patrick.net

The Mirror goes mega-viral for saying UK will be “blasted” by 78°F “heatwave”

Just 4 percent of voters attach enough priority to climate change issues to be described as “climate-first” voters, dwarfed by the ranks of voters most concerned about lowering costs and reducing inflation. This mighty 4 percent of voters supports Biden by 96 points (!), a margin that would have made a Soviet Politburo candidate happy back in the day. Doesn’t seem like these voters, unlike the economy-first voters, are really in play.

No wonder Trump thinks he can effectively slam Biden and the Democrats on their climate change approach. They are leaning into an issue and devoting considerable resources to a cause that is fundamentally boutique in nature. Sentiment about electric vehicles has been trending negative and most in the working class now say they would not even consider buying one. Voters are strongly opposed to measures and regulations that would limit the future availability of gasoline-powered cars. And somewhat cluelessly the Biden administration has recently doubled down on doing just that.

Voters of course hate being told what car they must drive, how they must heat their homes, cook their food, etc. And they really, really hate high prices. Rather than fighting climate change, their strong preference is for cheap, reliable, abundant energy. No wonder that, when asked whether they would support paying something extra on their monthly utility bill to combat climate change, working-class voters opposed even paying an extra one dollar. And if the toll was raised to $10, these voters were opposed by a massive 38 points.

Above all, Democrats should keep in mind the “iron law of climate policy” as originally articulated by Roger Pielke Jr: When policies focused on economic growth and the cost-of-living confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth and the cost-of-living that will win out every time.

The U.S. is an all-of-the-above energy superpower! But Biden and the Democrats never talk about that. Maybe they should. Greenlash is here and coming for them, unless they change course and unapologetically connect to the concerns of ordinary voters, rather than to the tiny group of climate-first voters. Carrying those voters by 96 points will be cold comfort if Trump rides the massive group of economy-first voters into the White House. And right now that looks very possible.

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

Bwhaa- haaa-haaa. That's right - stop burning coal -> less sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere -> lower albedo -> greater surface insolation -> global warming.

stereotomy says

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

Bwhaa- haaa-haaa. That's right - stop burning coal -> less sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere -> lower albedo -> greater surface insolation -> global warming.

Same with less flying.

As a result of recent research, a new stochastic methodology of assessing causality was developed. Its application to instrumental measurements of temperature (T) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) over the last seven decades provided evidence for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Here, I refine and extend this methodology and apply it to both paleoclimatic proxy data and instrumental data of T and [CO2]. Several proxy series, extending over the Phanerozoic or parts of it, gradually improving in accuracy and temporal resolution up to the modern period of accurate records, are compiled, paired, and analyzed. The extensive analyses made converge to the single inference that change in temperature leads, and that in carbon dioxide concentration lags. This conclusion is valid for both proxy and instrumental data in all time scales and time spans. The time scales examined begin from annual and decadal for the modern period (instrumental data) and the last two millennia (proxy data), and reach one million years for the most sparse time series for the Phanerozoic. The type of causality appears to be unidirectional, T→[CO2], as in earlier studies. The time lags found depend on the time span and time scale and are of the same order of magnitude as the latter. These results contradict the conventional wisdom, according to which the temperature rise is caused by [CO2] increase.

Together, the Sun’s average solar maximum and the Earth’s perplexing loss of protective magnetic energy combined to create never-before-seen effects (like recurring southern auroras) on our planet.

Also remarkably absent from the story was any discussion of the paper’s usual favorite topic: the climate. How does all this extra solar energy affect global weather? WaPo doesn’t say, doesn’t care, and won’t guess. It won’t even ask the question.

There’s no money in sun-caused climate change.