One of John Kerry-Heinz’s many imbecilic underlings over there at the State Department, some fella identified as being the ‘special envoy’ on bogus ‘climate change’, was heard to say, just this past Friday, that even though a recent poll would seem to suggest that 62 percent of the American people don’t think ‘climate change’ will pose a threat in their lifetime, a sampling of what he described as being “good polling” would actually reveal that there has been an increase in public concern. So when he says ‘good polling’ does he really mean biased polling?
If so, I’m guessing that is that is in fact what he means, then he must think that if we were to apply the same logic typically employed by this administration in determining our unemployed, to how we determine the level of concern over ‘climate change’, what would then be arrived at is a far more accurate percentage of Americans concerned about climate change. Isn’t that the way this administration typically approaches things? When the numbers don’t reflect the desired outcome, then they simply change the numbers so they do reflect the proper outcome.
This special envoy, some boob by the name of Todd Stern, who also appears to be the intellectual equivalent of John Kerry-Heinz, was asked, “In March of 2015, Gallup took a poll, and 55 percent of Americans were concerned about climate change, and also they asked a specific question: Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime, and in 2015, 62 percent of Americans said, ‘No.’ How do those numbers jibe with what you’re saying about an increasing number of people believing in climate change and its effects?”
And it was our esteemed ‘climate change’ envoy that responded by saying, “I’m not armed with poll numbers that I’ve look at recently.” He went on to say, “Look, I think a lot of, here and everywhere else, questions like this depend enormously on what the nature of the question is and how it’s phrased, and then for people to say they don’t think it’s a serious threat within their lifetime is completely understandable given what – the way the issue is commonly talked about and understood in the press.” Right, so the question must be ‘properly’ phrased?
Stern, who was appointed to his current position by Hitlery Clinton back in 2009 said, “So I think if we were – if you’re an election buff and you look at Real Clear Politics every day like I do, you’ll see that there’s a whole bunch of polls in New Hampshire, Iowa, this place, that place, and the line that’s at the top of Real Clear is an average of a bunch of polls.” He added, “So I think if we did a sampling of good polling and a range of the way the question is asked, you would see that there is, in fact, a real movement up in the level of U.S. public concern.”
Stern was speaking at Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), there in Washington, D.C. about the recent United Nations ‘climate change’ agreement that Barry signed onto in Paris late last year. The agreement includes the U.S. providing funding to developing nations to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. So you can plainly see why it is that Mr. Stern would be very much in favor of at least creating the perception that more of the American people could be said to be in agreement with the cockamamie notion of manmade ‘climate change.’
Look, much to the disappointment of those on the left, there is an overwhelming amount of actual scientific evidence that continues to make very clear that the entire notion of manmade ‘climate change’ is nothing more than a huge scam. But whenever presented with such evidence those such as our esteemed Mr. Stern simply put their fingers in their ears and begin yelling la, la, la, la, thinking, I guess, that by doing so somehow discredits any and all opposing science. They claim to be ‘pro-science’ but ONLY when that ‘science’ supports their nutty theory.