Over at American Thinker, Jonathon Moseley states:
The Coming Global Warming Voter Backlash
"So what will voters do to Democrat candidates in 2014 and 2016 when the former realize that the Democratic Party was lying to them? Is it time to run away from the issue for Democrats, journalists, and Hollywood personalities?"
An opposing view was posted on Skeptical Science by Dana Nuccitelli:
The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
"Climate change hasn't yet resulted in terribly negative consequences, so (can we really assume) maybe it's nothing to worry about. Unfortunately that conclusion flies in the face of a vast body of evidence indicating that if we continue on our current course, the climate consequences will be very bad, and potentially catastrophic".
In my opinion, Mr. Moseley is terribly wrong about voters punishing the Democratic party for supporting efforts to mitigate climate change in either 2 or 4 years. Does he really think that the average voter will not be concerned about the potential consequences of mankind annually pumping 30 billions metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Despite the fact that the earth's surface temperature has not warmed during the last 17 years, this has not ended the global warming debate. Another 2 to 4 years of stable surface temperatures is unlikely to change the consensus (further Moseley's claim that temperatures have not gone up over the last 20 years is incorrect, only by cherry picking a warm year for a starting point such as 17 years ago, does the claim hold up that the earth's surface temperature is stable).
Notably, every example of extreme weather, regardless of whether there is any impact from climate change, will potentially be attributed to climate change in the minds of many voters. As an example, is today's unseasonably warm 50 F degree temperature in Nuuk Greenland just an example of the variability of weather, or is it evidence of global warming?
Notably, every example of extreme weather, regardless of whether there is any impact from climate change, will potentially be attributed to climate change in the minds of many voters. As an example, is today's unseasonably warm 50 F degree temperature in Nuuk Greenland just an example of the variability of weather, or is it evidence of global warming?
Related Post
Below Average Extent For February Arctic Sea Ice A Mixed Signal For Global Warming Alarmists and Deniers
Below Average Extent For February Arctic Sea Ice A Mixed Signal For Global Warming Alarmists and Deniers
Yea I agree with you, there will be no voter backlash in 2014 unless the Democrats get the blame for a carbon tax. The Repubs would beat them over the head with it for decades.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're correct that it isn't 20 years of no temp change, its about 17 years. It does not matter that this uncomfortable fact demonstrates that climate models are wrong, the alarmist faithful will ignore it and maintain their blind faith no matter what the truth actually is.
cheers
klem