In a story posted just before the news about Hurricane Patricia, Bloomberg tracks a growing wave of concern about climate change.
Note to media. Even Republicans. Check the sudden spike in the red line above.
Election coming. This year will set new Heat Records. 2016 also looking to be very, very warm.
Republican candidates still dug in on denial. Dems sniff blood.
Get popcorn.
Maybe it’s the pope. Or the freakish year in extreme climate records. It might even be explained by the United Nations climate talks and the bright lights of the presidential election cycle. Whatever the cause, U.S. views on climate change are shifting—fast.
Three-quarters of Americans now accept the scientific consensus on climate change, the highest level in four years of surveys conducted by the University of Texas at Austin. The biggest shocker is what’s happening inside the GOP. In a remarkable turnabout, 59 percent of Republicans now say climate change is happening, up from 47 percent just six months ago.
When public opinion shifts this much in a single survey, a bit of skepticism is justified. (You can take a look at the methodology here.) Yet these results are precisely in line with a separate survey published this month by the University of Michigan, which found that 56 percent of Republicans believe there’s solid evidence to support global warming, up from 47 percent a year ago. The Michigan poll also found bipartisan agreement with climate science at the highest level since 2008.
The changing views by Republicans could strand some of the leading presidential candidates in an increasingly unpopular position. Many in the party reject mainstream climate science, and not just at the margins. Republican leaders including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and top presidential contenders Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio all articulate views that would be considered extreme in other countries.Republicans are still mixed in support for policies to curb climate change, according to the Texas poll. Just 26 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a tax on carbon emissions,2 a policy with majority support among Democrats. On the other hand, half of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to reduce the use of coal or require utilities to obtain a certain proportion of electricity from wind and solar.
–
Last year in the U.S., Bloomberg interviewed dozens of former senior Republican congressional aides, lobbyists, and staff at nongovernmental organizations. Many Republicans privately recognized the need to address climate change—in stark contrast to their party’s public stance—but saw little political benefit in speaking out. Maybe it’s time to reconsider.
Below, Democratic Candidates Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley have all weighed in on the importance of climate change as an issue.
Bloomberg again, from earlier in the year:
In stark contrast to their party’s public stance on Capitol Hill, many Republicans privately acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change and recognize the need to address the problem.
However, they see little political benefit to speaking out on the issue, since congressional action is probably years away, according to former congressmen, former congressional aides and other sources.
In Bloomberg BNA interviews with several dozen former senior congressional aides, nongovernmental organizations, lobbyists and others conducted over a period of several months, the sources cited fears of attracting an electoral primary challenger as one of the main reasons many Republicans choose not to speak out.
Most say the reluctance to publicly support efforts to address climate change has grown discernibly since the 2010 congressional elections, when Tea Party-backed candidates helped the Republican Party win control of the House, in part by targeting vulnerable Democrats for their support of legislation establishing a national emissions cap-and-trade system.
would be great to have a link to the actual Trump tweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/418542137899491328?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Texas, the home of some of the most ignorant people on earth, has now been slammed by a number of climate drive events. Even the ignorant recognize an attack like Pearl Harbor. Massive drought followed by the strongest hurricane in modern history? This is their “Pearl Harbor”.
Never underestimate ignorance.
Learn the truth about CO2 from Co-founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc&index=32&list=PL4Fgfe69FySJVHK2SMLtp2NXgXBkIbhck
It be getting much colder with sun cycles 24-26
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/
right. Mr Moore is the well-funded go-to fake expert for hire.
try again?
He failed with the “grand minimum” sun cycles link as well. That one mentioned another “go-to fake expert for hire” by the name of Willie Soon.
I’m afraid visionar is less concerned with truth than he is with spreading denier BS. I wonder who is paying him? Heartland?
The founders of Greenpeace are Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter.
Patrick Moore wouldn’t join Greenpeace until over a year after its founding.
It’s worse than Moore just claiming he was a Greenpeace “founder” he trades on that lie for profit.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/
Excerpts from “Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore”
“Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.
“While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.
“By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media – especially conservative media – give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.
Thanks for the heads-up, visionary.
But I’m not worried about the cold ’cause I got me a Tesla String Generator. Two of’em, actually.
You come too.
How many contradictory things do you think Moore claims?
From Stephan Lewandowsky:
‘Alice through the Looking Glass’ mechanics: the rejection of (climate) science
https://opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/suspect-science/stephan-lewandowsky/alice-through-looking-glass-mechanics-rejection-of-climate-science
• Global temperature cannot be measured accurately but it stopped warming in 1998
• Extreme events cannot be attributed to global warming but snowfall disproves global warming.
• Greenland was green but Greenland ice sheets cannot collapse.
• The climate cannot be predicted but we are heading into an ice age.
• Greenhouse effect has been falsified but water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
• Global warming theory is not falsifiable but it has been falsified.
• My country should not cut emissions first but global warming is natural.
• Climate sensitivity is low but it is high.
• China needs to cut emissions but global warming is unstoppable.
• Paleo-temperature proxies are unreliable but the middle ages were warmer.
• It is a socialist plot but Nazis invented global warming.