As we navigate through another winter season, it’s hard not to notice the ever-pervasive narrative of climate change influencing public perception. A recent Rasmussen Poll reveals a fascinating, albeit concerning, trend: while the majority of Americans report this winter being no worse than usual, a significant portion still believe climate change is exacerbating extreme weather. This finding, coupled with the shifting attitudes toward electric vehicles, paints a complex picture of public opinion and media influence.
“The survey of 1,125 American Adults was conducted on January 15-17, 2024 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2024/most_believe_climate_change_makes_winter_worse
The poll indicates that 38% of Americans feel this winter has been harsher compared to previous years, a slight increase from 30% in 2022. However, a noteworthy 50% don’t see any difference, and 12% remain unsure. Despite these figures, a staggering 59% believe climate change is likely causing more extreme weather, including severe snow storms.
It’s essential to approach these findings with a critical eye. The correlation between personal experience and belief in climate change’s impact raises questions about the influence of media and societal narratives. Among those convinced of climate change’s role in extreme weather, nearly half report a worse winter experience, contrasting sharply with those skeptical of this connection.
The poll also sheds light on demographic differences. More women (63%) than men (55%) lean towards believing in climate change’s impact on weather severity. Younger adults, particularly women under 40, show a higher tendency to attribute extreme weather to climate change, compared to their older counterparts.
Interestingly, perceptions vary across economic and racial lines. Higher-income individuals appear more likely to believe in climate change’s role in extreme weather. In contrast, less than half of those earning under $30,000 a year share this belief. Racial differences also emerge, with varying degrees of belief across different groups.
“Forty percent (40%) of whites, 33% of blacks and 37% of other minorities say this winter has been worse where they live than it has been in past years. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of whites, 71% of blacks and 61% of other minorities think it’s at least somewhat likely that climate change is causing more extreme weather.”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2024/most_believe_climate_change_makes_winter_worse
Another intriguing aspect of the survey relates to electric vehicles (EVs). Despite significant promotion and investment in EVs, public enthusiasm seems to be waning. Only 29% of Americans consider an EV for their next vehicle, a notable decrease from 40% last year. This shift could reflect a growing recognition of the practical limitations and economic implications of EVs, contrary to the idealistic portrayal often seen in media and political discourse.
This brings us to a critical point: the gap between perceived and actual climate realities. The consistent belief in worsening winters, despite contradictory personal experiences and historical data, suggests a powerful narrative at play. One must question the role of media, education, and political rhetoric in shaping these perceptions.
Furthermore, the decline in interest in electric vehicles might indicate a growing skepticism towards solutions presented as panaceas for climate change. The public seems to be recognizing the complexities and trade-offs involved in such technologies, moving beyond the initial enthusiasm driven by idealistic portrayals.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking of discontent – does anyone know why South Texas Project Unit 1 isn’t producing any power today (or, yesterday for that matter)?
I noticed under ‘Fuel Mix’ on the ERCOT website we were short (for nuclear power plant output) a little over 1,000 MW yesterday, so I checked the NRC website (link below) and South Texas 1 shows 0 (%) output for a 2nd day in a row!
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps.html
Diving deep into logged data at ERCOT yesterday it looked to me like they lost Unit 1 at sometime around 5 AM Sunday (the 21st, give or take an hour). There has been nothing in the nooze on this at all. I did just email WFAA TeeVee station here locally … maybe they will ‘turn’ something.
Update: I posted on Rod Adams’ website Atomic Insights and he related he had the same question as to what was taking place, but has received no further info as of 9:50 AM EST Tuesday morning.
I like your word ‘nooze’. We need a new word for what goes for news these days. It recalls to me a Swahili phrase ‘kama kazi’ which means ‘like work’, as a reply to what are you doing when one isnt really doing anything.
The Hindi for doing nothing is ‘machhi marna” = killing flies.
I flew into Louisville, Kentucky on Saturday and it was 12F. That’s very cold weather for this humid part of the country. Cooling caused by warming is illogical nevertheless.
What is undeniable is that “solutions” to climate change, like wind power, are a worse problem than any direct effects of climate change.
Whatever caused the Valentines Day storm in Texas in 2021, having too much wind on the grid made it much worse. Wind does not produce power in still air and freezing rain.
The Polar Vortex of 2021 was noted and discussed here on WUWT a couple months in advance
as I remember it. It started with the Sheveluch volcano erupting in December sending a plume
of ash very high into the stratosphere. I believe it was poster “Vuc” who saw that and made the comment about how the polar vortex will be disrupted in a couple of months.
That eruption and the resulting vortex
instability has been shoved down the memory hole for some reason. It’s interesting when something
like a volcanic eruption has a “climate” impact the media and certain segments of academia
seem to ignore it.
The solution to climate change is fascism — windmills and solar panels are just distracting changes along the way.
Hmmm, Older people are less likely to BELIEVE the weather is worse now than before.
AYUP, older people have lived long enough that they’ve seen bad winters before and know there’s no difference. Younger people have had the CC and SJ narratives drilled into their heads in every subject from Arithmetic to World History AND haven’t lived long enough to have experienced much repeating bad weather.
And, aside from having experienced past weather, they’ve also experienced being lied to by those trying to sell them something.
Most older people carry more blubber than when they were young and slim. So the climate seems warmer for that reason alone. My Blubber Theory.
Yours is not even an assumption 😀
In the 6th grade I weighed 145 lbs.
I just got off the scale and I’m now 150 lbs. (I’m also 69 years old.)
So, I’m an “anomaly” in your “Blubber Theory”. 😎
Trend Me!!
This is the reason the ivory tower has deemed math to be “racist” and more and more high schools refuse to let students onto a path that leads to calculus.
Working through math problems helps teach critical thinking. Critical thinking leads students to challenge the media narratives.
A mass of indoctrinated young people, unable to think for themselves, provides the “muscle” to enact socialism, which those in the ivory towers think they can control.
What we see now is a dangerous alignment of government, higher education and the media. All that’s missing is the next Vladimir Lenin (could be AOC, she seems to want this role).
The climate isn’t the issue. It’s just the vehicle (stalled in cold weather) that’s helping the socialists gain more power.
Joe,
AOC may be sociopathic enough, but she definitely isn’t smart enough to be the next Mao or Lenin. She will always be relegated to being one of the useful idiots, and you don’t even have to include the useful!
I think AOC is simply Sociopathetic
Steyn on the stand and testifying NOW.
my old Texas history books talk about the winters in the early 1800s where Trinity Bay (a mostly salt water body of water) froze hard enough to walk on – now that’s cold and I don’t think people want to return to that or would consider these winters to be worse – same thing in London where the Thames river froze solid enough that there were carnivals held on it
As the MET Office’s definition of a ‘White Christmas’ is a single snowflake falling anywhere in the country on Christmas Day I’m sure you have had many such Christmases even if you didn’t realise it!
From the article: “This brings us to a critical point: the gap between perceived and actual climate realities. The consistent belief in worsening winters, despite contradictory personal experiences and historical data, suggests a powerful narrative at play. One must question the role of media, education, and political rhetoric in shaping these perceptions.”
I think there is no doubt that alarmist climate change propaganda, which is put out by all of the above: media, education and political rhetoric, is the source of all these unsubstantiated beliefs about a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather.
This is another example of climate alarmists repeating a lie often enough that it becomes the truth for some people.
The Truth is: There is NO evidence connecting CO2 to how the Earth’s weather unfolds. None. Nada. People who claim to see a connection are either badly misinformed, or they are lying.
The easiest way to shut them up is to say: Prove it.
Story Tip
A new study (Chen et al., 2023) published in Journal of Climate assesses doubling CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm only yields 2.26 W/m², 1.71 W/m², and 0.55 W/m² forcing at the TOA, surface, and troposphere, respectively. These forcing values represent 0.72°C, 0.55°C, and 0.18°C temperature differentials, respectively (0.32°C/W/m²).
The global mean surface temperature forcing for doubled CO2, 0.55°C, would by itself appear to already cast doubt on claims that all or nearly all of the post-1850 >1°C warming could have been driven by anthropogenic CO2 forcing.
New Journal of Climate Study Reduces Doubled CO2 Climate Sensitivity By 40%, To 0.72°C
We sure needed another ECS guess. The prior hundreds were not enough.
Disprove at least one 😀
A more accurate ECS will lead to an understanding that BAU scenario RCP 8.5 is as possible as President Joe Biden giving birth to the next President
Do you notice how the ECS guesses keep getting closer to zero each time?
“unsubstantiated beliefs about a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather.”
You are one of many CO2 Does Nothing Nutters commenting here. One reason leftists all this website one designed for science deniers and laugh at most of the comments.
Almost 100% of scientists who ever lived on this planet since 1900 believe there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 increases it.
But many armchair scientists posting here think they are all fool scientists. Even Ph.D.’s Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry and William Happer. All fools?
And the CO2 Does Nothing Nutters here will attack this comment like junkyard dogs chewing on a bone.
Read about science and how it should be done, read what scientists publish or had published and realize “100% of scientists” is your wet dream.
How about you list all the emperical proven evidence that CO 2 has material effect on the climate, more than its. 04 % fraction?
He can’t because there is none.
YAWN
Still no evidence, just calls to consensus.
Pointless attacking someone who is too weak-minded to fight back.
“You are one of many CO2 Does Nothing Nutters commenting here”
That would have hurt my feelings, except you call everyone that disagrees with you even slightly as being a “nutter”.
I can say with confidence that you cannot prove that CO2 has any connection to how any weather event unfolds.
And I don’t say CO2 does nothing. That is a figment of your imagination. I say CO2 does so little that it can’t be discerned and certainly can’t be connected to any individual weather event or the temperature of the Earth’s climate.
Prove me wrong.
You can’t do it. All you can do is call people nutters. That’s not an argument.
I’m just returned from my morning coffee and shopping chores.
While I was having my coffee, 3 men (mid to late 50’s) were quietly chatting, also on the coffee like me.
They were very quietly spoken but what I could overhear was one of them recounting a trip he’d done in a new electric van. Just like the VW Caddy as we get in Europe
And it was nightmare. (He’d obviously done whatever trip many times previously in a diesel powered ‘Caddy’)
The electric thing had a fraction of the range it was cracked up to have (because of cold, wind and rain) and then the super-charger he found wouldn’t do anything super.
He got where he was going hours late and had to find another charger to get back home – when ‘just one charge’ at home should have done the entire round trip and not wasted hours driving to and then waiting for a working charger.
The electric he got cost twice what diesel did for the same round-trip journey.
The whole group were still quietly spoken, not angry or cross, they just accepted it as matter of fact and that’s how it is.
One of them had a hybrid car, (that’s where I came in) and hated it. It didn’t do any of the things it was sold to him as capable of and simply drank petrol.
The 3rd member of the group had close knowledge of a failed battery and how it cost more to renew than the car cost when it was bought (presume = 2nd hand)
They were totally pi$$ed off about it all but, resigned to their fate and powerless (in every sense) to do anything about it
‘discontented’ summed them up nicely
“… resigned to their fate…”- willing to suffer, presumably, to “save the planet”
screw that- I don’t care to suffer for any such stupid reason
The sheep will always be with us.
Talk about being gas-lit: “This brings us to a critical point: the gap between perceived and actual climate realities. The consistent belief in worsening winters, despite contradictory personal experiences and historical data, suggests a powerful narrative at play. One must question the role of media, education, and political rhetoric in shaping these perceptions.”
Often the utility of polls is in the questions asked as much as in the answers given. Polls often ask people what they think or feel about a subject, but fail to follow up in asking WHY they think or feel something. It would be interesting to ask the subjects why they think winters are more extreme. Is it from personal experience or from news reports. Also asking them to quantify their answers, such as “Is it twice, thrice, or quadruple worse than previous years?” I’ve been frustrated by polls in the past which hint at people’s perceptions but fail to follow up and dig into why they hold those perceptions.
The Big Lie was explained in Mein Kampf by some infamous guy whos name dare not be mentioned
People tell small lies all the time but never big ones. This conditions them to accept the Big Lie because they my cannot imagine other doing so.
Considering that the author took a war ravaged nation and came within a hair of conquering the world perhaps the Big Lie continues.
The key to the small-lies-to-big-lies pipeline is that it works in cycles, until the big lie reaches a boiling point but the people are so desensitized they either collapse in depression or explode in rage.
Thats why after the AI banter dies down and people realize that it’s just software, the private climate modeling craze is on the horizon, because climate models do not provide anything useful. Why would anyone want to know how warm it will be in 100 years while we are shivering in the dark, I would like to know about the shivering in the dark part in advance.
“Thats why after the AI banter dies down and people realize that it’s just software”
Yes.
Fears proliferated that YTK twenty-four years ago was supposed to bring computers, the electric grid, and vast bureaucracies to a screeching halt. Everyone would wander around for weeks, possibly months, not knowing what millennium it was. You would flick a switch but the lights wouldn’t come on; turn a faucet but no water would come out, call your sweetie pie and get no answer, head down to the Registry of Motor Vehicles for new license plates and find the place deserted.
Didn’t happen. As usual, human stupidity sent out false alarms that didn’t amount to anything. ‘Twas ever thus, and ’twill ever be.
More discontent:
quote:“We have the highest tax burden since WW2, and your taxes are paying for people like Apsana Begum, (A Member of Parliament on £90,000+ pa is claiming benefits and living in a council flat while 20,000 families in that area are on that council’s housing waiting list. Then she organises pro-Hamas demonstrations around London)
GBNews video
headline:“Number of UK businesses in ‘critical’ financial distress skyrockets
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12990845/Number-UK-businesses-critical-financial-distress-skyrockets.html
headline:”Woman dies after car hits French farmers’ blockade; Germany faces massive rail strike – Europe live
Grauniad
quote:”EXCLUSIVE: The EU’s financial leaders in the Eurozone have “comprehensively broken” their agreement with its citizens and businesses, warns Bob Lyddon.
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/1858632/eurozone-EU-monetary-union-france-germany-economy
While giving nice names to winter storms and blaming them on climate change so as to cause ever more discontent and takes utmost priority. (2nd only to bombing Yemen)
why why why
“why why why” You know why, many know why, and the people perpetrating all the propaganda know why. The goal is to promote fear and confusion to cause a breakdown of society and economies allowing the Marxists to step in as the saviors. Prove me wrong. Call me a conspiracy theorist when you don’t have an answer to counter.
Does she wear Go’Bli’me trousers?
“Despite significant promotion and investment in EVs, public enthusiasm seems to be waning.”
The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece by their lead automotive writer Dan Neil last week:
“You’ve Formed Your Opinion on EVs. Now Let Me Change It.”[$$]
It was the usual B$. I sent him an email:
On generating capacity, I mis-phrased. Not Double the existing generating capacity of nuclear and geo thermal, I meant double the existing generating capacity attached to Grids in the US, which would be more like 20x on nuclear.
Note: don’t tell me that there is no need at all to do anything like that what we need is more coal fired plants. I actually agree with you, but accepting the warmunist premise that we need to stop using fossil fuels, they can only be said to be serious if they accept nuclear. Wind and solar are frauds.
Walter, I read that article too. I like Dan Neil’s stuff – he’s a witty writer. It was interesting, though, that he spent a good part of the article acknowledging the problems with EVs, particularly for those in cold locales and with long drives, which is a fair number of Americans. Also the poor quality of what Detroit has been turning out, and the high price. His primary defense is that EVs are a great concept, some of them are well-made, and manufacturers will be working the bugs out in the near future.
He may very well be right. I hope he is, because I like the technology. But he didn’t change my mind. I’m not buying an EV anytime soon.
I thought about writing to Dan and asking about his residence, and its location. Maybe a free-standing home in a nice South Carolina neighborhood? Maybe he lives on the 10th floor of a large apartment building. Nah! Maybe the nearest hospital is 3 blocks away? Maybe he has never been in -33° weather.
Many auto writers seem to be all-in on electric cars. Another reason to not trust the media.
From his writing, I gather he lives in Southern California, which is one of the few places where a BEV is fit for purpose, if the purpose is urban runabout. I would say the only other area is the Gulf coast, except south Florida unless you have a big gas/diesel for evacuations.
“Many auto writers seem to be all-in on electric cars.” I assume their bread is buttered there. They also love BMWs, Porsches, and Mercedes, which in my view are expensive, fragile, and uncomfortable.
I watch a lot of “Motor Trend” television where they are constantly rebuilding some car or truck, and they never mention electric vehicles.
I think I saw one episode of one program advertise doing something with an electric car about a year ago, but that is the one and only reference to electric cars on this channel from what I’ve seen. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in electric cars among car enthusiasts.
Consistently the paleo records show that ice ages end when CO2 levels were lowest.
Also shown is that interglacials end when CO2 levels were highest.
This directly contradicts the belief that CO2 causes warming.
When observation contradicts theory, theory is wrong. No ifs, buts, or otherwise
Total BS
Natural CO2 is a climate change feedback thatfollows temperature changes
manmade CO2 is a climate change forcing that causes temperature changes
You are confusing two different processes. One very slow and mild and the other moderate and relatively fast
A typical conservative myth
Also historical temperature reconstructions do NOT include manmade CO2 emissions worth noting before 1975, so are completely irrelevant as evidence of the climate effects of manmade CO2 emissions.
I anxiously await the verbal flatulence of the CO2 does Nothing Nutters here with their usual science free insult comments.
Two processes ? The one CO2 and a second CO2 ?
And than that ?
I anxiously await the verbal flatulence of the CO2 does Nothing Nutters here with their usual science free insult comments.
Where is your science ?
Blustering is NOT evidence.
But we expect nothing more.
“Natural CO2 is a climate change feedback thatfollows temperature changes
manmade CO2 is a climate change forcing that causes temperature changes”
For that to be true natural and manmade CO2 would have to differ in some physical or chemical way that permitted an unknown mechanism to treat them differently.
How do they differ either physically or chemically and how does that difference result in their being treated differently?
The earth’s orbit is much to circular to explain the ice ages given the amount of warming predicted for CO2, and the amount of CO2 released by warming. The earth would never return to ice age conditions as CO2 levels increased as they do during an interglacial.
More BS
CO2 is a gas whose effects diminish rapidly as the concentration increases
The estimated +/-100ppm CO2 cycle in the ice core era was accompanies by an estimated +/- 6 degree C. estimated temperature changes in 100,000 year cycles obviously related to planetary geometry that overwhelmed the CO2 feedback effects … that obviously had some limits preventing runaway warming.
You dare to classify others comments as BS ? 😀 😀
“More BS”
Don’t need to title your comments. !
We already know what to expect.
+/- 6 degree C. estimated temperature changes in 100,000 year cycles
===
This is observed not calculated. Explain the LIA or the many similar and larger spikes in the paleo record, some as short as 20 years. Can’t be orbital. Can’t be CO2. Can’t be explained by climate science
“obviously related to planetary geometry that overwhelmed the CO2 feedback effects”
Pure speculation.
Citation needed.
As much as it contradicts theory, there must be a significant cooling that occurs as CO2 levels increase during an interglacial.
As much as it contradicts theory, there must be a significant warming that takes place as CO2 levels drop during an ice age.
BS chapter 2
The theory that manmade CO2 emission causes warming can NOT be contradicted by historical climate estimates of historical periods THAT HAD NO MANMADE CO2 EMISSIONS.
Not you, that’s right 😀
“BS chapter 2″
Dickie is writing a book … an autobiography.
I made no mention of man-made. There is nothing in the co2 warming theory that is source dependent
Insult is the tool of those lacking facts to make their case.
Yeah, CO2 is CO2.
Why not? Is CO2 before manmade CO2 different from pre-manmade CO2? If so how.
Only manmade CO2 was conceived in Original Sin!
The only thing I miss about not getting deep snow as in past years is- I love snowshoeing. I sometimes see people doing it when there’s only a few inches of snow. That’s dumb. My rule of thumb has always been if the snow is too deep to walk in – then get out the snowshoes. Usually that means snow about 3′ deep.
When a person ages, in most cases the body shortens and widens. At age 20, walking in 3′ of snow is possible. At age 40, 2′ feet is possible. At age 80, 2 inches is plenty. Instead of snowshoes, studded snow boots are the ideal. 🙂
Yes Minister answered the question of how to structure the questions in a poll to obtain the desired result. The poll results then feed back to the politicians to deliver the policy the bureaucrats desired.
What l saw on UK daytime TV yesterday sums up the issues with todays media nicely.
There was article on it with the headlines “Are you afraid of the weather”.
l kid you not!.
A friend of mine has a saying that may explain the behavior of a lot of people, and it goes like this:
“Anything not understood is to be feared and beaten.”
Maybe this explains the aversion to inclement, unknown, never-seen-personally-before (a person’s birthdate) weather?
Only people over the age of 80 and that have lived in the
middle Latitudes should be included in such a poll.
A better limit for age would be 100+ years but such folks are hard to find.
Snow Roller Historical Marker (hmdb.org)
Yeah, well, I’m 78, in the middle latitudes and have seen all manner of weather. So it ain’t any worse or better now.
l have my own poll l can do for UK posters
“Here in N Linc’s England which 15 year period do you think has had the most years with the first snow of the winter falling before 1st December ?
A 1977-92
B 2009-24
Which one do you think that most people are likely to choose.
A
A thougtful analysis. For low income individuals, the bread and butter issues trump everything else. Interesting that the globalist governance boffins behind all this don’t appear to understand this universal truth.
It is easy to predict that as the ‘elites’ press on with The Plan, they are creating evermore resistance to to it. It wasn’t the well-off that stormed The Bastille! Nor could the well-off stop the storming.
“as the ‘elites’ press on with The Plan, they are creating evermore resistance to to it”
I think that’s true. As “the Plan” unfolds, it becomes more apparent to more people that “the Net Zero Plan” is a Trainwreck.
Furthermore, the decline in interest in electric vehicles might indicate a growing skepticism towards solutions presented as panaceas for climate change.
In the US the four highest every day priorities are: 1. Comfort, 2. Convenience, 3. Entertainment, 4. Safety. Every thing else is far down the list. The EV is a major violation of item 2. While some eccentric individuals might ignore practicality for awhile, the overwhelming majority aren’t going to sit around and wait for a spot to open up at the charging station. The Teslas of the present will be the Edsels, Deloreans and Studebakers of the future. Hundreds of auto manufacturers that built and sold decent vehicles went out of business in the 20th century. The only thing that keeps the EV movement in action is government money. The feds have decided, apparently in a “democratic” fashion, to insure that EVs survive even though no developed infrastructure exists and the general public, who votes with its billfold, is uninterested.
Hey, now! What’s the beef with Studebakers? They made some great cars, especially when they were upgraded to Studellacs, and many of their pickup trucks were (and still are) works of art!
I don’t think the general had “a beef” with Studebakers. He simply noted that they went out of business.
Perhaps there is no conundrum here but rather a simple explanation. Perhaps the masses have discovered that winters are worse not because of climate change itself, but because of the widespread belief among policy makers that climate change is a crisis that needs coercive, expensive and nonfunctional solutions which make it difficult for the average taxpayer to make it through winter without sacrificing warmth, light and mobility to the imbecile ideas of the WEF and similarly deluded elites.
Demagogues need an enemy to whip up support among followers. And make no mistake, the climatistas are demagogues bent upon enlisting acolytes and intimidating unbelievers. For such demagoguery, the enemy can be real or imagined. Climate change supplies both because it’s both real, but slow, and imagined, as if it were fast, and “an emergency.”
Next, the demagogue whips up a fantasy that the enemy can be conquered. In the case of climate change, there is NO possibility of conquest, or even a modest victory. CO2 is NOT the climate control knob, and even if it were, no global agency, no matter how intense the fever dreams of climatistas, can gather enough power to turn the knob. Climatistas can only gather enough power to cause misery and chaos that can be blamed on the usual suspects, with no decisive results one way or the other.
Hence, a war that can go on forever, with no victory or defeat in sight. It’s too great a temptation for demagogues to resist.
WUWT must be getting very desperate for material to publish this nonsense
Winter Began
December 21, 2023
Poll January 15 – 17, 2024
Winter ends March 19, 2024
The idiots at Rasmussen are asking opinions about a three month winter season just over three weeks into that three month winter season.
An honest organization would ask for opinions about a three month winter season AFTER the season has ended.
l will have to correct on your claim when winter starts.
Meteorological winter starts on 1st December and ends on the 28th/29th Feb.
Hence that been the start date for my poll above.
“Honest organizations” publish their full year review of “climate” mid-december. 😀
In Colorado, I’ve seen winter begin around my Dad’s birthday (September 4th), so we’re playing with semantics here 😉.
My experience is the same. Yes, Lucretia, sometimes it snows in archery season.
I tend to agree with many of your assessments, but I don’t feel desperate.
Mr. Rotter: Mr. Greene gets difficult when you disagree with him, but it gets worse when you try to agree!