6 thoughts on “State Dept: ‘Good Polling’ Would Show Increased Concern for Climate Change”

  1. Ask a how much people are willing to spend to mitigate climate change. Would they spend $1 more per gallon on transportation fuel and 50% more per KWhr for electricity to reduce AGW by 0.03 F over a hundred years. That’s the policy prescription in California these days.

  2. The next step in achieving good polling will be to replace the 62 percent of dumb Americans with better ones.

  3. This provides just one more example to illustrate how pathetically out of touch with the American people “our” federal government now is. Instead of a legitimate Constitutional government, what we have more resembles a parasitoid Gong Show. And just like all natural parasitoids, the natural parasitoid that now infests the banks of the Potomac River is in the process of destroying its host.

  4. “Believing in Climate Change” Is that like believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? You repeat it enough to the uninformed , little kids, and they BELIEVE?? If there was actually evidence that it was happening we could all believe but it was been presented as gloom and doom for 15 years. Gore said we will be dead on January 28, 10 years ago. Ain’t seen nothing close.

  5. It is simple: data of any kind that can be used to support the received wisdom is good; data which does not support the AGW agenda is bad data.

  6. Another example of a Negative Trenberth Event: something NOT seen that should be seen. A Negative TE involves explaining away an observation that does not support an expected result with the interpretation that the observation, not the expectation, is in error

    Previous examples of Negative Trenberth Events:

    – the oceans aren’t warming as they should (the original Neg TE. Solution, the heat is “hidden” deep in the oceans)
    – satellite data doesn’t show the GISS/NOAA warming (i.e. the satellite data doesn’t reflect global temperatures)
    – shallow sea temperatures don’t reflect modelled SST temperatures (i.e. ARGO data is inappropriate)
    – daytime ship temperatures don’t reflect modelled expectations (i.e. nighttime readings are the only appropriate ones)
    – the Gulf Stream isn’t slowing down (i.e. current information is not reliable, use wind and tree-rings instead)

    And now: the public doesn’t believe CAGW despite the evidence and promoters telling the “truth” (i.e. the polling was badly done)

    BTW Positive Trenberth Events (something IS observed that shouldn’t be) also exist:

    – Antarctic ice is expanding, in opposition to models (i.e. the ice is actually thin, if we measured it, and is not material)

    – Antarctica is gaining mass (i.e. the center doesn’t count, look to the peninsula, which is the only relevant part)
    – Gross crop output is increasing, not decreasing (i.e., data isn’t reliable because fertilizers are being used, marginal land is in the mix, and subsidies distort the picture)

    The list keeps growing and is a bottom-line summary of why climate science in the CAGW narrative is no longer science.

Comments are closed.