By Jo Nova
What were they thinking?
Despite 30 years of wall-to-wall propaganda most adults seem to feel that Climate Change is not an emergency. For some reason, they’d rather cut their electricity bill now, than cool the world by a thousandth of a degree in a hundred years time.
It’s taken billions of dollars worth of prime time news, school doom projects, clean-green advertising, and hot-weather-girl hyperbole to keep the fantasy levitating. Not to mention the weeping lectures from 97% of experts — yet somehow, improbably, most people are not buying it.
Imagine if we had a free press, and the Nobel Prize winners who disagreed were interviewed by the 7:30 Report or 60 minutes? Imagine if they talked to electrical engineers and geologists on the news? It wouldn’t be 60% of voters who were skeptical, it would be 100%.
He who controls the media, can confuse 40% of the people.
Thanks to Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic.
Nigel Farage speaks for voters on net zero. Here’s how we know
Michael Deacon, Telegraph, UK
This week, a new polling firm called Merlin Strategy asked voters for their views on tackling climate change. But here’s the crucial thing, it didn’t merely ask them: “Do you support net zero?” Instead, it asked them which was more important: action to achieve net zero, or cutting the cost of living. And guess what they said? Almost 60 per cent chose cutting the cost of living, while a mere 13 per cent chose net zero.
So 13% were wealthy enough, or obsessed enough, that they were willing to say they wanted to pay more to “put environmental aims first”. (Or maybe they worked in the industry).
Cutting cost of living MUST come before expensive Net Zero drive
Jack Elsom, The Sun
A Merlin Strategy poll of 3,000 people found 59 per cent of Brits agreed that “action to reduce the cost of living has to come first over sustainability and being eco-friendly”.
Just 13 per cent of people thought ministers should put environmental aims first.
The verdict was returned by supporters of all parties. For Labour voters, 61 per cent agreed and 12 per cent disagreed, for Tories it was 70 per cent and eight per cent, and for Reform it was 65 per cent and 15 per cent.
Clearly most polls ask loaded silly questions so they get loaded silly answers. They ask open apple-pie questions “Would you like the government to spend other people’s money making storms nicer?”
But it isn’t exactly hard to write surveys that ask people to rank choices, or to quiz them about what they would be willing to pay, yet pollsters rarely do that.
The point of most polls is not to tell the Blob what the people want, it’s to tell the people what The Blob wants.
Think about what polls like this say about our democracies. In theory, after surveys like this come out (and they have many times) if political parties were trying to serve the people, they would quietly drop the Net Zero plans so they could win over more voters. Instead, the two major parties push on year after year, almost as if they serve something else.
This result is nearly identical to one two years ago in the UK that found 62% said reducing electricity bills was more important than climate targets. Yet the Tories self-immolated, and Labour got elected but dug themselves a hole they didn’t need to dig. Why?
________________________
PS: The New Pope has been picked –– a man of the times, American cardinal Robert Prevost, originally of Chicago – who is a described as a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and gender studies. He opposed a plan in Peru to add gender studies instruction in classrooms, saying “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” I don’t think the Left will be happy with Pope Leo XIV. The ABC were clearly hoping for the more progressive candidates from Asia and Africa.