Pew Research: US Climate Concern is Soaring – Amongst Democrats

Pew Research 2020-02

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Pew Research has revealed US climate concern is soaring – but most of the growth in concern has been amongst Democrats.

More Americans see climate change as a priority, but Democrats are much more concerned than Republicans

FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Climate change has emerged as a key issue in the 2020 Democratic primary season. Candidates are debating how best to address the subject, which many Americans see as a growing national priority. As 14 states and one territory prepare to hold primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday, here’s a look at how Democrats see climate change – and how their views differ from those of Republicans.

1A growing share of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress, but most of the change has come among Democrats. Over the past four years, the share of Americans who say dealing with global climate change should be a top priority has increased from 38% to 52%. Among Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party, 78% say climate change should be a top priority, up 22 percentage points since 2016. But among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, there has been no statistically significant increase. Democrats are more than three times as likely as Republicans to say dealing with climate change should be a top priority (78% vs. 21%).

The share of Americans who say global climate change is a major threat to the well-being of the United States has also increased in recent years. But on this question too, the rise in concern has come primarily among Democrats, regardless of ideology. Among both moderate and conservative Republicans there has been no statistically significant change since 2013.

Read more:

Other surveys which compare priorities tend to suggest people place a much higher priority on prosperity and safety – politicians who bet everything on climate policy tend to lose badly.

It is puzzling that people who claim to believe the global warming is a serious threat also tend to vehemently oppose nuclear power. A drowning person doesn’t care whether the boat which saves them is a sailboat or a diesel trawler, so you have to wonder why people who believe climate change is a top priority threat to the world think opposing the only scalable zero carbon energy source which has strong support from Republicans is a higher priority.

PEW Research Nuclear Power 2019-11

If Democrats decided overnight to switch to supporting nuclear power, a bipartisan bill for massive government sponsored expansion of the USA’s nuclear fleet, like the 1970s French nuclear expansion, would sail through all levels of the US government.

The French nuclear experiment delivered – France still has one of the lowest carbon footprints per capita in the industrialised world, 5.0 tons per capita per annum, vs the USA’s 17.75 tons per capita (2016 figures), mostly due to France’s overwhelming reliance on affordable, zero carbon nuclear power.

Perhaps Democrats who answer Pew surveys care more about defeating Republicans than they care about CO2 emissions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 1, 2020 6:09 am

When the climate scam is constantly thrown in your face, then of cause people are going to question it or inquire about it.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Sunny
March 1, 2020 9:21 am

Fake news is a good possibility here. The invested medua, pollsters … use homemde numbers as an advertisement. Remember Hollary’s shoo -in! Remember NYT’s 98% probability of a win H on election night. Polls these days are affected by Dems ‘feelings’ about outcomes. There is no question that polling has failed spectacularly in the past decade. A long track record of successful political polls is no more.

Reply to  Sunny
March 2, 2020 3:29 am

“US Climate Concern is Soaring – Amongst Gullible Imbeciles.”

The false climate propaganda campaign is being ramped up – uneducated dolts are easily misled.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao all duped their people – before they started the killing.

These socialist monsters killed about 200 million innocents, and destroyed the lives of many more.

A new gang of monsters is trying to seize power, using as a smokescreen the false climate scam.

The killing will start later, after they gain total control.

Watch this space…

March 1, 2020 6:19 am

Actually it’s probably because “New High of 90% of Americans Satisfied With Personal Life.”

Life is good so #Democrats don’t have much else to worry about. (Other than #Trump and #COVID19.)

Pew survey taken in mid-January before COVID19 peak in China. I’d bet their new concern is pandemic.

March 1, 2020 6:27 am

What’s really disturbing about the survey is the reported number of Republicans who support increasing solar panel and wind turbine “farms”.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  bsl
March 1, 2020 6:41 am

That was my thought too.
Could someone please tell them that solar panels and industrial wind brakes are extremely uneconomical and environmentally harmful ways of providing plant food.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
March 1, 2020 7:36 am

I saw that too. The question is incomplete. It need as qualifier as in ‘are you in favor of X at current government subsidy levels.

Reply to  Citizen Smith
March 1, 2020 11:31 am

Yes, like all polls, it depends upon the questions you ask and how you ask them. I think this result demands closer look at the questionnaire.

The French nuclear experiment delivered – France still has one of the lowest carbon footprints per capita in the industrialised world

It did not “deliver” a low carbon footprint because that was never one of aims.

French nuclear power was to support its independent nuclear deterrent…. like all nations !!

Steve in Greensboro
Reply to  Greg
March 1, 2020 12:40 pm

“…French nuclear power was to support its independent nuclear deterrent…like all nations !!”

Despite your persuasive multiple exclamation points, you are wrong. Nuclear power plants run on uranium which is not sufficiently enriched to create a nuclear weapon.

Pablo an Ex zpat
Reply to  Greg
March 1, 2020 2:00 pm

Worked in the nuclear industry for a while. Yes reactors are built to run on Uranium. Once the fuel is spent it can be recycled to recover Plutonium. Hence the connection to nuclear weapons.

The isotope mix in the fuel rods can be adjusted to “burn” Plutonium if that is the desired result.

Thought this was common knowledge.

Reply to  Greg
March 1, 2020 4:42 pm

Nuclear power plants use low grade Uranium, yet the they *produce* Plutonium as a waste product.

Joe Campbell
Reply to  bsl
March 1, 2020 8:23 am

bsl: Right on!…

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  bsl
March 1, 2020 9:05 am

Nothing wrong with adding them “responsibly.”

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 1, 2020 11:48 am

How can adding something that requires subsidies to even exist, ever be considered “responsible”?

Reply to  MarkW
March 2, 2020 12:06 pm

Actually, if somebody wanted to risk his own money, with no subsidies from me and other taxpayers, I would have no objection.

I was taught that one purpose of the Free Enterprise system was to remove resources from those not able to invest wisely. Use their own money, lose their own money (on wind & solar), then they would have fewer resources to hurt me with.

Van Doren
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 1, 2020 12:09 pm

Wind farms are damaging for health.

Reply to  bsl
March 1, 2020 7:16 pm

bsl March 1,2020 at 6:27 am

I thought the same thing. I truly believe that it’s because the general public have absolutely no concept of the toxic side of wind and solar renewables.

The toxic waste from the necessary rare earth materials needed in the manufacture of this technology has become a serious problem in China. There was a lake of black sludge covering 10 square kilometres at just one mine, much of it has been transferred into huge vats. They still don’t know what to do with it. Add to that, there is is almost no recycling operating anywhere in the world. There is an ecological disaster looming which will be far greater than the waste from nuclear power plants.

The unnecessary rape of the planet’s resources added to the massive amounts of waste that cannot be recycled is nothing short of criminal!

There are manmade gases used in association with the electrical connections of wind and solar renewables that are absolutely essential in their operation. One of these gases is 22,500 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. This gas is globally mandated to be reported in the case of an accidental leak, atmospheric measurements have shown that it has increased significantly in the past decade.

Wind and solar energy are not the answer, even if there was a problem. Just how is it possible to educate the ignorant about something that is so important?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Megs
March 2, 2020 2:06 am

Gases have names. And 22.500 is only useful when the amounts of the materials can be compared. Stating FUD numbers does no good even if you are right otherwise.

Reply to  Rainer Bensch
March 2, 2020 2:17 am

Rainer Bensch, The gas I refer to is FS6, essential in the electrical industry and unnecessary with the superfluous and toxic use of wind and solar farms.

Steve Z
Reply to  Megs
March 2, 2020 11:13 am

Megs: Are you referring to sulfur hexafluoride, or SF6? It is used as a dielectric in some transformers, to replace the formerly used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), which have sometimes leaked into rivers and been shown to be toxic to fish.

Sulfur hexafluoride is a strong infrared absorber if it leaks out of a transformer, but it is chemically inert and non-toxic, and emissions of SF6 are much lower than those of CO2 and methane. SF6 is frequently used as a tracer gas to experimentally measure the flow of pollutants in the atmosphere, since it can be detected and quantified down to parts-per-trillion levels, and can be used to perform tracer-gas studies with minimal release rates.

Reply to  Steve Z
March 2, 2020 2:36 pm

Steve, thank you for your correction I did in fact mean SF6.

I understand that SF6 is considered inert, but if ‘scientists’ are going to push CO2 as being a ‘major’ contributor as a greenhouse gas then the unnecessary use of SF6 must be taken into consideration. Given that it is 22,500 more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and that it’s mandated globally that leaks must be reported then unnecessary use must be stopped. Wind and solar energy are unnecessary, the ecological damage they do is at every stage of their existence and because they are inefficient people think that the answer is to put more in! More unnecessary SF6.

CO2 is a natural compound and is dissipated in the atmosphere. SF6 has been predicted to remain in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years. Considering how much more potent SF6 is as a greenhouse gas then why would we think it’s OK to add to it? The alarmists, or the average person on the street for that matter, would not have a clue that the processes that it takes to create wind and solar renewables produces vast amounts of CO2. The very compound that they claim is destroying the world! Just like the whole wind and solar renewables thing, they didn’t think it through.

There is nothing clean or green about wind and solar renewables at any stage of its existence and the public need to be educated about the dark side of this hideous invention.

March 1, 2020 6:35 am

It’s politics. Normally Democrats would be campaigning on the economy, but Trump has deprived them of that. So now the Democrats are grabbing at “climate concern” and trying to make it the major campaign issue.

Curious George
Reply to  ScienceABC123
March 1, 2020 9:02 am

That’s a relatively short term trend. Real believers have only 12 years to live.

Reply to  Curious George
March 1, 2020 5:34 pm


March 1, 2020 6:47 am

All surveys can be biased by how the questions are phrased. For example, “Do you favor building more solar farms to fight climate change?” and “Do you favor building more solar farms to fight climate change if your electricity rates doubled?” will yield two different responses.

These surveys rarely let you see what was actually asked but both questions above almost always will be reported as either favoring or not favoring more solar farms depending on what the survey sponsor wants it to be.

Reply to  rbabcock
March 1, 2020 8:32 am

“Do you favor building more solar farms to fight climate change?”

…and moving more cheap manufacturing to China…..that is causing it all

Ian Coleman
March 1, 2020 7:07 am

Politics really can’t change the laws of Physics. Either the climate will change catastrophically or it won’t. And it won’t. Either alternatives to fossil fuels will be developed or they won’t. And they won’t. Sure, there’s going to be lots of expensive folly until we find out that it’s folly, but there probably isn’t anything we can do about it, because the fix is in.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the fix was in, and the invasion happened, and I just had to sit there and watch the tragic destruction that ensued. It was pointless to get angry about it, so I didn’t. Well, same thing with the great Transition Away from Fossil fuels, which is going to be a big, fat swindle that is going enrich a lot of crooks and hurt a lot of poor people. Can’t stop it so I’m just going to wait and watch the whole thing fall apart.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ian Coleman
March 1, 2020 9:39 am

It won’t happen. Trump cancelled it by pulling out of Paris A. The whole thing was to bring down the US economy. Now, the others will think twice before destroying their own. Promising something 10-20 years from now is kicking it down the road and doesn’t cost anything. I wish Australia had taken the golden op to join Trump on this. The death of truth kills courage.

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Ian Coleman
March 1, 2020 9:39 am

The only adequate alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, far more intense and whose fuel is sustainable for the likely human race lifetime at far greater levels of use than now, as will be needed by11 Billion middle class people, using all the fuels available for fission. Electrical enregy can be used to replace exhausted hydrocarbons with synthetic substitutes, including liquid fuels where essential. The marginal cost of nuclear energy is tiny. Perhaps some large scale fusion to conserve fission fuel after the next ice age, if we last through the nexr glacial period as civilised.

Reply to  Brian R Catt
March 1, 2020 3:12 pm

Agreed. It is a simple measure of seriousness vs kookiness on the Climate Change issue: Those who proclaim near-term global disaster from rising CO2 levels are either scientifically serious, in which case they must acknowledge that the dangers of nuclear energy from modern plants are miniscule on a global scale, or they are kooky, in which case they cannot think clearly about the subject and let their radiation phobia rule out nuclear.

Of course, the simple truth that the mild warming seen so far in the last couple of centuries has undermined the CO2 catastrophe theme is beyond them….kooky or not.

Reply to  Brian R Catt
March 1, 2020 3:41 pm

Currently, as far as fusion power produces an energy profit, it is not controllable. As far as it is controllable, it does not produce an energy profit.

That’s the design catch-22 that needs to be broken before any real progress on nuclear fusion as an energy source can be made.

Reply to  drednicolson
March 1, 2020 4:52 pm

There have been some technological advances over the past five years that may finally solve that problem.

Of course, even if they work, the two most intriguing designs aren’t slated to be ready until 2024.

Reply to  Patrick
March 1, 2020 7:04 pm

I wish them success, because in addition to the obvious benefit, it would also introduce the intriguing possibility of being able to produce beryllium as a byproduct (the next step up on the fusion ladder from helium). A metal stronger than steel and lighter than aluminum, but exceedingly rare and highly reactive in its elemental form. I need not go into detail over how that could revolutionize manufacturing and construction.

Ron Long
March 1, 2020 7:17 am

Just in the news today: “winter storm dumps four (4) feet of snow in upstate New York”. That’s a Reality Check for the idiot Dems.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Ron Long
March 1, 2020 8:34 am

Unfortunately upstate New York is where most of the Red New yorkers live. no ifit fell on NYC…

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Ron Long
March 1, 2020 9:10 am

Not really. Let’s not subscribe to the nonsense equation of weather and climate.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
March 1, 2020 9:45 am

It is a data point. There is a limit to how many snowy winters lie ahead in a catastrophic warming, wouldn’t you say. The cold should abate with polar enhancement at 3 times globsl warming. Surely 4 feet of snow in upper NY in 2075 should have a diferent response, don’t you agree?

Kevin kilty
March 1, 2020 7:21 am

Well, we have seen unremitting propaganda about a climate crisis in progress since 2008 and this shows that propaganda works when used on a susceptible population. That, my friends, is a result that we knew since propaganda’s widespread use in the 1920s-1930s at least.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 1, 2020 11:55 am

“Well, we have seen unremitting propaganda about a climate crisis in progress since 2008 and this shows that propaganda works when used on a susceptible population.”

Yes, and now the newspapers and broadcast channels are all actively colluding to step up the level of human-caused climate change scaremongering to even higher levels than in the past. The Western World is being subjected to relentless propaganda about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere. Unprecedented propaganda, if you will.

March 1, 2020 7:44 am

Because of the great degree of life comfort that fossil-fuel-powered civilization has offered, and the deep genetic programming that still exists, which drive humans with a sense of struggling to survive, many humans no longer have the physical need to struggle (because of the great comfort), and so their minds (ultimately linked to their still-primitive bodies) must create problems against which to continue to struggle. This is my suspicion, at least.

Struggle of this nature, then, becomes a form of satisfaction, a form of entertainment, a form of occupation aimed at a higher good, even if the struggle is unreal. Climate change is raceless, sexless, … basically neutral in every modern-day, politically-correct sense — the perfect common goal for all humankind to struggle against. Struggle of this nature becomes a feel-good endeavor, whether the logic of it is sound or not. The logic is secondary to the feeling of doing good, for those people who tend to be more emotional, rather than rational. Emotion can smear out logic. Emotion can fashion all manner of false logic. Emotion can actually fool people into believing that they are being scientific.

That’s my Sunday morning analysis.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 1, 2020 7:59 am

Best evaluation of present social realities I’ve seen this year–kudos, sir!

John Bell
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 1, 2020 9:47 am

RK good analysis, very insightful, I think there is a lot of it going on in CAGW claims.

March 1, 2020 7:47 am

These people may change their tune when they all of a sudden realize that the one thing that may mitigate the threat and spread of Corona19 is higher climate temperatures….

Example: The Philippines next door to Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand has reported only 3 cases. All three are Chinese…..1 has died……Philippines has 71 million people right next door to china and with massive Chinese tourism and business interests and massive city congestion…11 million people in manila….etc….. The reason that there are only 3 reported cases may be that for the past 3 months and for the next 2 months it is peak high temperature time in the Philippines.

Wait for “it”, The Benefits of Global Warming.

Reply to  Codetrader
March 1, 2020 8:31 am

Ah well it’s always some “crisis”. If a strong La Nina develops this year as many now seem to think is going to occur, we in the eastern half of the country we should start to see hot summers again and Texas will start to dry out again and the MDR for hurricanes in the Atlantic will become more active than it has been for the last few years and all of those things will be characterized as a crisis despite the fact that during La Nina’s the “global temperature” tends to decrease. “Climate change” is anywhere they find it at a given time on the globe.

March 1, 2020 7:56 am

It’s not about the environment or climate and never has been. It’s about control over the people. The same fools that believe that “climate change” is coming to kill us all are by and large, those that also want strict “gun control” or even total elimination of the 2nd amendment. They are also the same set of people that continually support a government controlled “single payer” health care system. And then there was the support for the government taking over students loans and now for us tax payers paying off those loans. And of course many in that the same set of people want the government to control what we eat!

Gordon Dressler
March 1, 2020 7:59 am

Even if Earth enters the equivalent of another Little Ice Age for the next 20 years, the Democrats will STILL be concerned about “climate change”, even though that event will demolish the assertions underlying CAGW.

This is, perhaps, the main reason that the meme morphed from “global warming” to “climate change”, as noted in the first graph in the above article.

Curious George
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
March 1, 2020 9:08 am

Do Democrats deny ice ages?

Reply to  Curious George
March 1, 2020 10:16 am

Depends on what president Trump thinks. What ever he thinks at a given time will automatically be immediately ridiculed by the Democrats. The Democrats were for border security before they were against it. More recently the Democrats were against stopping flights from China and other certain countries before they suddenly decided that the POTUS wasn’t doing enough to isolate the US.

Makes one wonder if President Trump all of a sudden declared himself a believer in human caused catastrophic climate change and the “Green New Deal” if the Democrats would, after all these years, suddenly do a 180?

Van Doren
Reply to  rah
March 1, 2020 12:16 pm

No, they won’t. They cheered when Trump bombed Syria.

March 1, 2020 8:14 am

“It is puzzling that people who claim to believe the global warming is a serious threat also tend to vehemently oppose nuclear power.”

For the most part, liberals don’t think through their positions. They just adopt the opinions that they are told to adopt.
Try asking most liberals why global warming is bad, and they will just answer with some variation of “it’s bad, because it’s bad”.

mario lento
Reply to  MarkW
March 1, 2020 4:41 pm

I 100% agree MarkW.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  MarkW
March 2, 2020 12:42 am

Q: “why is global warming bad?”
A: “Because global warming will cause the reemerge of the Roman Empire and we will have Roman soldiers with sandals building aqueducts all over the place! Global warming will trigger the wrong kind of totalitarian imperialism! – We want Eco-imperialism before 2030 to free the planet of low cast humans!”

See, not difficult to answer.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
March 2, 2020 3:46 am

Hi Carl – one quibble. You wrote:
“We (green extremists) want Eco-imperialism before 2030 to free the planet of low cast humans!”

Examining history, the great killers of the 20th Century focused on culling their more educated citizens – this was notably true of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. In some cases. merely wearing eyeglasses earned a death sentence.

These monsters know that intelligent people will oppose their delusions. Also, a stupider populace is more easily controlled.

Linda Goodman
March 1, 2020 8:14 am

Polls are political tools that can’t be trusted; the PEW poll could be designed to hide growing skepticism and we should keep in mind that all the official pollsters got the 2016 election grossly wrong, and by all appearances seem complicit with globalist democrats. is the one poll that can be trusted, because it’s an app that anonymously polls over 100,000 Americans across the political spectrum on a number of topics. Zip predicted the Trump landslide, so it’s been ignored by the entire media ever since, while showing steadily rising support for President Trump, averaging 75%, despite being owned by a liberal and spinning all their questions left. 75% mocks the official polls of 49-51% that have been freakishly consistent over the last three years, despite the President’s unprecedented accomplishments. So wouldn’t you know it, Zip disappeared in January, along with their tens of thousands of poll results. And it seems the owner, Ric Militi, is nowhere to be found either.

A lot is riding on 2020 and the only way for globalists to prevail is for their media to create an alternate reality [what they do best] where thanks to a tanking economy [generated by FEAR] Americans decide that the free market is too scary and MORE government is safer. So we’ll see lots of breathless reporting and endless videos of excited Berniebots in overflowing arenas and never mind those Trump rallies. Socialism is under the umbrella of globalism and Sanders is 100% globalist, an eco-fascist to the core and the only candidate with a passionate following the media can work with to make that 20% seem like 60%.—trump-win-election/88640044/
USA Today: App Maker: Trump will win election
August 13, 2016
Excerpts: “”Based on the stats we see, he looks strong,” says Ric Militi, co-founder of San Diego-based Crazy Raccoons, maker of the Zip question and answer app. His app poses questions and polls responses based on an average of 100,000 daily users. “We’re not a poll. We’re a conversation, and 100% anonymous,” Militi says. “People feel comfortable answering questions without fear of being bullied or being called a racist. People can express themselves safely, and you get a pure answer.”. . .He contends that most media polls are just flat-out wrong and that smartphone answers are the future. . .So either the traditional polls are right or Militi is onto something, with a different way of polling that lets citizens answer more openly. We’ll find out on Nov. 8, when voters go to the real polls.”

Reply to  Linda Goodman
March 1, 2020 11:27 am

Linda, one thing that has always bothered me about polls: Their foundation is people with nothing better to do than answer pollster questions.


Gunga Din
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 1, 2020 2:54 pm

On a previous Post I said something to the effect that, ‘Polls can be done to report or to influence.” (Context was politics.)
I don’t do “polls’ or “surveys”.
The questions and, more importantly, the offered answers rarely come close to what I really think.
(“H**l”! If I answered them, I might find myself as one of 97%!)

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 2, 2020 2:17 am

Polls are incestuous. First they only measure the success or failure of the propaganda and secondly they are propaganda tools in themselves.

David Hoopman
March 1, 2020 8:28 am

There are multiple explanations for the Democrat v. Republican split on climate change. Here’s one possibility:

Democrats happily identify themselves as the “party of government.” If you are enthusiastic about more, bigger, more active and interventionist government, you will automatically endorse meaningless gestures as public policy, because those gestures can be claimed to confirm that the stuff you support is very, very important and necessary.

It’s all about where you go shopping for your sense of self-worth.

Abolition Man
Reply to  David Hoopman
March 1, 2020 2:41 pm

David, another possibility is that Republicans, and conservatives more specifically, tend to be more independent thinkers than the average DemoKKKrat. Many of those who believe in the CAGW hoax are young and recent attendees of our government indoctrination institutions that used to called schools. They have little or no experience in dealing with real-world problems, being one of,if not, the most pampered generation in human history.
A recent study came out claiming that liberals tend have more mental problems than conservatives; I don’t recall the source, sadly. I would posit that leftists are more apt to take part in Borg-like hive-mind thought as well. The propensity to seek approval is far stronger in them while conservatives tend to be more iconoclastic and disagreeable. Heck, some conservatives seem to disagree just for the sake of arguing rather than any deeply held belief. I used to feel this way about term limits. I used to be against them but now I believe politicians should be limited to two terms; one in office and one in prison!

John Robertson
March 1, 2020 8:45 am

Polls indeed.
So who responds to these annoyances?
The factoid that Democrats are more concerned,about X, than Republicans is pure narrative.
Our Progressive Comrades parade their emotions as virtue and validation.
So of course they “Are concerned” More concerned than anyone else..does not matter what the subject is.they “Know more and Care more”.
Where more conservative types are concerned by actions.
What is problem?
Is problem real?
How to best fix?

Three questions the Concerned Ones never quite answer..but they care.
More than You and I.
Cause they are special..I guess.
Very strange how all their solutions involve moving our money into their pockets..Never spending their money on what they claim to be problems..
Must be an uncorrelated insignificant datum..

Michael Jankowski
March 1, 2020 9:10 am

Sheeple following their leaders. Tough be a Dem today and stand with Republicans when it comes to climate change.

Curious George
March 1, 2020 9:14 am

Off Topic: More urgent progressive concerns.

Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1:51PM
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — San Francisco Mayor London Breed declared a local state of emergency due to the coronavirus Tuesday afternoon.

There are no confirmed cases of the virus in San Francisco, she assured the community during her press conference, so she explained the reason for the emergency declaration.

“By declaring a state of emergency we are prioritizing the safety of our communities by being prepared,” Mayor Breed said. “Our number one goal is the health and safety of all our residents.”

She says not only does the declaration kickstart the mobilizing of city resources, streamlining staff, and coordinating agencies across the city, but it allows for future reimbursements from the state and federal governments.

James Schrumpf
March 1, 2020 10:15 am

That graph looks just like the “models vs. observations” temperature anomaly graphs.


J Mac
March 1, 2020 10:26 am

The ‘Pew’ poll (appropriately named?) illustrates that, not only canyou fool some of the people all of the time, but you can get them to double down on their committed gullibility. Will 100% of democrats be ‘convinced’ the planet is dying, when their 12 years-to-doomsday clock hits zero? And what then, when nothing ‘catastrophic’ happens??

Only, 10.5 years left to repent your earthly sins, folks! Tick Tock. Tithe here for your solar panel and wind turbine indulgences and forgiveness! J Mac’s Climate Change Forgiveness – LLC. There now, Gaia forgives you. Go and sin no more shamelessly virtue signal your climate holiness!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Mac
March 1, 2020 12:04 pm

“Only, 10.5 years left to repent your earthly sins, folks! Tick Tock. ”

Maybe WUWT needs a Human-caused Climate Change Doomsday Clock. That way we can keep track of how short our time on Earth is getting.

March 1, 2020 11:34 am

Dems do not have ANY policy because the squandered the last four years playing RussiaGate and derivative false impeachment, so they are all clinging to the AGW lifeboat.

Anyone who supports Dems with automatically support “climate” since that is all they have.

March 1, 2020 11:59 am

That’s because Democrats are more prone to absorbing propaganda. They operate on emotion not fact.

March 1, 2020 2:10 pm

Most Democrats believe in Climate Change.

Of course, the climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years, so that was easy!

But then Democrats claim it’s all mankind’s fault! More of a stretch, but still, 78% of Democrsts still believe it.

And so to fix it, all Democrats running for president demand that we ban fracking.

Nobody explains to the Democrsts that practically 100% of our new oil production in the US comes from fracking, so banning fracking would make us rely on foreign oil again!

And in the meantime, burning foreign oil produces just as much CO2 as burning domestic oil, so how is climate change impacted?

(Market analysis indicates a doubling of the gas price results in just 10% less demand.)

The Democrats are anti-American, that is the main conclusion I can see! The corollary is that Democrats aren’t very smart!

Ewin Barnett
March 1, 2020 2:14 pm

My concern is soaring as well. That so many people can be talked into suspending disbelief and rationality.

If “global warming” is “global” then the warming should be globally observable. Yet it is not as many recent articles on this very blog show. That alone debunks the claims what we have a “crisis”. If the planet was warmer than at any time in history, then how did mammoths get flash-frozen a few tens of thousands of years ago in the Siberian arctic? That alone debunks this “crisis”. A glace at the temperature curves of the ice cores from the Vostok Station show that in the last 400,000 years it has been both warmer and colder than it presently is. That alone debunks this “crisis”.


comment image

Three strikes and you are out.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ewin Barnett
March 1, 2020 2:50 pm

Wow, Ewin! There you go arguing facts with emotional children again! They want to feel good about themselves and their side so they have to accept that they are sinners who can be saved; it’s an old-timey religion kind of thing! You can show them all the facts and data you want; that just makes you a “denier” and probably raaaaaaaacist, too! In the Middle Ages it was called HERESY!

Alan McIntire
March 1, 2020 2:42 pm

I have my doubts on any polls that show climate concern is SOARING among Democrats.
I currently live in California, in the Sacramento media area. The majority of the political ads I’ve seen so far were of Tom Steyer plugging his anti global warming agenda, If Democrats REALLY cared more about CAGW, as opposed to SAYING they care more, I suspect Steyer would have done a lot better in South Carolina- assuming he ran the same ads there as he did in the Sacramento area.

March 1, 2020 6:35 pm

Leftists will soon get a very rude awakening when CO2 levels continue to rise yet we experience 30+ years of global cooling when PDO and AMO ocean cycles both enter their respective 30-year cool cycles, and possible additional global cooling from a Grand Solar Minimum event which has already started…

Patience is a virtue…

Tick-tock, tick-tock…

March 2, 2020 5:14 am

“Over the past four years, the share of Americans who say dealing with global climate change should be a top priority has increased from 38% to 52%”

And what is the share of Americans who say that dealing with the global population bomb should be a top priority?

Or have they forgotten? Like they will also forget climate change down the road?

March 2, 2020 5:58 am

Democrats are losing everything and the level of desperation is becoming dangerous. Desperation leads to desperate actions, seldom rationalized.

March 2, 2020 6:08 am

I don’t believe that there are more than 10% of the US population that is sincerely concerned enough about the Climate to radically change their lives.

All the Socialist-leaning folls know that they are SUPPOSED to be fervent about the subject, but even they haven’t really thought things through or dropped their annual “Carbon” consumption more than a few pounds…by cutting their meat consumption a little…when they remember.

When people see “Climate” listed as a polling selection, many recall that they are supposed to be concerned about the climate…and respond accordingly. If “Climate” isn’t specifically listed in a poll, it gets NO MENTION.

Please remember that those Democrats that “believe” the climate should be a top priority ARE THE SAME PEOPLE who believe that the media is practicing journalism. The Media is enemy #1 because of the power they have to influence the stupid and the ignorant.

Steve Z
March 2, 2020 11:35 am

Even if 78% of Democrats say that combating “climate change” is a top priority, how many of them will want their taxes doubled or more to pay for pie-in-the-sky schemes to buy massive numbers of windmills, solar panels, and batteries?

Whenever the Democrats select their nominee for President, he or she will have to explain how much their anti-climate-change plan will cost, and who will pay for it, especially if President Trump asks the question during a debate. The costs are so staggering for such minimal “benefits” that many voters will likely decide that the status quo is just fine, thank you!

We saw this back in 2010, when Democrats controlled the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they tried to impose “cap-and-trade” taxes on CO2 emissions. It passed the House, but so many coal-state Democrats opposed it in the Senate that it didn’t even get to a majority. Anything resembling the “Green New Deal” would probably meet a similar fate in 2021.

Reply to  Steve Z
March 2, 2020 1:14 pm

The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 0.1% of all income taxes.
Not a lot of Democrat voters paying taxes in the first place.

March 2, 2020 2:43 pm

Apparently over the past 2-3 years, articles have surfaced within medical journals concerning the cause and affect of non ending public and political chaos in the United States and how that affects patient health. It seems that Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and others have very sophisticated, deeply seeded in National Media and Internet operations that work endlessly creating misinformation that will create endless chaos concerning almost every topic including but not limited to Politics, Healthcare, Climate Change, STD’s. Gay & Lesbian issues, Gender Issues, Public School education, Immigration and many other topics. Extremely well educated men and women are involved and the intent is to destroy the United States.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights