Democrats Hope to Seduce Young Republicans with Climate Change Socialism

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Democrat Presidential hopefully Cory Booker has claimed that Millennial Republicans support Democrat policies on Climate Change.

Cory Booker: Millennial Republicans ‘Are Really with Us’ on Climate Change

Democrat presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) claimed Wednesday during CNN’s climate change town hall that millennial Republicans agree with Democrats on climate change.

“How will you communicate effectively to the skeptics on climate change in order for them to realize the urgency and need for everyone to act?” a man in the audience asked Booker.

“First of all, let’s understand the reality we’re in right now is young Republicans, millennial Republicans, are really with us,” Booker responded. “I’m not one of these people that wants to vilify an entire party.”

Read more (includes video):

Democrats appear to be getting excited about a survey publicised a week ago, which suggests young Republicans are worried about climate change.

Surge in young Republicans worried about the environment: survey

Anthony Deutsch
AUGUST 29, 2019 / 9:05 PM

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A growing majority of U.S. Republicans, especially younger voters, are worried that human behavior is damaging the planet, according to a survey of global attitudes to the environment conducted by an Amsterdam-based polling agency.

The number of Republican voters aged 18-34 who are worried about the issue rose by 18 percentage points to 67%, said the poll, which also showed a 10 percentage point increase among all U.S. Republicans who said they tried “to live eco-consciously”. 

“When looking deeper into the data it becomes clear that the highest rise in environmental concern (worldwide) is visible among younger Republicans,” said Glocalities pollster Martijn Lampert, who predicted that shifting views on the environment would influence the next U.S. election in 2020. 

If Donald Trump keeps on denying climate change and refrains from standing up for the environment he won’t be able to increase support among the young and be heavily reliant on older generations of Republican voters for winning again,” Lampert said. 
“It will be very hard for him to broaden his base.”

Read more:

The apparent increase in concern about climate change amongst young people has triggered politicians like Cory Booker to try to win them over. Even some Republicans are expressing hope for a climate policy “breakthrough”.

Power Up: Why Florida could be the ‘avant-garde’ of the Republican party on climate change

By Jacqueline Alemany
September 4 at 6:20 AM

A CHANGE IN TONE: Florida, on the front lines of Hurricane Dorian and some of the most extreme climatic events in recent years, could become ground zero for a quiet shift among Republicans who have finally started to acknowledge the devastating effects of global warming. 

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), asked by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace whether he believed there was a connection between climate change and hurricane intensity, conceded that “the climate’s changing” and “our storms seem to be getting bigger.” 

While Scott cautiously added that “we don’t know what the cause is,” it was nonetheless a surprising answer given the former Florida governor’s legacy of banning state employees from using the term “climate change.”

  • Then: Employees under Scott were reportedly instructed to say “nuisance flooding” instead of “sea level rise.”
  • Now: “We’ve put money into dealing with things like sea-level rise … we’ve got to continue to figure this out,” Scott told Fox. 

“I think without question Florida is the avant-garde of the party — because climate change is a local issue and because Florida is a state where the environment is top of mind for most voters,” former Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo told Power Up.

  • Key: “There is a lot of room for growth,” Curbelo acknowledges, “but Florida is the place where a bipartisan solution for climate change can be born because Republicans are in a better position to lead.” 

Curbelo, a moderate who represented the Florida Keys before losing his reelection last year, was one of the few congressional Republicans who defied the party orthodoxy by aggressively focusing on climate change in his district. He hopes the recent spate of hurricanes will spur others to take up the charge. 

Read more:

Back in the real world, climate change media events are not attracting a large audience.

The big Democrat candidate climate town hall delivered dismal viewer figures, though to be fair watching a bunch of Presidential wannabes drone on about climate change for seven hours is a bit of an ask, even for people who are concerned about climate change.

CNN’s 7-Hour Climate Town Hall a Bust, Falls to Fox News, MSNBC

CNN’s 7-hour climate change town hall fell behind Fox News and MSNBC in the ratings, according to Nielsen Media Research’s findings released Thursday.

CNN’s marathon event– which began Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. ET and ended at midnight – averaged 1.1 million viewers, while Fox News averaged 2.5 million and MSNBC averaged 1.7 million during the same time span. The network also failed to beat its rival networks during primetime, averaging just 1.4 million viewers. Fox News averaged 3.2 million, and MSNBC averaged 2.2 million during primetime.

Read more:

There is one demographic which really does care about climate policy; coal miners, oil workers, people who stand to lose their entire way of life if radical Democrats shut down their industries;

Climate Change Could Be a Problem in 2020 … for Democrats

Climate change could be a winning long-term political issue for the Democrats—but in 2020, it could also threaten the party from inside and out.

 September 03, 2019

Elissa Slotkin has learned that climate change is both a national emergency and a political opportunity. As an assistant secretary of Defense under President Barack Obama, she helped lead the Pentagon’s first study of how climate change threatens U.S. military bases. Then, as a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2018, she attacked her Republican opponent for questioning the scientific consensus on climate change—and that’s one reason she’s now a Democratic member of Congress.

“We talk about the weather all the time in Michigan, and we all know it’s getting weird,” she says. “To most people, straight-out denial feels extreme.”

But even though Slotkin has shown how the climate crisis can be a winning issue, she’s not on board with the most prominent progressive effort to make it a national issue, the “Green New Deal,” backed by her more famous House classmate Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She thinks it’s too radical, too polarizing, a gift to President Donald Trump and other Republicans who want to portray Democrats as socialists. “My district is very worried that Democrats are lurching to the left,” she says. “I know AOC’s face will be on every ad against me in 2020.

Read more:

What are we to make of all this?

I believe most Democrats are badly misreading the situation.

A survey which suggests young conservatives are concerned about climate change does not automatically mean they want Bernie Sanders as President.

Unconvincing promises of government benefits do not reassure miners and other workers whose jobs are threatened by the Democrats.

I suspect radicalised Democrats are heading for the biggest wipeout in a generation. The naked eagerness of hardline Democrats to use climate change as an excuse impose their economic radicalism, impose taxes, seize assets and eliminate entire industries is alienating people who might otherwise have been more open to their message.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O'Bryan
September 6, 2019 2:47 pm

The fact that the smarter heads in the DNC leadership are not allowing a primary debate to focus on CC is a clear message they realize CC and radical policy actions like the GND are losing issues outside the radical elements of their own party.

What we must do now is encourage them into the crazy corner of energy destruction and higher energy prices On the Record (video is good) as much as possible. That’s so whoever gets the nomination next summer won’t be able to run away from those statements in the general election run-up.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 6, 2019 3:55 pm

My son, daughter and their millenial friends are turning quite conservative. All you have to ask them is “What do you think of Dave Chapelle’s latest comedy special?” and they go nuts laughing at how stupid PC society is. They’re also smart enough to lie to any “official” who they think will use their responses against them.

Millenials aren’t dumb; they just understand the importance of “social camouflage” far better than any generation before them ( except maybe those in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China).

Reply to  Shoshin
September 6, 2019 10:31 pm

PC has got so totalitarian it is turning everyone away. Even those who were traditionally left leaning. The hard left seem primarily motivated by dictating what everyone else does. Claiming to “save the planet” gives them ultimate authority no one can challenge, or so they thought. They did not seem to realise what self parody means.

Curbelo, a moderate who represented the Florida Keys before losing his reelection last year, was one of the few congressional Republicans who defied the party orthodoxy by aggressively focusing on climate change in his district.

Oh, what , you mean aggressively focusing on climate change didn’t work with Republicans ? He lost his seat? But I’d read that Reps were coming round to accepting CC. Maybe cynically abandoning core values doesn’t work after all. Jeez.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 7, 2019 12:10 am

Well, first of all, we need to nip the Fake News/propaganda angle in the bud immediately and not let it fester like this one has. Here’s what the Republican views were based on:

“The new report by Glocalities, which canvassed views worldwide, showed the number of U.S. Republicans who said they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “I worry about the damage humans cause the planet” rose by 11 percentage points to 58% between 2014 and 2019.”

No mention of either phony “climate change”, actual climate change, carbon dioxide or fossil fuels. Just like phony “climate change”, the whole thing is fabricated via trickery. It’s just all made-up sh!te. Doesn’t exist.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 7, 2019 1:38 am

I spotted this too.
Several times in the text, concerns having nothing to do with climate change are conflated with…climate change.
It seems in these people’s minds, climate change not only means “bad weather”, it also means any concern about pollution or ecological damage or problems.
It begins to seem that it is like what is now called “racism”, which has now broadened to include anything someone finds offensive in any way…race or bigotry need have the slightest thing to do with it.
“Climate change” now means anything at all that is worrisome about the planet or our environment within it.
But only for the lunatics, although I suspect it will be an exceedingly long time before they realize it.
They are already quoting polls and polling as 100% indicative of the 2020 US presidential election outcome…as if 2016 never happened.
These are not healthy minds or smart people.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 7, 2019 2:41 am

I never cease to be amazed at what the parasitic wing of the left can invent as memes for young and gullible people to swallow. On the other hand, I’m grateful that I didn’t inherit those genes, nor had that kind of upbringing. I guess if you’re parasitizing fellow humans, inventing the premise(s) is a full-time occupation.

I know a guy who thinks that overfishing is caused by carbon dioxide, or something. He has a hard time explaining it without cue cards.

Mr Bliss
September 6, 2019 3:22 pm

That donkey logo would have been more relevant if the democrat colour made up the rear of the image – just sayin’

September 6, 2019 3:25 pm

The radical Left which is energizing the Dems is also splitting the party.
They need all the ordinary folk in “Fly-Over” counties they can get.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 6, 2019 11:12 pm

Ordinary folk? How about the 4 millennial fellows who put up hay for me? All of them are Trump supporters and feel the Dems are all-out Communists. They agree that it’s city folk vs country folk in politics these days and the higher your education, the more you suffer indoctrination from Marxist educators.

I think the common folk have always had to teach the gifted ones common sense.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 6, 2019 11:28 pm

Bob, the party will surely split as soon as the union workers realize that they are about to be part of the collateral damage from the implementation of climate change socialism. I hear union people I know say that the US needs a labor party to offset the current welfare party that they are encouraged to vote for (and pay for as middle-class, working Americans).

September 6, 2019 3:36 pm

The idea that you can improve the weather by paying money under a socialist regime is more barmy than a belief in the flat Earth.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 6, 2019 5:31 pm

I think this is a point we need to make forcefully, and repeat often.
It strips away all the gobbledygook and lays bare exactly what these warmista jackasses are promising.
They will grant us perfect weather in return for power and all our money.
Oh, plus swearing off every single thing which makes our lives different from primitive serfs.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 6, 2019 6:01 pm

…then why haven’t the current socialist regimes fixed it?

John Sandhofner
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 6, 2019 6:11 pm

Good comparison. This is what happens when you let emotions dictate how you think.

September 6, 2019 3:43 pm

Tucker Carlson gave a really good description of the CNN Climate Change Town Hall:

“On Wednesday night, CNN subjected its tiny audience to what it described as a “Climate Change Town Hall.” The thing went on for seven hours. That’s a long time.

In fact, that’s so long that climate predictions made at the start of the evening could have been proven wrong by the end. An entire species of polar bear might have become extinct by the third commercial break. It’s a long time,”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RicDre
September 6, 2019 7:52 pm

One thing about it, the Democrat climate change debate has spurred climate change debates on all the cable channels. Some of the debates on Fox News are quite good, and the conservatives arguing against CAGW seem to have their facts pretty straight. Sean Hannity is using the Global Cooling scare of the 1970’s as a talking point, and pointing out how that climate change prediction failed and then asks “why should we believe the current climate change prediction?”. Good question, Sean.

September 6, 2019 3:45 pm

Make no mistake. The Liberal left is actually disappointed that Hurricane Dorian wasn’t more destructive along the East Coast.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 6, 2019 4:08 pm

And the they were really annoyed that Hurricane Dorian didn’t wipe out Mar-A-Lago.

Kristi R Silber
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 6, 2019 8:20 pm


That’s a really despicable comment.

I am a moderate liberal. I love my country. That means I love all of it, and I firmly believe that conservative values NEED to be part of the picture. I want a united nation, not one torn apart by hate and insults and tribalism. I’m tired of the propaganda on both sides, and believe both the radical right and left are harming America.

But all I ever come across on sites frequented by conservatives is vilification of the left. Assumptions, generalizations, labeling…a complete lack of appreciation of the diversity of their views. You know what I hear from the liberal elite again and again? A desire to try to converse with the right, to foster understanding, cooperation and compromise. I don’t mean the politicians or cable news media, but the intellectuals. Not all of them, of course, but many.

Our division is making America weak. Industry cannot plan for the long-term if with each new administration regulations are changed. We no longer have the respect of the international community.
We once led the world by example and diplomacy, a strong democracy which fostered mostly civil debate – a role model for other nations to aspire to. We could think independently and have civil debate, not hang out in anonymous echo chambers vying for who could think of the best way to insult the Other.

People on both the left and right say deplorable things; you are acting no better than your counterpart on the left.

Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 6, 2019 10:09 pm

OK, that’s one.
However you are a distinct minority amongst liberals.

Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 6, 2019 10:44 pm

I don’t mean the politicians or cable news media, but the intellectuals. Not all of them, of course, but many.

That is as much narrow cherry pick as RobDawg’s comment was a sweeping generalisation. I like your call for moderation and reasonable discussion but your subset of reasonable leftist intellectuals are not making themselves heard. It is the politicians and the media who determine what people hear that is the segment you wish to exclude.

The Guardian has been trying to talk up Doran all week and are part of the documented conspiracy of media outlets planning a week long campaign of saturation climage coverage.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 6, 2019 11:22 pm

You could have used another word in place of “deplorable”. We’ve heard that word before.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 7, 2019 8:09 am

“I am a moderate liberal. I love my country. That means I love all of it, and I firmly believe that conservative values NEED to be part of the picture. I want a united nation, not one torn apart by hate and insults and tribalism. I’m tired of the propaganda on both sides, and believe both the radical right and left are harming America.”

That makes you the exception rather than the rule, Kristi. We don’t see many on the Left with those traits around here or in the newspapers or the tv channels. No doubt there are moderate liberals out there but they are silent, and for a reason. Kristi, if you were to say those nice things about conservatives on a leftwing website, you would be vilified. They don’t want to hear from moderates.

Krisit, it’s not the Right that is tearing apart the using hate and insults and tribalism. It is the Left that is doing all that. Granted some conservatives don’t always react in the nicest way to the slanders of the Left, but there would be no need to react in such a way if the slanders never happened in the first place.

Kristi, there is no comparison between the radical left and the radical right. The radical Left makes up a large majority of the Democrat party today. The radical Right is almost non-existent except in the minds of radical Leftists who create this bogey man out of thin air.

Criticizing the Left for slandering and lying about you doesn’t make you a radical or extremist. The record must be corrected. In the nicest way possible, of course.

Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 7, 2019 8:47 am

Kristi R Silber:

“I am a moderate liberal. I love my country.”

I am glad to hear this. I know a number of moderate people on the left who feel the same way as you do and with whom I have interesting and civil conversations. The problem is that the left wing politicians are much more radical then you and they are drowning out the more moderate voices.

“But all I ever come across on sites frequented by conservatives is vilification of the left.”
The reverse is also true, “All I ever come across on sites frequented by the left is vilification of the right.” Do you condemn this also?

“Our division is making America weak…”

This is true, but that division is generally caused by the left dividing America into as many different groups as they can think of in order to achieve their political objectives.

“People on both the left and right say deplorable things; you are acting no better than your counterpart on the left.”

This is true, but is it fair to hold the right to a higher standard than the left is willing to be held to?

Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 7, 2019 11:08 am

We vilify because that is ALL the leftist-marxists do. You are neither apparently and should run away from that leftist-claptrap TODAY!

Reply to  Kristi R Silber
September 8, 2019 11:47 am

Kristi, we’re glad to have you around! But I can’t let this one pass:

You know what I hear from the liberal elite again and again? A desire to try to converse with the right, to foster understanding, cooperation and compromise.”

I don’t know where you hang out, but that’s not what I encounter. If I try to make a point to a liberal, anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions, which usually means The Party Line™, is immediately dismissed. Not even a request for references, just, “It’s not what has happened in the past, it’s what’s gonna happen” (the topic was sea level rise), and similar dismissals. When a liberal says the want to “…foster understanding…” that’s code for we want to make sure you understand there will be no disagreement. When a liberal says they want to see a willingness to “compromise” that’s code for do it there way.

I know this to be true. I work for a company that gets its income solely for government contracts. That means in my day-to-day activities I rub shoulders with government employees and employees of other contractors. About a year ago after the days work a small group of us, about 4 people, went out for dinner and maybe a drink (some were even non-alcoholic), when one of the guys started telling us, “…I said to the Secretary…” and something about bases gobbled up by sea-level rise. “…I showed him the maps, just one foot of sea level rise…” At this point I had to whip out my trusty smart-phone and make a calculation, I used 3 mm/year because I couldn’t remember any of the other numbers discussed (turns out that was not a bad number, even the “accelerated” sea level rise allegedly experience over the last 30 years is about that, so I was close) and found that it would take 101 years to achieve that one foot he was so worried about, and in that time-frame runway resurfacing projects would raise the “threatened” runway. That’s when I got the, “…what it’s gonna do…” response. I deflected several other of his pronouncements, and avoided starting an argument with him. But then I said something about other installations I needed to visit, and the government employee with us, who was the point of contact and therefore the guy who had the say whether or not I was doing a good enough job to renew my contract next year, interjected, “Oh, no, you’re not visiting any more installations. You need to stay at your headquarters building and work on these plans.” I was just puzzled then, by morning I was thinking, he put a stop to my visiting other installations because he was afraid of what I might say about Climate Change™. Did he do that because he was afraid the guy I was disagreeing with had the power to get me fired? That was the first I realized I could not freely and openly express an opinion, without worrying about my job and my future. I’m sure that’s not the kind of country I want to live in.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 7, 2019 5:38 am

You seem to be unaware it actually did wipe out parts of the Bahamas, where some islands are now for the moment uninhabitable.

Likewise people have forgotten the damage from Maria in 2017 is still far from repaired and the ongoing damage to the people of Puerto Rico etc.

If it doesn’t happen in the USA, apparently it doesn’t happen at all.

Cat 5 hurricanes are an existential threat to the people of the Caribbean: I pray they are not also to the people of Florida

Dr. Bob
September 6, 2019 3:55 pm

If you want to tank the economy in a real big hurry, seize assets illegally. Just like any other third world country.

Reply to  Dr. Bob
September 6, 2019 4:21 pm

Dumping the rule of law in general is a good way to tank your country.
Sanders is demanding that oil company officials be prosecuted for crimes not yet named.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2019 5:35 pm

I think it is worse: They are crimes that do not exist, and involve supplying products that are in such a state of constant demand that, were they to become unavailable or even unaffordable, riots would spread from coast to coast overnight.
In other words, the people he wants to lock up are merely providing something that everyone including Bernie himself would be unable to function without.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 7, 2019 11:16 am

I wish the absolute worst for that muppet………………………………………………………………………………politically.

September 6, 2019 4:06 pm

I think this will backfire on the Progressives (who took over the Democratic party) as being too radical to win the moderates who determine election outcomes. Telling people to stop driving cars and eat only vegetables will only stick with the radicals and face it, even they won’t/can’t do what they’re asking everyone else to do and they know it. It may go over in the big cities with them but those places are already totally left leaning. Just another act of desperation trying to cover for their lack of direction and governing platform.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  markl
September 6, 2019 5:41 pm

I find it difficult to believe that each candidate on that stage was not losing ever more votes with every utterance they made for that whole seven hours.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 6, 2019 6:05 pm



Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 7, 2019 12:02 am

The election is still fourteen months away. The potential candidates will be watching ‘news headlines’ and ‘polls’ between now and then. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some attitudes are changed in the next twelve months. Two months before the election I might pay some attention to what is being said – and not said…..

Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2019 4:15 pm

What twaddle. Wishful thinking, that’s all it is. Let them continue with it. When Trump wins a 2nd term, the screams and cries of anguish from the Demoflakes will be all the more delicious.

William Astley
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2019 8:44 pm

CAGW is political suicide. CAGW light was a few billion here, a few billion there, all talk.

If CAGW is an emergency and more and more liberals are saying it is an emergency, well …

Here is Bernie’s plan…

Bernie’s $16 trillion dollars buy what? A stupid scam that makes electricity very expensive.

Obviously no effect on the real world, except trying to find $16 trillion.

September 6, 2019 4:18 pm

Tomorrow is another day.

Let’s see what happens to Republican (and other) millennials with what that brings.

Sweet Old Bob
September 6, 2019 4:41 pm

Booker ….Bonkers …. what difference does it make ?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
September 6, 2019 5:38 pm

He was actually the only one who did not specifically swear to do away with all nuclear power, and in fact he acknowledged that building more nuclear power plants is the only way to reduce fossil fuel usage and still have an economy.
Still, his overall plans amount to being the equivalent of the least filthy pair of underwear in the hamper.

September 6, 2019 5:06 pm

The Democrat Party: Donkeys led by donkeys.

September 6, 2019 5:13 pm

The irony is, in their bizarre attack on prosperity, ‘they’ are proposing to curtail the wrong molecule. Fortunately the ‘right’ molecule is self-limiting so CAGW will not occur.

Typical relative IR absorbing ability of the greenhouse gasses water vapor and CO2 at zero altitude are shown in this graph calculated by Spectracalc/Hitran. . According to Spectracalc/Hitran, at zero altitude, there are about 24 H2O molecules for each CO2 molecule and each H2O molecule is about 5 times as effective at absorb/emit of thermal (LWIR) radiation emitted from earth surface as a CO2 molecule.

The tiny % increase in ground level absorbers from increased CO2 is countered by the large % increase in emitters to space above the tropopause with the end result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

William Haas
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 7, 2019 12:54 am

That has been my conclusion as well. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is evidence in the paleoclimate record that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming. There is also plenty of additional scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is essentially zero.

Reply to  William Haas
September 7, 2019 10:40 am

A common misperception among ‘warmers’ is that temperature increase caused all of the water vapor increase. This simple calculation, from Section 8 in (click my name) demonstrates that, in the period when global measurements are available, WV has increased about twice as much as calculated from temperature increase.

“Global temperature increase since 2002 from the UAH trend is about 0.127 K per decade (this automatically includes feedback effect). At 24 °C, (75.2 °F) increase in vapor pressure of liquid water is 6.058% per degree (Figure 1.7). Percent increase in water vapor due to temperature increase = 0.127 * 6.058% = 0.769%. Measured % increase from Total Precipitable Water (TPW) in 28 yr = (29.5-28.25)/28.875 = 0.043 = 4.3%. In 10 yr = 10/28*4.3 = 1.54%. Thus measured increase in WV is about 1.54/.769 = 2+ times that for liquid water temperature increase alone.”

Nicholas McGinley
September 6, 2019 5:25 pm

The first thing I would point out is that the survey seems to have asked about things like ecological consciousness, damage to the environment, damage to the planet by humans, etc.
These are not the same at all as agreeing with climate alarmists and warmistas.
I am concerned about the environment, ecology, and humans “damaging the planet” as much as anyone could be.
But that does not mean I agree that CO2 is the temperature control knob of the planet.
How questions are asked and interpreted are as important to poll results as the general subject matter.
As is exactly who is being asked and how they are selected.
Many people will not respond to pollsters, especially if they can perceive that the person asking questions is looking for answers they are not willing to give.
On top of that, any poll which does not look narrowly at “likely voters” is mostly worthless for political purposes. The very people that can skew such polls are among those least likely to bother voting.
That is my initial impression.
I will find the actual poll questions and demographics and full results and comment more.
Besides for everything else, every survey of voter concerns places climate change at or near the bottom of the list, even when it is a long list, and so anyone who thinks Republicans of any age will become single issue voters, and give their nod to socialists espousing economic self destruction and poverty inducing taxation, ought maybe to think again.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 6, 2019 8:05 pm

“How questions are asked and interpreted are as important to poll results as the general subject matter,.as is exactly who is being asked and how they are selected.”

Here’s a good example of what you are referring to:

Just about all the polls oversample Democrats.

J Mac
September 6, 2019 5:33 pm

Cory Booker’s comment was spawned from a poll run by a company called ‘Glocalities’, located in Amsterdam. The poll question “Are you concerned about human caused damage to the planet?” is so nebulous as to be functionally useless for providing meaningful trend results.

Better to ask “How much of your own time and money are you willing to spend removing trash, used needles, used condoms, dog feces and human feces from your local park?”, if you really want to know their level of ‘concern’ and commitment.

“If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make the change!”
Man In The Mirror – Michael Jackson

Reply to  J Mac
September 6, 2019 6:09 pm

I’m waiting on just one damn poll that asks…..are you concerned with the 3rd world causing global warming…because ever since the UN/IPCC was formed…it’s been the 3rd world increasing emissions and causing it

…and then watch all the libtards eyes spin

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  J Mac
September 7, 2019 1:47 am

One widely cited poll several months ago found that a majority of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about climate change, but when asked how much they would be willing to personally spend to deal with it, the answer was on average $1.
Yup…one dollar.
This is the actual level of concern.

Brian Valentine
September 6, 2019 5:50 pm

Hey Kids!

Your phone runs on Socialism!

It doesn’t need electricity!

You can find your way in the dark

Gary Pearse
September 6, 2019 6:02 pm

So: 1) Yeah it’s possible to convince someone, but 2) Look who is lined up to do the convincing! This motley lot don’t appear up to the job. The Valley girls, a couple of old curmudgeons, one “low energy”, one too high energy, a ‘cultural appropriator’ warrior and a no-name clutch of clones.

If a democrat entered the race that said we will not be bothering with climate change policy until all the major players have caught up to the United States in curtailing CO2 and oh, I will be blocking illegal immigration, get in line, I would reverse my prediction that the Democrats are out of power for a generation or two. I’m gobsmacked that after losing an election the way they did, there was no retrospective by Dems. They just angrily went about trying to win by other means what they had just lost, doubling down on the position that Hillary left them in. Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity!

Richard M
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 7, 2019 10:51 am

Don’t count out Hillary. All of this could be viewed as a setup to allow Hillary to show up in 3-6 months as the “savior” of the party. She would be the “centrist” to bring together the various factions of the party along with independents. Team her up with a rust belt VP candidate and nothing going on today would make any difference.

This also allows Hillary to rest and not look quite as bad as she was looking last time.

September 6, 2019 6:16 pm

By Australian standards the US Democrats are close to our Labour Party,
and in some respects they are to the left of the ALP, which means the
Green Party. So they are clearly “”Socielest””.

As for the so called “”Progressive members””, here they would be close to
the now a none existent Communist Party .

Going on past reading and videos, the FDR days , the Democrats were a a
“Middle of the road”” party. So why did thy change ?


William Haas
September 6, 2019 7:31 pm

The reality is that the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Politics has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of science.

Mark Broderick
September 6, 2019 8:29 pm

“Astonishing Media Misinformation About the IPCC”

“We teach children that a summary should accurately reflect a longer document. But that’s not what happens at the world’s most important climate body.”

This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise

September 6, 2019 8:47 pm

“A growing majority of U.S. Republicans, especially younger voters, are worried that human behavior is damaging the planet”.

News flash climate changes human behaviour

Johann Wundersamer
September 6, 2019 10:05 pm
Craig from Oz
September 7, 2019 12:15 am

On the flip side, if you are a Democrat that doesn’t believe in Climate Panic and would maybe prefer that other people’s hard earned tax dollars are spent on health care and The Arts then you are probably going to stay home and cry.

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of these Democrat wannabes have been taking anything even remotely resembling the middle ground. It’s hair shirts or nothing with this lot.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Craig from Oz
September 7, 2019 1:54 am

The sane ones have all dropped out at this point, after garnering little support within their party.

Kevin Baikie
September 7, 2019 3:17 am

The survey question was: “”I worry about the damage that people cause to the planet.”. As people get richer, this concern always rises. The question wasn’t ” Do you believe man’s carbon dioxide emissions are a existential threat to humanity?”
I would answer yes to the survey question but no to the climate change theoretical one.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Kevin Baikie
September 7, 2019 7:05 am

The survey “question” is an obvious come-on, a rhetorical trap for the unwary and/or naive. The basis of the question is the enviro-fascist argument that “humans are bad for the planet”. When you dig down though, you find that they don’t mean all humans, but specifically those in Western and wealthier nations. We’re supposed to feel guilty, and one way of atoning for that guilt is to virtue signal as often and as loudly as one can. Answering “yes” to that question is a big, loud and easy way to virtue signal.

Rhys Jaggar
September 7, 2019 4:50 am

There is an assumption here that Republicans will do nothing about the environment no matter what.

There can be cost-conscious, benefits-driven environmental action and there can be big bureaucracies forcing things on people.

There can be science-led action to restore ecological health and there can be batshit crazy nonsense forced down your throats.

Here are some scenarios and some choices:

1. Increased risk of flooding in major river plains.

Possible (not exhaustive) choices:
i. Creating areas for planned flooding and regeneration of wetlands in isolated rutal areas leading to increased return of water to underground water tables.
ii. Creation of new dams to stem snowmelt flows.
iii. Building overspill diversions to avoid urban flooding.
iv. Letting great cities flood deliberately to perform ‘class cleansing’ to benefit unprincipled investors.

2. Mitigating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas increases.

i. Letting plants and photosynthetic algae do the work for you, encouraging greening and new forestry.
ii. Decimating the oil, gas and coal sectors.
iii. Spending billions on carbon capture schemes using synthetic technology.
iv. Decimating the global beef industry by criminalising belching, burping and farting bovines.
v. Greening urban environments not to mitigate carbon dioxide but to promote feelgoodery amongst self righteous urban woke populations (nothing wrong with doing this but it is feelgoodery pure and simple).

3. Geoengineering global weather/climate to ‘tackle the climate emergency’.
i. Continue monitoring solar output and working with farmers to assess what latitudes may have to alter their crop mixes given certain changes to regional climate.
ii. Deflecting solar inputs without first understanding where climate is going up to 2040.
iii. Engaging in unaccountable weather engineering using HAARP technology including insider trading on Wall Street against planned agricultural scenarios.
iv. Creating hurricanes making landfall to induce climate hysteria.
v. Engineering tsunamis and earthquakes using mini nuke technology as an arm of global trade wars.

Etc etc.

Each choice has winners and losers, each choice has financial inputs and benefits, each choice has short term and long term sacrifices and gains and each induces feelgoodery in different populations.

There is no single climate and environmental issue with one right solution.

That is why Repiblicans can have solutions to address concerns which may be more palatable than Democrat solutions.

It is called talking to your supporter base and really listening to them.

Very unpopular in the post-democratic epoch….

R Taylor
September 7, 2019 7:38 am

Were Brooker’s lips moving when he made that claim? Perhaps he could use some supporting testimony from Dr. Blasey Ford.

September 7, 2019 10:50 am

I really am going to punch the next person that says ‘climate change’. So effing sick of this sheet.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights