The problem with 100k is that it’s not even 1% of the population.

Reply to  Sleepalot
October 21, 2016 11:46 am

I suspect it has to do with the Oregon petition. But makes you wonder how many of the signatures are fakes as well. The one thing you can count on is that they always accuse their opponents of what they have done, or are planning to do.

October 21, 2016 5:12 am

Earth has been cooling for 3K years and today is only a mild thaw up out of the coldest era of the past 8K years. Sun Cycles 24-27 may well bring a new Grand Minimum.

Dr. Dave
October 21, 2016 5:13 am

Good post Anthony… nice to see you have your mojo back!

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Dr. Dave
October 21, 2016 8:29 am

+10

Jimmy Haigh
October 21, 2016 5:16 am

Up yours global warmongers. It’s still nice and cool under the rocks you crawled out from 30 years ago.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
October 21, 2016 6:24 am

like it better with a double m. Could catch on.

WBrowning
October 21, 2016 5:35 am

Their claiming 100K and only having 22K signatures is kind of like their 97% of scientists BS they’ve been peddling for years now. The climate, especially because we could’t make a measurable effect even if they were right and we did exactly as they wanted, doesn’t come anywhere near, terrorism, the economy, the deficit, the erosion of our liberties, out of control government agencies and dirty politicians in most peoples view.

Alex
October 21, 2016 5:35 am

The debates are a total nonsense and always have been. Who, in their right mind, would take them seriously. It’s just the Donald and Hilary show.

Menicholas
Reply to  Alex
October 21, 2016 5:42 am

Anyone who takes the matter of the ideologically balance if The Supreme Court ought to take every part if this election process very seriously.
We will be living with the consequences for a very long time.

Alex
Reply to  Menicholas
October 21, 2016 6:00 am

You missed my point. I was talking about the debates. As a non ustasian I will not be involved in the election.
The debates are a kind of soap opera and are designed to be titillating.
However, as a non citizen, I am dragged into American politics because the US insinuates itself into every facet of life of everybody on the planet. That is not a good thing.
I would prefer Trump to be the idiot in charge of the US.

Alex
Reply to  Menicholas
October 21, 2016 6:08 am

An anagram of IICOTUS would be iCOITUS, It would probably appeal to apple users. Either way the US is f@cked up.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Menicholas
October 21, 2016 9:00 am

Alex at 6:00 am uses the term “ustasian” — something I’ve not seen before, for Americans. There is a history to this, and I add that “clarity” of writing is good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_United_States_citizens

BFL
Reply to  Menicholas
October 21, 2016 5:55 pm

My (and Sheriff Clarke’s) thoughts concerning the government establishment and Trump is the once-in-a-lifetime nominee claiming to at least try, If that is idiocy then so be it:comment image

indefatigablefrog
October 21, 2016 5:41 am

Even so, a huge hoard of pitchfork wielding peasants are greatly angered by recent extreme and unprecedented weather injustice.
And they demand that those in power take action against the people held to be responsible.
Drumming up massed lunacy has never gone out of fashion.
Some sort of sacrifice will be expected. Maybe Clinton will have to sacrifice another pipeline project, or maybe she will just have to sacrifice the U.S. economy.
Some of the weather that we have been seeing is really quite shocking. It needs to be stopped.

October 21, 2016 5:45 am

Good post Anthony

Tom O
October 21, 2016 5:56 am

I have to admit, I found it rather humorous that the New York times used the phrase ” a failure of journalism” referring to not asking climate crisis questions considering the paper is, itself, the perfect example of “a failure in journalism.”

Reply to  Tom O
October 21, 2016 6:13 am

True. The New York Times has gotten so obviously partisan that one must place their credibility with that of Breitbart or the Daily Kos–interesting things that must be confirmed with other sources.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2016 6:29 am

About a week ago, Drudge reported that the NYT reporters were required to get the permission of the Hillary campaign before they could print any quotes.

Bill
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2016 7:37 am

The paper is good for starting camp fires

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2016 9:43 am

Just make sure that the paper is fully consumed before roasting any marshmellows. Could leave a nasty aftertaste otherwise.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2016 9:48 am

My birds don’t even read it.
They do what I’d do…if I didn’t have to clean that up, too.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2016 7:52 pm

Hillary’s bus does it all the time.

TA
Reply to  Tom O
October 21, 2016 9:07 am

I haven’t heard any NYT reporters asking either of the candidates questions about “climate change”, but they want to criticize the debate moderators for not doing the same.

JimB
Reply to  Tom O
October 21, 2016 11:06 am

The what? Is that a newspaper you are talking about? Or the media branch of the Democrat party? What has that organization to do with real journalism.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  JimB
October 21, 2016 7:53 pm

Don’t be so nyt-picky!

MarkW
October 21, 2016 6:26 am

“$20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household”
When you add in the higher electrical costs, and the cost of all the subsidies and mandates, we are paying at least that much already.

Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2016 6:38 am

I also support a monthly “climate” fee on their electric bill; in whatever amount they are willing to pay.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2016 8:11 am

I want a large rebate.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2016 9:13 am

If you’re that anxious to pay such a fee, feel free to pick up mine. Quite frankly, there are many of us older people who are on fixed incomes and dramatic increases in energy costs can produce some very difficult choices for us. After serving my country and working very hard throughout my life, I don’t think I should have to make choices between staying warm and eating.

MarkW
Reply to  Don Perry
October 21, 2016 9:44 am

Please note, he wrote “on their electric bill”. He didn’t say that he wanted to pay extra.

Richard
October 21, 2016 6:43 am

The answer to the polling problem is clear, and I’m surprised Climatemongers haven’t applied it yet.
All they need do is apply a correction algorithm to the polling results, similar to the manner in which they “correct” past temperature data. Then, they replace the unadjusted polling results with the correctly adjusted polling results to prove that, yes indeed, climate change is the most important issue on everyone’s mind.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard
October 21, 2016 8:25 am

When the data doesn’t match your theory, adjust the data.

marque2
October 21, 2016 7:24 am

Maybe all those people who would spend $20 and $50 should send the money to their local utilities, to buy carbon offsets, or bird cuisine art’s and leave the rest of us alone.

Rob
October 21, 2016 7:30 am

And remember that these are all prompted polls: that is, the answers are chosen from a selection of options. If you ask people what concerns them and don’t prompt the answer with options, the numbers mentioning climate change are even lower.
People give answers to pollsters based on what they think will make them look good (in the eyes of the prson asking the questions). This is the basic issue with opinion polls that no amount of ‘normalisation’ can correct for. For example, what do americans tell pollsters they want from a motor vehicle? For years, fuel economy has been way up on the list, yet the biggest selling vehicles remain trucks and SUVs.
This goes double for ‘willingness to pay’ surveys, such as the one listed here. Did any one these people actually pay the money they said they would? It is a great bit of virtue-signalling to talk about how much you would pay for some kind of environmental benefit, but even in the US (where tax deductions for charitable donations are institutionalised) actual donations to environmental campaigns are very low (in terms of the number of people making donations). I never put any credence in such surveys and neither do most economists.

MarkW
Reply to  Rob
October 21, 2016 8:26 am

I’m still waiting for all those leftists who swear they are going to leave the country every time a Republican wins the White House, to actually do so.

Another Ian
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2016 1:25 pm

What have you got against the rest of the world to have thoughts like that?
Think how well “Don’t Californicate Colorado” worked.

Bill
October 21, 2016 7:35 am

When are these stupid people going to realize their computer models ain’t data! Without data their rants don’t mean a thing ’cause they ain’t got that swing.

Gandhi
October 21, 2016 7:39 am

We have seen the death of journalism in America during this election. I will never watch CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC news again without wondering if I’m being lied to. Of course, the New York Times was already killed off long ago.

Hugs
Reply to  Gandhi
October 21, 2016 8:13 am

It is fairly interesting to notice there is a certain bias in almost all MSM, including the ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC, NYT, and Guardian. The sports news are all right, but any topics which attract greens are just hopelessly biased by good-meaning stupid political stuntmen.
I subscribed to a right-wing magazine but had to cancel the subscription after seeing greenies infiltrated it as well. It is as if there is no reliable right-wing news medium left. Right.
(Darn you got me started on this)

Gerry, England
Reply to  Hugs
October 22, 2016 3:53 am

For some reason most journalists are left wing. And it extends beyond the legacy media. The magazine for my engineering institute usually reads like a technical supplement to the Guardian so full of BS renewable and sustainable stuff. Coming across a copy from a decade ago showed how it was then a proper journal for a learned society.

AllyKat
Reply to  Hugs
October 22, 2016 5:25 am

A few years ago, I read that only 7 percent of journalists (surprised that was not adjusted to 3 percent) identified as conservative. I cannot remember if “liberal” had the majority/plurality, but the article mentioning the poll reminded readers that people tend to say they are more moderate than they actually are. Meaning that if you claim to be “moderately left”, you are more likely rabidly left (and vice versa).
Even when a reporter actively tries to be unbiased, his/her ideology will influence the issues of focus and the questions asked. Suddenly, one understands why the media output has a certain slant.
I wonder if part of the reason for the imbalance is the fact that people on the right tend to believe that other people have a right to hold differing opinions, and have more of a laissez faire approach to human interaction. You go your way and I’ll go mine, etc. Leftists tend to like telling people what to do, what to think, and how to act. (They of course are exempt from the recommended actions, and get to do all the recommending.) Charitable donations are much higher from people who lean right (check out the percentage of income donated by Bush II and Cheney versus Obama and Biden – significant difference). I suspect that despite all their virtue signaling activities (we cleaned up a stream!), people on the left likely volunteer less (particularly in informal ways), and for less effective causes/activities. This is a really long winded way to hypothesize that people on the right try to fix real problems while people on the left lament all the problems (many/mostly fake) that other people need to fix.

MarkW
Reply to  Gandhi
October 21, 2016 8:27 am

They’ve been on life support for years.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Gandhi
October 21, 2016 2:15 pm

I dropped out of the mainstream media in the late 70s when I got fed up with the BS purveyed as news concerning military expenditures. I was in the industry and knew what the truth was. This was confirmed in the 80s when sources (including “Scientific” “American” –double quotes intended) began touting “it’s impossible” stories about the Strategic Defense Initiative. I was on the inside of that effort and again knew what the truth was. We have been lied to for decades. Anyone who reads the media and takes them at face value is marching with his own soap and towel to the brainwash.

Grant A. Brown
October 21, 2016 7:39 am

The reason the moderators avoided the climate questions, I figure, is that this topic would not play well for Clinton. She would be up there explaining how much more expensive everything would be once she put a price on carbon and shut down all the coal power plants and so on and so forth. And Trump would be saying he wasn’t going to waste another dime on that hoax. The majority of the American people would have sided with Trump, and the media could not allow that to happen.

ossqss
October 21, 2016 7:56 am

October 21, 2016 8:05 am

To the
“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.”
payment by PayPal, bank transfer or cheque accepted. Upon receipt of funds I hereby solemnly guarantee to fix whatever climate issues you consider to be problematic. Please indicate your paleoclimatic preferences when paying but be advised that early Cretaceous is considered to be the default optimum.
TIA
Cephus0

Hugs
October 21, 2016 8:06 am

The fiends are at the Daily Kos. Oh don’t get me started.

Catcracking
October 21, 2016 8:18 am

It really does not matter what is important to the people, If Hillary is elected. The new Administration will continue to push the agenda of climate change without approval (or awareness) of most of the citizens. Facts or truth are not relevant with the Clinton team. The agenda will be accomplished regardless of citizen interests. Obama has already done this big time including giving millions of dollars to the UN as reparations, making agreements with China (phony of course) and “signing” on to the Paris agreement without Senate approval. Every agency of the the government including the military are diverting resources to address global warming/climate change. The military are required to have every action consider the impact on climate change. The EPA is attacking business and fossil fuel production.
Without a change in Party in power, the die is being cast, Coal powered generation plants are being shut down, Nuclear plants being shuttered, $$ wasted on solar and wind subsidies, subsidies for biofuels to replace oil/gas, forcing electric cars on consumers, possible carbon tax, ethanol mandates, and you name it.
With a complicit media, which we have for the most part, an administration can do whatever it wants, doubt that, then look at the deal with Iran and the cash payments, closure of Gitmo, etc.
Congress is being bypassed.

Reply to  Catcracking
October 21, 2016 10:10 am

That’s BS!
Congress is lying down to protect their lucrative public position, period.

Catcracking
Reply to  mikerestin
October 21, 2016 1:02 pm

Mike..
Suggest you view this video regarding the president not following the constitution and how with a complicit media Congress being bypassed. You can call it BS but one Congressman has given a powerful speech regarding who makes law.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Catcracking
October 21, 2016 6:29 pm

Catcracking, regardless Trump / Hillaries ways, after Brexit, leaving Germany as the sole greater netPAYER, the EU just no longer can afford playing Obamas luxury climate games.
So a Hillary on her own barely shoulders all that green dream wanna havits.

October 21, 2016 8:23 am

I figure that the bigwigs know very well that ‘climate change’ is natural and which solar cycles are the main drivers that are important to watch.
^You can even predict solar activity by looking at the position of the planets. That means you can also predict what climate change is coming. Just looking at the sun, for the great plains of America, it is clear that we are only two years off from the big droughts of 1932-1939 and 1845-1856.
Go south young man….go south.

ferd berple
October 21, 2016 8:26 am

$20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household
=================
the damages from climate change will be much greater than that. Climate was not mentioned because it could cost the Democrats the election. Much better the Press distract the population with sex revelations.
The writing is on the wall. Hillary and the Democrats will enact sweeping carbon taxes in one form or another, with direct costs, regulatory costs, and job losses that will be far in excess of $1000 per household.
These cost will not remain static, they will rise every year. As energy costs in the US necessarily skyrocket, jobs will continue to hemorrhage to China, Mexico and India. In the name of saving the planet, the middle class of America will be stripped of their assets by plunging them into trillions of dollars of debt to the largest private bank in the US, the so called Federal Reserve.
Like ISIS in the middle east, Crime will move into the vacuum in America, left by the loss of prosperity. Police will fear to enter the black communities for reasons of Political Correctness, leaving them ruled by criminal gangs. Staggeringly high youth unemployment in the black communities will supply the recruits, having no other means to earn a living. Areas from which criminals can operate with impunity.
By the time American’s wake up in 4 years time, they will realize they have gone from the worlds only superpower, to a second rate police state. From the grave bin Laden will be laughing at having defeated the most powerful nation on earth.

henryp
Reply to  ferd berple
October 21, 2016 9:19 am

USA voted for an unelectiable person to run? Ted Cruz would have been a much more balanced candidate…

Reply to  henryp
October 21, 2016 10:13 am

Cruz comes across as a preacher.
Americans don’t like to be preached at.
The establishment wanted Bush against Clinton so they forced Trump to the top.

henryp
Reply to  mikerestin
October 21, 2016 10:24 am

I think Cruz can still come in as independant and beat the trump

henryp
Reply to  henryp
October 21, 2016 10:29 am

Btw
Cruz led an excellent hearing
largely denying man made climate change
Perhaps someone can give the link?

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  henryp
October 21, 2016 2:20 pm

He’s only unelectable if you don’t vote for him. Didn’t you notice the above discussions of how deceitful and false the media reports are? He has more than sellout crowds, and Hillary has a hard time filling a venue. How is that possible, if Hillary is so prevailing?

Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 22, 2016 9:34 am

unfortunately he lost credibility with women [bimbos], latino’s [wall], and other minorities. He should have recognised their voting power from the beginning…
Cruz did appeal to many of these people, as well as to conservatives. What is wrong with being a preacher/ isn’t that what politics is about?
Both candidates failed to answer me on my question if they would be willing to ask the public before a new law is to be enacted via [save] internet polling.
speaking about conservatism…..
@AllyKat
if conservatism is to keep or preserve one’s knowledge and wealth for yourself or for your own group that would be wrong.
Jesus was strong about sharing one’s knowledge and wealth as is evident from the proceedings in the first church.
if you define the latter option as being wrong, [I think] you won’t do that great in Heaven, where apparently the streets are paved with gold = 100% sharing of knowledge and wealth.
btw
spending on \defence\
is still the highest
what a waste

MarkG
Reply to  henryp
October 22, 2016 11:51 am

Cruz is a Canadian whose wife works for Goldman Sachs. Clinton and her ‘birthers’ would have been hammering him on how he was ineligible for being President (like she did for Obama), and, if he was elected, it would have been business as usual.

Inquirer
October 21, 2016 8:41 am

How you cast you vote for President is a different question to what people are concerned about in general:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
This suggests an elected president would be foolish and democratically irresponsible to not take action on climate change.
And it suggests the media is not really representing the views of its audience.

huntet
Reply to  Inquirer
October 22, 2016 12:09 pm

Bunk study claiming “climate change” is an important issue. And “progressive” politicians have no trouble ignoring the will of the majority.

October 21, 2016 8:58 am

please repeat after me, “the climate is just a set of statistics” the climate has NO POWER, is NOT some force, again “the climate is just a set of statistics”………..amazing supposedly educated people dont understand this simple basic FACT………the climate is NOT a force, it has NO power, and exerts NO control over the weather………got it??????????????????

Flyoverbob
October 21, 2016 8:59 am

Why do politicians lie? If they didn’t they would be required to work for a living. Just how many people would vote for someone who said he/she would raise the voters taxes by 5%?

philincalifornia
October 21, 2016 9:16 am

At least I got a new one for my “Climate crap” list – “Climate questions”:
Climate action
Climate agenda
Climate agreement
Climate anxiety counseling
Climate blueprint
Climate budget
Climate catastrophe
Climate challenge
Climate chaos
Climate consciousness
Climate coyness
Climate crisis
Climate danger
Climate d*nier
Climate disruption
Climate fatigue
Climate finance
Climate justice
Climate mitigation
Climate policy
Climate punishment
Climate questions
Climate refugees
Climate resilience
Climate risk
Climate scenarios
Climate timeline
Climate weirding

BallBounces
Reply to  philincalifornia
October 21, 2016 1:14 pm

My current favorite: “climate loss”.

philincalifornia
Reply to  BallBounces
October 21, 2016 2:55 pm

Thanks, added.
I can’t see “Climate anxiety counseling” being supplanted as my fave though.

John F. Hultquist
October 21, 2016 9:16 am

The 5% [Kaiser Family Foundation] that indicate that climate change is the most important issue regarding the vote seems the astonishing thing.
That’s a whole lot of people in need of counseling.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 21, 2016 9:50 am

The people bothering to sign only amounted to 0.575% of the population of the US. 10 times less. Maybe most Americans aren’t crazy after all. We will always have people willing to drink acid laced Kool aid, but that doesn’t mean I will. And it seems that not everyone that did go that route was willing, especially the children.
Whether it’s here or the afterlife, most of us don’t want to just live, but thrive.
” the highest honor in heaven is to be asked to work “

William Grubel
October 21, 2016 9:44 am

100,000 is of course the more accurate number as it was developed by computer model. Actual measured data will have to be re-calibrated to better reflect reality.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  William Grubel
October 21, 2016 10:13 am

Is there a 30-year pollatology baseline? Is there an anomaly calculation? Inquiring minds want to know! /sarc

Leo Smith
October 21, 2016 10:03 am

The difference between what you read in the twittersphere, on the blogs or get fed by the MSM, compared to what ordinary people say, is astonishing.
They are pretty cynical, anyway, and renewable energy – well ‘it dont work, do it, mate?’ is becoming the sort of response one gets.

Logos_wrench
October 21, 2016 10:04 am

Of course there is little interest among voters. Because the we electorate is stupid. Just ask the left,they will confirm. Funny how these morons can ignore an actual consensus.

October 21, 2016 10:25 am

Climate change issues is one of the most important issues for me regarding this election, but not because action is warranted, but because anyone who thinks it is demonstrates exceptionally poor judgement and is not deserving of my vote.
Does the statistic showing that 5% of voters think climate change is a deciding issue consider the fact that many of these voters might think that addressing false claims of a climate catastrophe is where the danger is?

Rob
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 21, 2016 12:39 pm

Exactly. Regardless of whether the phony climate change scam is on most peoples radar or not, the crooked politicians keep inching their destructive and even murderous climate change policies ahead.

BillJ
October 21, 2016 11:43 am

Anthony I think what you’re missing here is that for true believers this is just more evidence that they’re the only ones who care about saving the planet. Instead of telling them that most people don’t really care about climate change as a political issue it just reinforces their existing beliefs that they need to save the world because they are the only ones that truly understand the threat.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  BillJ
October 21, 2016 1:06 pm

The point is that political support for the Warmunist movement is tanking badly. They have come up with many, convoluted “reasons” for this failure, including the idea that they just haven’t “communicated climate change” well enough, and/or that the “fossil fuel industry-supported D nilists” have managed to sway people, but they are only fooling themselves.

MikeN
October 21, 2016 1:13 pm

Where’s the funny part? I was expecting a cartoon by Josh.
A climate question would have been a nice chance for Trump to say how much Hillary will raise your electricity bills.

Dav09
October 21, 2016 1:23 pm

“Twenty-nine percent would pay [per month] $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household.”
And “climate change” is supposed to be the end of the freakin’ world? Twenty dollars a month??? That’s the catastrophe aversion of which requires [your choice of expletive] crippling industrial civilization? And just to add criminal insanity to dementia, the GHG reduction regulation already in place – let alone what’s pending or proposed – costs more that that, arguably far more.

PiperPaul
October 21, 2016 1:29 pm

comment image

Nash
October 21, 2016 2:27 pm

NYT “failure of journalism”” …. talking about themselves

RoHa
October 21, 2016 8:43 pm

I think Hillary’s plans for war with Russia are a teensy bit more worrying than a possible 0.2 degree increase in temperature.

David J Wendt
October 22, 2016 3:02 am

How many of you have heard about this?
http://truepundit.com/pentagon-hillary-clinton-should-be-arrested-for-leaking-top-secret-nuclear-intelligence-on-national-tv/
“Hillary Clinton divulged Top Secret nuclear security intelligence to tens of millions of worldwide television audience viewers Wednesday night during the third presidential debate, according to high-ranking Department of Defense personnel.
Clinton, responding to opponent Donald Trump and a question posed by debate moderator Chris Wallace, boasted specific and “damaging” details about the United States’ nuclear response time to retaliate during a nuclear attack. Clinton said:
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about xxxx minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton, National TV Appearance
“Secretary Clinton proved tonight she is unfit to be commander-in-chief,” a top-ranking DOD intelligence source said. “What she did compromises our national security. She is cavalier and reckless and in my opinion should be detained and questioned so we can unravel why she did what she did.”
According to Pentagon sources, the information Clinton disseminated publicly is Top Secret intelligence governed under the U.S. Special Access Program (SAP) which dictates safeguards and protocols for accessing and discussing highly classified and Top Secret intelligence. The specific details of the country’s nuclear response time discussed by Clinton, sources said, are only known by a handful of individuals outside top military brass, including the following “need-to-know” (NTK) officials:…
“Sources said late Wednesday Clinton likely violated two different types of Dept. of Defense SAP protocols. Since nuclear response is part of the sensitive national plan for nuclear war operations, all of its schematics are covered under both “Intelligence SAPs” and “Operation and Support SAPs,” sources said. Both contain Top Secret information.
“Targeting options by ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles), air or sea, launch order, launch procedures and response are some of the most secretly guarded tenets of national security and nuclear war policy,” a Pentagon source said. “It’s truly incredible that (nuclear) response time as part of an ERO (Emergency Response Option) is now out there in the public domain to our adversaries.”
U.S. Defense sources said according to developed U.S. counterintelligence, military officials in China, North Korea, Syria, Russia, Iran and even actors like ISIS had no previous definitive intelligence to determine the U.S. nuclear response time, especially during an ERO, prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday night. Sources reluctantly acknowledged her calculations were accurate.”
Jail is much to good for this treasonous harridan. Her deserved fate should include no last cigarette or blindfold.

David J Wendt
October 22, 2016 3:11 am

mods I recently posted a comment was it trapped in a filter?

Marcus
Reply to  David J Wendt
October 22, 2016 7:30 am

..I still don’t understand why she even mentioned it !!

October 22, 2016 4:52 am

Trump knows climate change is a hoax,problem is he doesn t seem to know the how when and where of how the con was made.if he did he could tell voters how the fight agaainst it is useless and will raise the cost of everything. A huge tax on us all, which we are already paying

Hocus Locus
October 22, 2016 1:59 pm

Al Gore has been sighted (with Hillary). Grab your coat.
Same sore-ass loser who alleged election fraud in 2000.
But That Is Not What Is Important Right Now, says the press.

Reply to  Hocus Locus
October 22, 2016 9:03 pm

I thought you were going to say grab your coat, it’s going to get cold. The ” Gore effect”.

October 23, 2016 6:22 am

Why pick on climate? We could make a long list of other religions no one’s asking about, even Islam.
We should elect Trump because he’s impeachable. Hillary’s unimpeachable. Ask about that.

Bill Powers
October 25, 2016 5:54 am

You can’t have a questions about climate change in a debate. Haven’t you heard? The debate is over!

%d bloggers like this: