Guest “If wishes were horses, we’d all get ponies for Christmas” by David Middleton
From the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication…
Peer-Reviewed Article · Jan 23, 2025
Americans’ support for climate justice
By Jennifer Carman, Danning (Leilani) Lu, Matthew Ballew, Joshua Low, Marija Verner, Seth Rosenthal, Kristin Barendregt-Ludwig, Gerald Torres, Michel Gelobter, Kate McKenney, Irene Burga, Mark Magaña, Saad Amer, Romona Taylor Williams, Montana Burgess, Grace McRae, Annika Larson, Manuel Salgado, Leah Ndumi Kioko, Jennifer Marlon, Kathryn Thier, John Kotcher, Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz
Filed under: Beliefs & Attitudes, Policy & Politics and Behaviors & ActionsWe are pleased to announce the publication of a new article, “Americans’ support for climate justice,” in the journal Environmental Science & Policy.
Climate change is unfair.
[…]
In collaboration with climate justice advocates and experts in the U.S. and Canada, we measured and explored predictors of Americans’ climate justice beliefs and intentions to engage in related behaviors as part of the Climate Change in the American Mind survey (n = 1,011).
[…]
Communication about climate justice should describe specific ways that climate change harms some people more than others, as well as the practical benefits of climate justice initiatives. For example, investments in infrastructure for vulnerable communities can reduce everyone’s risks from climate change impacts such as flooding. Moreover, many existing policies that promote climate justice – such as green job training and reskilling programs, transitioning to renewable energy, and home weatherization – are already popular among the U.S. public, so linking climate justice concepts to these benefits may build support.
[…]
The full article is available here for those with a subscription to Environmental Science & Policy, and a public postprint is available here on the Open Science Framework.
[…]
Maybe these folks haven’t been keeping up with current events, but Climate Justice got its @$$ kicked on November 5, 2024.
Exit Poll: Climate Voters were Harris’s Strongest Supporters.
Data from the AP/NORC exit poll of over 120,000 general election voters found that 7% of voters said climate change was the most important issue facing the country (up from 4% in 2020). Additionally, the Environmental Voter Project’s analysis of exit polling data found that these climate-first voters supported Kamala Harris by a 10:1 margin, which was larger than Harris’s support from any other issue constituency group. In some swing states, such as North Carolina, climate-first voters supported Harris by a staggering 48:1 margin, which was even more than her support from registered Democrats.
Now let’s get back to the Climate Justice fantasyland. 69% of registered voters, allegedly surveyed in spring 2023, support repealing the Laws of Thermodynamics:
Show of hands: Who thinks this could be accomplished without amending those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics?
Transitioning the U.S. economy (including electric utilities, transportation, buildings, and industry) from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050: 69% of registered voters, including 93% of liberal Democrats, 84% of moderate/conservative Democrats, 58% of liberal/moderate Republicans, and 30% of conservative Republicans.
While it’s true that solar panels and windfarms don’t create energy, they can only convert sunlight and wind energy into electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing just right. Unless we’re supposed to just do without electricity when the weather doesn’t cooperate, a 100% “clean energy” economy would require a serious revision of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
100% “clean energy” can’t work without nuclear power and the authors of this survey oppose nuclear power because they view it as “inherently dirty, dangerous and costly.”
The Center for Climate Change Communication
The Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) is a research organization focused on promoting a left-of-center narrative around climate change. 4C is part of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
4C conducts research on public perceptions of climate change and then uses that research to advocate for environmentalist policy through communications with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and corporations. 1
History
George Mason University professors Edward Maibach and Connie Roser-Renouf founded 4C in 2007 while pursuing a research partnership with Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
The following year, 4C conducted its first Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM) national public opinion poll with the support of the Yale program. 2 Starting in 2009, 4C turned its attention to portraying climate change as an issue of public health. 3 4C runs a Program on Climate and Health, an initiative that argues that fossil fuel use is leading to climate change and unspecified “health harms” and advocates for the use of renewable energy. 4
[…]
Partnerships
Center for Climate Change Communication has collaborated with a number of left-of-center organizations to support its policy and research agendas, receiving support from groups including Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Rockefeller Family Fund, and the environmentalist Town Creek Foundation. 15 4C has used funding from the Rockefeller Family Fund since 2016 in order to fund policy advocacy initiatives related to 4C’s environmentalist research. 15
4C has also partnered with a number of federal government agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Beginning in 2012, 4C partnered with NPS to hire interns to communicate left-of-center theories about the impact of climate change on national parks to park visitors. 16 4C’s other government partnerships have been used to fuel and public opinion research projects in support of environmentalism. 15
In 2008 and 2012, 4C conducted national surveys with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) which concluded that “local public health departments are seeing increases in climate change-related health problems.” 1718
Opposition to Nuclear Energy
The Center for Climate Change Communication was a cosigner on an April 2021 letter to President Joe Biden that asked the administration to promote weather dependent wind and solar power systems and “end the fossil fuel era.” The letter also advised the president to “Phase out nuclear energy as an inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy source.” 19
Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. 20
[…]
The April 2021 letter to Sleepy Joe only advocated for wind, solar and Communism…
The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication are left-wing activist groups. They partner up with NOAA, NASA, NSF, etc. to promote an their left-wing agenda (DOGE time!) and they oppose nuclear energy.
Back to the survey
The detailed survey results can be found in Climate Change in the American Mind: Climate Justice, Spring 2023 (Carman et al., 2023). This is from the introduction:
Climate justice has become an important part of federal climate policy in the United States, with efforts like the Justice40 Initiative and the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) being developed to increase federal funding to historically underserved communities and find ways to “leave no one behind”3 in the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.
Sounds like more work for the DOGE boys!
These gems are from Appendix I of Carman et al., 2023. The data tables are from their report; the commentary and memes are the work of this author:
Who pays for crap like this?
Funding Sources
The research was funded by the Schmidt Family Foundation, the U.S. Energy Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and King Philanthropies.
U.S. Energy Foundation?
The Energy Foundation, also known as the United States Energy Foundation, is a left-of-center “pass through” charitable foundation founded by and supported by a network of left-wing organizations. The Foundation began in January 1991 as a $20 million collaborative between the Pew Charitable Trusts, Rockefeller family foundations, and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and has subsequently grown in partnerships and funding. 1 The Energy Foundation describes itself as a nonpartisan “grantmaker” with a focus on building a “new energy economy.”2 In reality, it is a medium for bundling vast sums of money from donors to far-left political causes, under the guise of philanthropy.
The Energy Foundation was involved in the funding scandal in 2015 which led to the resignation of Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (D).
Origins
The Energy Foundation was conceived as early as 1989, according to Adele Simmons, the former president of the MacArthur Foundation. It was established to be a “pass through” nonprofit, emphasizing strategic grants to groups able to influence energy regulatory policy. According to the group’s “strategic assumptions,” “intelligent philanthropy can influence energy policy with multi-billion dollar payoffs.” 3
The Energy Foundation was founded by Hal Harvey in 1991, who served as the organization’s president until 2002. Harvey has a history of left-wing environmental activism. In his announcement of the creation of the Energy Foundation, he referenced the recent First Gulf War: “At a time of grave danger and volatility in the Middle East, it is worrisome that the United States is increasing its dependence on foreign oil, especially so because there are other proven alternatives.”4
Harvey also worked as founder and CEO of ClimateWorks Foundation from 2008-2011, and served as Environment Program Director at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – both significant financial supporters of the Energy Foundation. 5
In 1999, the Packard Foundation helped to establish Energy Foundation China, with offices in Beijing. 6 In 2020, the Energy Foundation China separated from the United States Energy Foundation whilst retaining the legacy EIN number. 7
This is all just one giant left-wing Enviromarxist political activist money laundering operation. I can’t wait until the DOGE boys cut their ties to taxpayer funding…
I actually had to trick the Google AI. When I Googled with “taxpayer funding,” the AI reported that the organizations are not taxpayer-funded.
Back to reality
The world will not transition “from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050” or by 2100.
Life will go on and…
References
Carman, J., Ballew, M., Lu, D., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Goddard, E., Low, J., Marlon, J., Verner, M., Lee, S., Myers, T., Goldberg, M., Badullovich, N., Mason, T., Aguilar, A., Ongelungel, S. M., Sahlin, K., Sanchez, C., Burga, I., Magaña, M., Amer, S., Williams, R.T., Burgess, M., McRae, G., Fekede, M., Salgado, M., Larson, A., Barendregt-Ludwig, K., Gelobter, M., & Torres, G. (2023). Climate Change in the American Mind: Climate Justice, Spring 2023. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Carman, J. P., Lu, D., Ballew, M., Low, J., Verner, M., Rosenthal, S. A., Barendregt-Ludwig, K., Torres, G., Gelobter, M., McKenney, K., Burga, I., Magaña, M., Amer, S., Williams, R. T., Burgess, M., McRae, G., Larson, A., Salgado, M., Kioko, L. N., Marlon, J., Thier, K., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2025). Americans’ support for climate justice. Environmental Science & Policy, 163, 103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103976
Lomborg, Bjorn. Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Volume 156, 2020, 119981, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.
Life expectancy chart… correlation… causation
May I eat electricity and live to 200 years old?
From 1800 to 1900, per capita energy consumption, primarily from biomass, remained relatively flat; as did the average life expectancy. From 1900 to 1978, per capita energy consumption roughly tripled with the rapid growth in fossil fuel production (coal, oil & gas). This was accompanied by a doubling of average life expectancy. While I can’t say that fossil fuels caused the increase in life expectancy, I can unequivocally state that everything that enabled the increase in life expectancy wouldn’t have existed or happened without fossil fuels, particularly petroleum.
Our modern society would not exist without fossil fuels and it would collapse in a heartbeat if fossil fuels were made unavailable and/or unaffordable.
Unfortunately, That’s their plan.
Investigating various “charitable foundations” seems in order.
Definitely in order.
Musk is going to find a lot of corruption, with a lot of money going to “charitable foundations”.
And why do I think some USAID money found its way into those pockets, as well?
Excellent post, DM. Things have gotten so bad for the likes of Maibach that they are now applying Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5 to themselves—with just a little help from you.
Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some form of legialation. Scientific theories are not validated via a popularity contest. The reality is that the hypothesis that mankind is causing climate change by the burning of fossil fuels has been falsified by science so there is no such thing as climate justice. Mankind is not responsible for climate change or for extreme weather events. It ia all a matter of science.
Story Tip: Sabine Hossenfelder is perhaps nuts.
No doubt about that. (nuts, I mean)
Make the ‘Nuclear Winter’ Theory Great Again!
An oldie-but-goodie from the ’80s:
“AI Overview
Carl Sagan and his colleagues developed the nuclear winter theory in the 1980s. This theory predicts that a nuclear war could cause a deadly period of darkness, famine, and freezing temperatures.
How the theory works
The TTAPS model was a classic “climate model” that predicted global cooling from Saddam Hussein’s vandalism of Kuwaiti oil fields. Another “Things That Didn’t Happen for $500, Alex”.
Long as we are dropping it near Her and a long way from me I am all for it.
Maybe you missed that Sabine is doing a parody piece dissing bad science climate engineering ideas in general. Somewhere in it, “ I like the nuclear idea, at worst we get a big bang for our buck”
Reminds me of the time when Indiana passed a law making Pi equal to 3.2…
Indiana pi bill – Wikipedia
There is still a long way to go to convince people that AGW is a manufactured crisis.
True. And some will never be convinced. But I sense we are making progress, at least in the US. 47’s resounding election victory was not only about inflation, the border, and Harris word salads.
Biden pushed EV’s and the green new deal. Cancelled Keystone XL on day one. Tried to place offshore oil exploration off limits. Tried to outlaw gas ranges. Sholveled $20 billion to green NGO’s after 47 won, as Lee Zeldin discovered yesterday. MAGA types tend to notice such.
Biden said we can’t drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but we can still use the Gulf of America.
Reminded me of a classic Babylon Bee headline…
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-sells-alaska-back-to-russia-so-we-can-start-drilling-for-oil-there-again
Perhaps. The belief in AGW (or CAGW) is largely a cult belief, it is not a rational belief, but one based on emotion imbued (I believe very deliberately) through fear based propaganda. This makes it particularly hard to overcome. Even in the face if irrefutable evidence that their beliefs are not real, people indoctrinated into a cult belief system will rationalize away the contradiction and sometimes become even more fervent in their belief.
While it’s not clear how fear based conditioning through propaganda can be rectified, or even if it is possible at all, I would like to believe that it is possible. The alternative is far to dark to contemplate. The only think I think that can slowly break the conditioning is repeated exposure to evidence that is contrary to the fear. Preferably paired with explanation of why the fear is unwarranted by someone not in thrall of the conditioning. If anyone is in possession of information about how to break fear based conditioning, I’d be very interested to know. It’s very easy to find information on how to create fear based conditioning, that seems to have been studied very diligently, but reversal of that process is somewhat more obscure it seems (I wonder why that is?).
The likely best result that will come from this is that people will slowly wake up from their delusions. They won’t apologize, or admit that they were wrong in any way, they will simply stop believing what they used to and very likely behave as though they never believed that at all. This may be the best we can hope for.
The fun scenario is when the next Grand Solar Minimum occurs (could be near term) and temperatures drop globally, then the Activist will claim victory, even if their goals are far from being accomplished.
We need a Rosana Rosanadana moment. “Nevermind!”
I think that was the intention of the “Global Warming” scam. They intended for the “mitigating” policies and measures to be in place in the early 2000s, just before the peak of the AMO/PDO cycles and before the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum. They would then use the resulting drop in temperatures to claim “victory” and further cement their power. Power is what it is all about, and has always been about.
Luckily, they did not sufficiently account for the immense inefficiency of government bureaucracies. It’s funny, people complain about government inefficiency. To me, that is one of the blessings, if they were efficient, we would all have been hopelessly enslaved to an authoritarian dictatorship long ago.
Quite a few will see the light when “fixing” AGW is tied to their wallet.
Very nice David. I have questions.
Number one, no one has shown that CO2 is capable of causing catastrophic global warming. We need to stop allowing them to claim it is. They are lying we know they are lying yet we let them get away with it. That has to stop.
Number two the EPA nor any other government agency should have the power to choose and fund the research they are going to use to determine policy.
Number three I don’t know how these powerful foundations work but it looks to me like they are in the pockets of the democrat party or the democrat party is in their pocket. My guess is that they get all kinds of tax considerations or other preferential treatment not available to me. I don’t like that. They clearly have an agenda but are not transparent about it. I don’t trust them and I don’t like them. Something needs to be done about them.
The EPA budget is $9 billion and something. By comparison, USAID was $40 billion. IMO DOGE is not the big EPA answer, Lee Zeldin just cleaning out the bureaucratic green staffing is—they were responsible for allocating the Non-EPA $20 billion green slush fund. We got their names, they got to go.
Zeldin was on Fox this morning and was not asked about the “endangerment finding” nor did he speak of it. I fear it will be overlooked.
One of Trump’s recent executive orders calls for the EPA to revisit the endangerment finding. So it’s not being overlooked and might actually be evaluated relative to an objective standard.
They are all Federal non-profits. Not all nonprofits are Democrat shills. You can think of the NRA, and most churches. I think David Koch has one. There’s nothing stopping you from forming one too, but you might not have the kind of money Rockefeller had to endow his.
The Koch Foundations [note the plural] support mostly medical facilities and research, arts, and related. Much has gone to conservative groups. David died in August 2019. Charles (89) is still active. As expected, the wiki pages are not kind to these foundations.
Go to the link to the “Yale Program on Climate Change Communication” in David’s post then click on the “Strategic Partners” link. You may be surprised by some of the partners (then again, maybe not). HINT. They include NOAA and Climate Central.
Re “…CO2 is capable of causing catastrophic global warming...”
There are some things that are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe in them. And this happens to be one of those things. It is based on such a Sea of Errors (Irrensee) that one hardly knows where to begin to counter it. Best to let it pass in discreet silence … if only the fanatics of the climapocalypse weren’t such noisy pests.
Number 1: They know we know they are lying, which is a driver in their efforts to (a) silence pragmatists and skeptics and (b) brainwashing the public through scare tactics.
Number 2: Funding research is acceptable so long as it is not driven by policy incentives.
Number 3: All perceptions are that it is a major quid pro quo (you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours) symbiotic relationship.
Jeez, more than two dozen ‘academics’ with their snouts in the trough writing a paper covering a pointless survey of just over a thousand people.
Funny how they got the answer that they wanted isn’t it.
They started out with a sample of people who mostly never heard of “climate justice”…
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-justice-article/
It’s easy to get the response you want when you get to indoctrinate the survey respondents.
Here’s an example:
Q: Do you favor banning dihydrogen monoxide?
A: I never heard of it.
Q: Dihydrogen monoxide kills 5,000 children every year.
A: Yes. I favor banning dihydrogen monoxide.
Penn & Teller pulled this prank this on some enviro-nitwits back in 2003.
The classic prank is available on Youtube.
And everyone should be concerned. According to the McGill University website on dihydrogen monoxide, it
Is found in all cancerous tissues.Causes severe burns in its gaseous state.Accelerates corrosion.Contributes to global warming.
Causes frequent urination.
Especially in its cheap beer form.
And is now so prevalent that it constitutes up to 5% of your exhaled breath.
It is also used in nuclear power plants.
Aren’t people composed of approximately 97% dihydrogen monoxide?
And a lot of animals, too.
Isn’t some 71% of the planet covered with dihydrogen monoxide?
This is a CRISIS.
Desperate to keep THEIR trough filled .
Starting to see / hear lots of worried troughers !
You missed the larger play here … What is Climate Justice?
It’s a leftist psychology guilt play for world wealth distribution.
Even if we could use machines to suck CO2 from the air to keep it at whatever PPM they wanted they would not accept it The whole thing is just about Wealth Redistribution.
Yep. Other peoples money. to the left, is like crack to a drug addict. They crave it mightily.
Many UN officials are on record saying exactly that.
From their website:
Our TeamWe are a team of psychologists, geographers, political scientists, statisticians, pollsters, communication scientists, community organizers, communication practitioners, editors and journalists.
Psychologists,community organizers (i.e., socialists) and communications majors. Not a single real scientist among them.
Well it is a poll of public opinion. There is that.
Any claims to the poll being scientific are bogus, of course.
“The Energy Foundation was conceived as early as 1989, according to Adele Simmons, the former president of the MacArthur Foundation. It was established to be a “pass through” nonprofit, emphasizing strategic grants to groups able to influence energy regulatory policy.”
I would bet a pile of money that the “pass through” includes a significant cut to the staff of the nonprofit.
For NIH research, it averaged 29% in ‘administrative overhead’. A pile of money.
According to their 990, in 2023 they had revenue of $85 million, used 1.6 for executive compensation and 6.5 for staff. The rest was passed through.
That is 9.5% close to the rate for illegal Money Laundering … I hear 🙂
I wonder if there was a 10% for the Big Guy….
When we’ve finally gotten serious about the manmade global warming scam, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.
Hey, turnabout is fair play. Use their own weapons against them.
Speaking of Thermodynamics the Nov-Dec 2024 Civil Engineering (Magazine of the American Society of Civil Engineers) is devoted to promotional articles including flood engineering (AI IN MOTION) claiming “unprecedented possibilities for transportation engineering.” It also has a piece with a picture (Solar Panels atop Highways Could Redefine the Word “Sunroof”). Claims that transmission would not be a problem from a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences while also generating green electricity, reducing CO2 emissions, and bypassing adverse weather by minimizing accidents.
https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2025/02/07/nsf-awards-uta-engineer-for-flood-research
“….To do this, she will integrate two types of models: hydrodynamic models that simulate flood hazards and agent-based models that represent the choices of coastal decision makers as they respond to flooding….” That ought to be interesting with over a half of million dollars to an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering whose quotes about the problem don’t show much sense. One example is that we already have too often ignored flood maps, another is that we don’t need a model to see the decision maker choices, some obviously dumb. Maybe I don’t understand since the short course I had on thermodynamics didn’t cover “agent-based models.”
minimizing accidents
Until the next high wind or hail storm arrives.
And, while we are at it, reduces visibility by blocking sunlight at the road surface.
Lol.
Story Tip
Technically not about climate, but an interesting nature clip.
Kayaker gets swallowed by humpback whale off Chilean coast: Watch | Fox News
Sorry David, its a dumb argument.
In principal it can be done without violating any thermodynamic laws but in practice it cant because there just isn’t enough time in a practical sense to do the R&D for optimal/practical solutions and then produce all the wind and solar generation needed along with storage to support it.
Arguing we cant be free of fossil fuels because “Laws of thermodynamics” is just as dumb as arguing we need to make the change because of climate change.
Humor, satire and sarcasm are difficult concepts for many people.
Maybe. But if that’s how you meant it, its far too subtle. There’s no context in the headline for example. There are far too many people on this forum who take those kinds of claims at face value.
That’s how satire and sarcasm work.
How about this?
Is a person claiming the earth is flat, doing satire or sarcasm. There’s a fine line that one needs to cross and IMO you missed. But as you say, maybe that’s just me.
It’s just you… but I up-voted your comment because your timing was digital… 😎
Excellent, thanks. I’ll look forward to the common understanding on how GHGs work in the atmosphere!
What do you mean by “work”? If you mean causing temperture increase please explain. Let us have a common understanding.
You are quoting Lt. Savvik.
Well met!
Specify…
ChatGPT gave me an estimate of 215 years to fully switch to green energy. It will happen on a Wednesday.
Humor, satire and sarcasm come naturally to truly gifted people.
Talk about about a group of people that need to be given reservations on the B ark.
Just keep the telephone sanitizers here… 😉
There is one of the inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy sources just 70 miles southeast of me. It has been happily churning out electrons since May 1984.
46.4698, -119.33773
Another 10 out of 10 David!
As a fellow “evil person” in the petroleum biz, the last job I would ever do is work on solar / wind. There is an assumption that that its just a job versus a passion & all we want is a job. SOOOO wrong !. Working in the industry is so much more than a job. I love this biz & I love that we fuel modern civilization – I take huge pride in that … even if much of the public doesn’t appreciate it.
Scott Tinker once said, “When someone asks you what you do for a living
You proudly tell them,’I’m a petroleum geologist. I’m fighting poverty.'”
Not exactly the same thing but I like the old bumper sticker – Earth First! We can mine the other planets later.
When given a number of choices 60% of voters nominated the economy and jobs plus immigration. End of story for the incumbents this time around.
DOGE will reveal where the money went to promote CC propaganda and put a stop to it. Zeldin has revealed huge amounts of taxpayer money sent to Green companies insuring a cushy job for fired EPA staff.
I have no problem with radical climate activists returning to the Stone Age, however, I refuse to finance their trip………
I like the graph. The most recent trend is down but the projection is up, up, up!!!!! To the moon, Alice. Kind of like climate models and temperature change projections.