What Voters Think About Climate and Energy

What Voters Think About Climate and Energy

Climate and EnergyAn issue that will benefit Republicans is job creation and climate and energy development. The fear of climate change has paralyzed the national debate on energy.  Despite years of being told climate change is man’s fault, many voters are not sold on this idea.  In 2011, Americas Majority Foundation did two surveys which included questions on climate change.  These polls show the vast majority of voters believe climate change is natural.  Alternatively, they believe it is caused by human activity combined with natural events.

In a study contrasting the investor with the non-investor class, minority investors believed 50% of climate change was caused by natural events combined with human activity.  Another 32% say, it is natural events.  Even among the minority non-investor class, 40% believe in a combination of natural events and humans.  Thirty One percent believe it was natural events.  That being said, 82% of minority investors and 86% of white investors believe it is either natural or a combination of both.  While 71% of minority and 81% of white non-investors agree climate change is either natural or combined with human events.  Hence, the vast majority of voters, including minorities, accept the position of the climate skeptics.  Fifty-two percent to 66% of voters also agree climate happened in the past.  Accordingly, we shouldn’t alter our life style.

Before 2016

In our national poll conducted in August of 2014, 75% of Hispanics still believe it is either a combination of natural and human involvement or simply natural.  Sixty-eight percent of New Mexico Hispanics, nearly 68% of Wisconsin Hispanics and 62% of Illinois Hispanics, still accept the climate realist position that natural events, either alone or in combination with humans, are responsible.

In our post election national polls, voters continue to reject the climate alarmist view that human activity is primary.  In our Voice Broadcasting poll, 24% state human activity was the primary reason for climate change.  But, 43% state it was natural causes combined with human activity.  And, another 25% said it was natural causes. This shows voters accept the arguments of climate skeptics.  Climate skeptics argue climate change is caused by natural events.  But, many skeptics also view that human activity could play a role combined with natural events.

Ten percent of Republicans, 25% of Independents and 35% of Democrats accept the alarmist arguments.  Fifty-five percent of Democrats, 79% of Republicans and 67% of Independents accept the skeptic argument about climate change.  i.e.  It is caused, either by a combination of human and natural events, or natural events only.  Twenty four percent of white voters, 21% of blacks, 18% Hispanics and 35% of Asians favored Climate alarmist arguments.  Whereas 78% of White, 62% of Black, 66% of Hispanics and 56% of Asians favored the skeptic arguments.

In a Cyngal poll, 29% of voters believe in the alarmist argument that human activity is the driving force behind climate change.  Whereas, 21% of voters bought into the argument of natural events as the driving force behind climate change.  Another 46% believe it is a combination of human activities and natural events.

Their second poll showed that voters have rejected the alarmist arguments.   Forty-three percent of Democrats accept the alarmist argument that human activity is driving climate change.  But, 54% accepted the skeptic arguments.  Republicans are more accepting of the skeptics by a margin of 81% to 14%.  A full 67% of Independents reject the alarmist argument of human activity.  Only 25% accept it.  Therefore, when voters are given scientific arguments from both skeptics and alarmists, they overwhelmingly reject alarmists.   We have consistently seen these numbers since 2011.  So, this is not an isolated poll, but a response from thousands of voters over a five year period.

When asked in past polls, whether we should deal with climate change or emphasize job creation, 73% of Whites, 77% of Blacks and 74% of Hispanics state they want job creation emphasized.  Seventy-five to 78% of whites, Hispanics and black voters in our national poll stated it was job creation first before dealing with climate and energy.

The 2016 Election and Climate and Energy

In our 2016 post-election polls, we found division.  We asked voters whether energy policy should emphasize expansive energy development and economic growth, or consider climate change as part of any energy policy.  In a Voice Broadcasting poll, 48% stated economic growth takes precedence.  However, 36% say climate change should be considered.  The rest are unsure.  In our second poll, 37% stated economic growth should be primary.  Forty-four percent 44% view climate change should take precedence.

In both polls, Republicans favored economic growth whereas Democrats favored energy policies should take climate change into consideration.  The difference was independents.  Where one poll found they favored energy expansion, the other showed they believe climate change must be considered.  In the one national poll, White, Black, Hispanic and Asians all favored economic growth.  However, in the second poll, White, Black, Hispanic and Asians favored a consideration of climate change.

The good news here is that these numbers are in spite of the media coverage of only one side – that humanity is responsible for climate change.  When asked in 2011, have you heard of Climategate, 67 to 75% of black, white and Hispanic voters said no.  Climategate is the scandal where many alarmists admit much of their data was methodology flawed.  This question told us that many Americans were not aware of the major debate within the scientific community.  Much of the media ignored the story while continuously stating the climate alarmist position.


It is a miracle many voters reject the alarmist theories.  They simply reacted to the common sense approach that natural events are part of climate change.  Americans may tell a pollster, “Yeah this is an important issue.”  But, many Americans, including minorities, believe job creation should prioritize.  (When you view both polls, you will see that while there is a division about how to craft energy policy, there is no doubt that a high number of Americans want more energy.  Donald Trump’s skeptical view on climate change did not hurt him in this election.  In states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania, being pro-energy is being pro-job).  Republicans and conservatives can make the Skeptics argument, knowing many voters will accept them.  There are thousands studies which support the skeptics.  There are many polls, including our own, where economic growth is the primary.

Voters have responded to growth oriented arguments in general.  So, the best case Republicans and conservatives can make is that expansive energy development means cheaper energy.  And, cheaper energy gives American companies a reason to stay in the United States combined with business friendly tax policies.

(Americas Majority Foundation, which I work with, polled some 45,000 voters in seven battleground states.  We have also conducted two national polls.  This article is based upon our results).

Share This Post

2 Responses to "What Voters Think About Climate and Energy"

  1. Climate 2014-2015 A Snapshot

    The proponents of “climate change” have established themselves in the “earth is not flat” social club of “established science”. Notwithstanding that the brilliance of the post Galileo period was wrong. And once learned that the obvious is never obvious, would dare reject that there are flaws in Einstein’s theory.

    Fast forward to the Hawking’s future, the lost singularity where “infinite density exists in zero volume”:

    “Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time”, embracing time forward, backward, and the elusive “vertical” time,


    with the possibility that within the gravitation warping of space, time, the mind and senses, what appears round may not be!

    Good stewardship of the planet is a given, Beyond that it only requires humility, and “follow the money” on both sides.

    As one wonders, “climate weirding”, the unpredictability of Mother Nature, man is no adversary; in thought or deed, this is the unsettled science of pesky facts.

    There is no attempt to offer the “pro” argument, it is well represented. This is a dialogue about, “Don’t let the cement of “settled science”, the search for an eternal consensus, congeal around your ideology”.

    Here are some thoughts.

    “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever. New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming.” 02/08/15.


    “How puzzling all these changes are! I’m never sure what I’m going to be, from one minute to another.” Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

    White House Keeping These Global Warming Documents out of the Sunlight” by Fred Lucs 10/31/14

    The White House isn’t releasing information about how its top science adviser came up with the claim that global warming was the cause of the severe winter in 2014. Is this a new theory called “Global Colluding” where socialists and progressives get together to lie and cheat average citizens out of their freedom and their property?

    In January, Holdren blamed global warming for the harsh winter throughout much of the country in a video that was posted on WhiteHouse.gov titled, “The Polar Vortex: Explained in 2 Minutes.”

    Numerous scientists, many believers in climate change, strongly disagreed with the conclusions by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

    Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is bringing the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the White House’s science office to access the “data”.

    “If you’ve been hearing extremes cold spells likes the one we are having in the United States now disprove global warming, don’t believe it,” Holdren said in the video…..”
    White House science office claims that Holdren was offering a personal opinion, which is exempt from the law. Thus the data is not available for scrutiny. One wonders why?

    During the video, Holdren also said, “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

    So now, whether it is unseasonable heat, or new record lows, the conclusion is climate colluding?

    Holdren ends the video by saying, “I believe the odds are that we can expect, as a result of global warming, to see more of this pattern of extreme cold in the mid-latitudes and some extreme warmth in the far north.”

    There was broad criticism of the assertions in the scientific community, the Washington Post reported. It appears government tax dollars can be spent to produce propaganda that is “labeled” as opinion, and refuse to produce the “facts”, a serial “climate” Benghazi, which is exempt from the law.

    It is difficult to suppress a smile, covering a gag reflex, at what is clearly political mendacities, as Holdren also said, “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

    The argument does not stand on its own, thus the absurdities, polar opposites, creep in.

    One can have their own opinion but not their own facts. “If it’s opinion, it’s not labeled as such,” Kazman said. “He claims there is a growing body of evidence. There is a growing body of evidence in the opposite direction.”

    Climate change: “The case of the missing heat……Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. Jeff Tollefson, 01/15/2014. The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.”


    New York Post

    “Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade” By Jennifer Bain and Sophia Rosenbaum
    August 8, 2014

    The summer of 2014 has been one of the mildest on the books — and could be the first summer in a decade without a heatwave.


    “Images reveal dramatic drop in Lake Mead water levels” Aug 8th 2014 By Morgan Whitaker

    Dramatic new images taken from space have confirmed a trend scientists and conservationists have been following for years — the largest reservoir in the United States is shrinking and may reach dangerously low levels in the near future.

    The stunning new pictures released by NASA, taken about 13 months apart by the Landsat 8 satellite, show how the water levels on Lake Mead have dropped, revealing more and more dry land.


    Parts of South Dakota are buried under eight inches of snow. 9/11/14 By Ryan Gorman…..
    “One of the states that was hit the hardest by last winter’s “Polar Vortex” is already under several inches of snow. Some South Dakota towns have been hit by the earliest winter storm in more than 120 years. The town of Custer has received eight inches and Mount Rushmore is under seven freezing inches. Rapid City has as much as two inches of the fluffy white stuff, according to the Argus Leader. This is the earliest snowfall Rapid City has received since 1888. Other locations reporting snow include Hill City (4.5 inches) and Sundance, Wyoming (home to the Sundance Film Festival in the summer and four inches of snow this week).”


    11/1/2014 Record Early Snow Blankets Columbia, South Carolina; First Flakes in Appalachians, New England, Great Lakes….Saturday morning, a record early-in-season snow coated parts of South Carolina to usher in the month of November…..south and east as Columbia, the earliest flakes on record in the city,


    11/2/2014 UN climate report offers stark warnings, hope. Copenhagen, Denmark (AP) – Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.’s panel on climate science said Sunday…

    “This report makes it clear that if you are serious about the 2-degree goal … there is nowhere to hide,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. “You can’t wait several decades to address this issue.”

    Yes, be good shepherds of the planet but not conceding the obvious, is shooting the messenger. In a 1969 memo, written in the White House by a top aide to President Nixon, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman. “Moynihan: New York, Washington to be under water by the Year 2000. Were the scientists smarter or dumber then?

    “As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don’t have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.

    The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.

    Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.

    It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects. For example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower temperatures, and might offset the C02 effect. Similarly, it is possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the C02 rise. (E. g., stop burning fossil fuels.)

    …..Perhaps the first order of business is to begin a worldwide monitoring system. At present, I believe only the United States is doing any serious monitoring, and we have only one or two stations.” Is this a clear indication that reliable data may not be any more time tested than half a century?

    Four decades have passed and it didn’t happen! Could we have been wrong? Both sides of this issue, climate weirding” have valid points, and to ignore that, constitutes the real “deniers”. Not a question anymore.

    “As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don’t have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem.”

    “Arctic Blast via Polar Vortex to Chill 42 US States”, By Kristina Pydynowski, Senior Meteorologist 11/9/14. “For this current outbreak, the harshest cold in relation to normal will encompass the northern Rockies and Plains. However, temperatures will also plummet throughout the Northwest and to the Gulf Coast and I-95 corridor.”

    USA Today 11/11/14

    The town of St. Augusta, Minn., reported 16.5 inches of snow Monday afternoon, according to the Weather Channel. The official total in St. Cloud was 13.2 inches, breaking the all-time November calendar-day record of 12.0 inches set on Nov. 21, 1898.


    “2014 Chicago Has Been Coldest In 110 Years” 12/3/14. Chicago (CBS) By John Dodge. “The Chicago area was one of only three or four places on Earth that had colder than normal temperatures for 2014, according to the National Climatic Data Center.”


    “Causes of Calif. drought natural, not man-made: NOAA.” “Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.” 12/6/14


    “Wintry weather around US brings fatalities, school closings.” Dave Collins Jan 8th 2015

    “Dangerously cold air has sent temperatures plummeting into the single digits around the U.S., with wind chills driving them even lower.”


    “Time to move to Mars! Temperatures on the red planet were warmer on Thursday than fourteen states from Washington to Maine.” 01/9/15.

    The daily high on Mars was 17.6 F, while most of the northern U.S. plunged into the single digits.


    “Ever since Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has enjoyed just international renown as a world centre of data-fudgin’, scientific-method-abusin’, FOI-dodgin’, decline-hidin’, grant-troughin’, junk-science-endorsin’ global warming propaganda.”

    Herbert Lamb’s (Lamb was an English climatologist who founded the Climate Research Unit in 1972 in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia) big thing during his period as a climate scientist was “natural variation.” It’s thanks largely to Lamb’s seminal work Climate: Present, Past & Future that we know about the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. These eras are key to the climate change debate because what they demonstrate is that our planet has shown itself perfectly capable of dramatically warming and cooling without any anthropogenic input. And if it was true in Medieval (and Roman, and Minoan times), then how can we sure it isn’t also the case with Twentieth Century warming? This is why – as we saw in the Climategate emails – the alarmists are so desperate to erase the Medieval Warming Period (“MWP”) from history. It is, as they might say the most inconvenient of truths)

    Ted Koppel noted that there was: “…some irony in the fact that Vice-President Gore-one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century-is) resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientists nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of the hypothesis into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.


    Chicago weather: 2/18/15 Subzero wind chills; record-breaking cold expected…..Record-breaking cold could be on the way Thursday, Butler said. Low temperatures for tomorrow are expected to be -8 or -9, which would oust the current record-low of -7 set in 1936. Tomorrow’s high temperature will hover around 2 degrees.


    Siberian Express Grips Midwest, Northeast, South; Four Cities Set All-Time Record Lows, 1/12/15. Hundreds of daily record lows and at least three all-time record lows have been set as a frigid air mass with a connection to Siberia grips the central and eastern United States with dangerously cold conditions.


    “Climate Change Skeptics Write Open Letter Urging Pope Francis to Rethink Global Warming…. Climate Change Skeptics Write Open Letter Urging Pope Francis to Rethink Global Warming.” by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.27 Apr 2015. “ROME, Italy–As the Vatican gears up for a high-level workshop on climate change this Tuesday, a group of 90 prominent scientists, religious leaders, and academics have written an open letter to Pope Francis, urging him to entertain the scientific and moral arguments against current climate change theories.”

    “Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures”

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry:


    “……the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN)……Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture.”

    When will earthquakes get blamed on “climate change? “Box Office: ‘San Andreas’ #1, Another Down Weekend Overall”. The indoctrination of climate change believers is in for some push back. The millennials are not so dumb. The Memorial weekend 2015 movie box office was more than weak. “As you can see, “Tomorrowland” is dead in the water. With a $200 to $250 million budget (if you add in promotion and advertising), Brad Bird’s dull, preachy Global Warming propaganda push will flood Disney with red ink before the summer is over. International box office is weaker than expected. Just to break even, George Clooney’s latest flop will need to clear $500 to $550 million. This stinker will be lucky to nudge half that amount.”

    “‘Tomorrowland’ Review: Dull, Preachy, Global Warming Con Job”


    Every prediction made by the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change hoaxers has proven to be a hoax. The planet is not warming. Hurricanes have not gotten worse. The Arctic ice is not melting away. In fact, we’re about to hit a cooling period. Climate Change is nothing more than the latest con designed by the Left to give central government, and the very few elites who control it, even more power to control our lives.

    Climate Change is a lie.

    A dirty lie.

    A cynical lie.

    An anti-science lie.

    And Disney and director Brad Bird and star George Clooney have poured $200-plus million into a box office bomb to spread that lie — to hector and shame the skeptical mind that dares read, think, and question Power before slavishly handing over our liberties. Worse than that, “Tomorrowland” blames the rebellious individual-thinker for getting in the way of saving a “doomed planet.”

    A better title for “Tomorrowland” would have been “Submission Is Cool.”

    For some science go to:

    “Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum.”

    Oct. 7, 2014


    Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

    The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

    “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

    Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

    The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year’s five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.

    A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.

    “Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.
    Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.

    That suggests that a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, she said – changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea. This, and other wind and lower atmospheric pattern changes, could be influenced by the ozone hole higher up in the atmosphere – a possibility that has received scientific attention in the past several years, Parkinson said.

    “The winds really play a big role,” Meier said. They whip around the continent, constantly pushing the thin ice. And if they change direction or get stronger in a more northward direction, he said, they push the ice further and grow the extent. When researchers measure ice extent, they look for areas of ocean where at least 15 percent is covered by sea ice.

    While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year’s record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.

    Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.

    Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.
    “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”
    For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.
    “Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
    Related Link

    Q&A with NASA’s Joey Comiso: What is Happening with Antarctic Sea Ice?

    “Terrible News For Climate Catastrophists: The Sahara is Getting Greener”


    “Good news: the Sahara desert is getting greener because of “climate change.”
    Climate change has achieved what Bob Geldof and Live Aid failed to do by ending the drought in the Sahel region of Africa that killed more than 100,000 people in the 1980s, a study has found. Rising greenhouse gases caused rains to return to the region south of the Sahara, from Senegal to Sudan, boosting crop yields since the 1990s and helping the population to feed itself without relying on foreign donations. The study, in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that Sahel summer rainfall was about 10 per cent, or 0.3mm, higher per day in 1996-2011 than in the drought period of 1964-93.

    Well, I say “good news”, which obviously it is for the starving Africans scraping a marginal and precarious living on the edge of the desert, and, indeed, for those of us who prefer to see Africa as an economic success story waiting to happen rather than a looming demographic threat.
    But I predict that there will some people who are going to take this news very amiss. The sphincter-poppingly furious crew of greenie activists at the George-Soros-funded website DeSmog blog, for example. As Bishop Hill notes, when, a few years back, the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Phillip Mueller produced a paper predicting this very thing, the red-faced greenies of DeSmog rushed angrily to poo-poo it:

    It is wild speculation to assert that any recovery in the Sahel is a result of global warming and to dangle the prospect of a future green Sahara is the exact opposite of the message provided by Mueller’s reference on the matter. However welcome the re-greening of parts of the Sahel, it cannot be relied on.

    This is how the left rolls, as a very astute Times article once noted in a different but parallel context, when describing how apologists for the European Union enable it to enlarge its powers first by ridiculing their opponents, then by slily – but not apologetically – conceding that they were right all along.

    It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognized that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset.

    I’m very much looking forward to the bit where the greenies get to the final stage of historical revisionism. “But, of course, we knew that global cooling was the real problem and that we were heading towards a new ice age,” all the usual suspects – from the once-distinguished heights of NASA and the Royal Society to the stygian depths of DeSmog – will all chorus. “Why we were all predicting as much as long ago as the 1970s…”

    “FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 By Scott Whitlock | June 12, 2015”

    New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.


    Spoiler alert! Don’t capture an open mind set.

    What is the point? The scientific point is, there is no such thing as “settled science”.

  2. Is this a Mother Nature attack on settled science?

    “The Sahara Desert experienced its first snowfall in thirty-seven years, according to images taken Monday 12/20/16 afternoon. This according to the reporting by Katherine Rodriguez 21 Dec 2016

    It is the first time since February 1979 that snow has fallen in Ain Sefra, Algeria, a town in the Sahara Desert, the reports.
    The Sahara Desert spans across most of Northern Africa and has shifted in temperature throughout the past hundred-thousand years.

    Experts say the desert will become green again in about 15,000 years.” If true how does this model affect the rest of the world?

    Ice age predicted in the 70s

    “[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.” (Fire and Ice)”

    Ah, shucks…there goes Al Gore’s reliance on the “hockey stick” model….or maybe just turn it over?


Post Comment