Climate change deniers are more likely to be old, white and racist, a study claims.
The relationship between racial attitudes and public opinion about climate change is examined. Public opinion data from Pew and American National Election Studies surveys are used to show that racial identification and prejudices are increasingly correlated with opinions about climate change during the Obama presidency. Results show that racial identification became a significant predictor of climate change concern following Obama’s election in 2008, and that high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change. These results offer evidence for an effect termed the spillover of racialization. This helps further explain why the public remains so polarized on climate change, given the extent to which racial grievances and identities have become entangled with elite communication about climate change and its related policies today.
Indeed, the study – by Salil D Benegal of the Department of Political Science at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana – argues that some skeptics were driven towards their position of climate denialism because of President Obama’s skin color.
Judge William Alsup has laughed off suggestions that he’s currently presiding over the “global warming” equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
But like it or not this is essentially what is being played out right now in a U.S. federal court in San Francisco.
The climate alarmists have finally got their day in court against those pesky free-thinking intelligent people they call “climate deniers.”
Big mistake. The overconfident alarmists appear to have bitten off more than they can chew. They imagined that they’d fool the world into thinking that this was a case about ordinary, wronged citizens – specifically the cities of San Francisco and neighboring Oakland – taking on the evil, sea-level-raising, planet-destroying might of Big Oil.
In reality, as is becoming clearer by the day, it’s the “science” of climate change which is really on trial here. And given that the “science” of climate change is so shaky that it might as well be called “witchcraft” this is not a discussion that’s likely to end well for the shysters who are promoting it…
Fewer and fewer Republicans and Independents believe that ‘climate change’ is a credible threat; more and more Democrats do. ‘Global warming’, it is becoming increasingly clear, is a political issue and not a scientific one.
Climate alarmists are expressing great concern about the departure of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn from the White House. They believe it is a sign that their influence over President Trump is waning – and with it their chances of persuading him to reverse his decision to quit the Paris climate accord.
According to E & E news:
George David Banks left last month after failing to get a permanent security clearance. He handled international energy issues and was viewed as a top voice pushing for re-engagement in the Paris climate accord. That, combined with Cohn’s exit, weakens the prospects that the United States will remain in the global agreement. Trump has said he’ll pull out of the Paris pact, but he can’t formally do that until November 2020.
“One thing is for certain, the pro-Paris crowd has certainly been dealt a setback these past few weeks,” said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research.
Good. With the possible exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Javanka, Cohn was surely the most powerful and dangerous advocate for green lunacy in the Trump administration.
‘Climate Change’ – the most grotesquely expensive fraud in the history of the world – just got a heap load more expensive. So eye-wateringly, crazily, stupidly expensive that it dwarfs every scientific endeavor there has ever been, even such ventures as the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb and the Apollo program to put man on the moon…
Let’s start modestly with one recent estimate of the cost of implementing the UN Paris Accord: according to this report by S & P Global Market Intelligence it will cost at least $5.2 trillion.
But wait. It gets worse. Much, much worse…
That modest $5.2 trillion is only if you add up the promises made by around 60 of the 189 countries which signed up to the deal. With two thirds of the signatory nations still to submit their financial estimates of “decarbonizing” their economies, that means the eventual bill will be considerably higher.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance the cost will be $12.7 trillion.
As a businessman, Trump knows that those are the rules. And as president that’s just what he did today in his inspirational speech about pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.
It was inspirational because it articulated better than any world leader has ever done before why environmentalism is in fact such a harmful creed.
Rather than get bogged down in the “science” of climate change — an elephant trap so arranged by climate alarmists to make anyone who disagrees with them look ignorant or “anti-science” — he cut to the chase and talked about the important stuff that hardly ever gets mentioned by all the other politicians, for some reason: the fact that the climate change industry is killing jobs.
He talked about “lost jobs; lower wages, shuttered factories.”
He listed what the effects of implementing the Paris Agreement would be, by 2040, on key sectors of the US economy: