It does seem like they’re trying to rebrand the cult
The big issue Democrats have stopped talking about
The Democrats who prevailed in electoral races earlier this week were no exception. Abigail Spanberger, who became the first woman elected governor of Virginia, rarely mentioned climate change on the campaign trail — instead focusing her attention on the rising cost of living and education. Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic governor-elect of New Jersey, largely focused on climate change in the context of resilience against disasters in the coastal state. And Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic socialist winner of the New York City mayoral election, focused intently on rising rents and grocery bills, only discussing climate change when directly asked about it.
According to Adam Jentleson, a veteran Democratic operative and the founder and president of the Searchlight Institute, Democrats are learning that direct focus and messaging on climate change doesn’t necessarily pay off. (In September, the Searchlight Institute urged Democrats to obey “the first rule about solving climate change: Don’t say climate change.”) Democratic voters care about climate change, he argued — but not enough to vote primarily on that issue.
According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are concerned about global warming — but the issue ranks lowest in concern among all environmental issues polled, below extinction of plant and animal species, polluted drinking water, and the loss of tropical rainforests.
It also tends to be at the bottom when compared to real issues, hence, it is not a big issue.
“Climate change has fallen into the ‘friend zone’ of voting,” Jentleson said. “And as in life, when you’ve fallen in the friend zone, it’s really hard to get out of it.”
Let’s be honest, when 99% of people go to the polls ‘climate change’ is barely considered. Perhaps if Democrats weren’t completely in the tank with Trump Derangement Syndrome they could focus on the scam, or anything else.
Instead, Democrats are talking about increased electricity and energy prices — blaming President Donald Trump’s partial repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act and harsh crackdowns on wind and solar power. Sherrill promised to freeze utility rates in New Jersey and declare a “state of emergency” on electricity prices. Spanberger promised to force data centers to pay their fair share of electricity before plugging into the grid.
“The climate movement in the past has gotten a lot of flak for being too lofty and abstract,” said Holly Burke, vice president of communications at Evergreen Action, a climate advocacy group. “I see the pivot to affordability not as a shift away from climate, but as a shift to meeting people where they’re at. We’re in a national cost-of-living crisis right now.”
Should be fun when energy prices in NJ skyrocket to go with scarcity. But, notice that Dems are trying to shift to “affordability”, which will have the same results: more unaffordable, unreliable energy, higher prices, forcing people into EVs, onto buses and trains and bikes, limiting what citizens can do and purchase.
It’s not just Democrats. Republicans are also talking less about climate, The Post’s analysis found, and so is the media. According to a project by the University of Colorado and a suite of other universities, global media coverage of climate change has been declining since 2021. In October 2021, news coverage of the issue peaked, with about 1,100 articles per month across newspapers in Africa, North America, Europe, and Asia. In September 2025, the number had fallen to about 400. In the United States, coverage fell by almost two-thirds during that same period.
When real world issues interfere, like wars in Ukraine and Israel, no one cares about theoretical issues. And what you see is the same article repeated all over. This article is actually a Washington Post article repeated all over. Don’t expect the cult to give up, though. That ain’t happening.
Lol
Teach are you unaware that the war inUkraine right now is a non issue?
IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID!
consumer confidence is at an historical low. Jobs and income are THE. Most important concerns right now. Inflation is not even as important as jobs. People are worried about layoffs and firings. There has been almost zero hirings in last 3 months. Puppy killer posts that one months new jobs was 50k. Biden AVERAGED 250000 per month
People can’t afford bfast at McDs!!!We live in an interconnected world economy and the world economy sucks. Everywhere sucks the cost of gasoline world wide is down because Dems d is down globally
US gas consumption is down it peaked 4 years ago.
Why are young going socialist? Because capitalism is failing them the future does not look good as seen by most Americans.
Not really, Johnny-about 72% of all jobs gains since 2021 during Biden’s term were simply jobs that were being recovered from the pandemic, not new job creations.
[…] The Democrats who prevailed in electoral races earlier this week were no exception. Abigail Spanberger, who became the first woman elected governor of Virginia, rarely mentioned climate change on the campaign trail — instead focusing her attention on the […]https://www.thepiratescove.us/2025/11/11/strange-democrats-yammering-about-climate-doom-drops/ […]
HAPPY VETERANS DAY! Free and discounted things for our US Veterans!!
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/11/happy-veterans-day-free-and-discounted.html
Teach typed: When real world issues interfere, like wars in Ukraine and Israel, no one cares about theoretical issues…
We thought trump solved Ukraine and Gaza?? Global warming is a real issue. Our only Earth is rapidly warming from the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.
While it’s true that immediate issues take center stage – issues like federal goons and thugs attacking Americans, extreme income/wealth inequality (trillion $ CEO while poor scrounge for food), loss of our democracy, pardoning cronies and crooks, Bad Bunny, burgeoning debt, feckless Congress, pliable Supremes, etc – global warming continues unabated – what you might call a long-term threat.
“Warming from the CO2”
In other words, inert gases cause heat.
But we can trust Jeff; he believes in Science. And Science is never wrong.
Lil Fop,
Do you actually not understand how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing warming or are you just being intentionally ignorant for the entertainment of the other kiddies here?
from NASA, that your god Donnie wants to turn over to Elon…
++++Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important long-lived greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike O2 or N2 gases (which make up most of Earth’s atmosphere), greenhouse gases (also H2O, CH4, O3) absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface. Without any carbon dioxide, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing.++++
The scientific question has been answered for some time (over a century).
Electromagnetic radiation coming from Earth in infrared (IR) wavelengths is absorbed by CO2 present in the atmosphere (some from natural mechanisms, the last 33% from fossil fuels). Much like Donnie excites you, IR excites the CO2, causing it to vibrate like you do when you see Donnie. This excited CO2 molecule bumps into other molecules, like O2 and N2, and also emits photons of IR up, down and all around, that excites other susceptible molecules like other CO2 and H2O. All of this retards the loss of infrared radiation from the Earth, hence warming!!
But relax kidz! The worst effects of warming won’t occur until we’re all long dead and food for insects and annelids!! Just accept the science that CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas is warming our only home!!
We derive most of our energy from the Sun!! (OK, some from nuclear energy). Think of it this way. “Our” coal, oil and gas come from eons old plants and microorganisms, so we’re essentially “burning” sunshine from hundreds of millions of years ago!!
So Rimjob after your long copy&paste and arduously incorrect word salad explanation you finally mentioned the heat source.
Good boy!
Jeff whined: “Do you actually not understand how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing warming?”
No, Jeff, I don’t understand. Since you’re so in tune with The Science, why don’t you enlighten us exactly as to how inert gases cause heat? Remember, causation is the key word here — is the word you keep using.
This should be entertaining.
We can’t make it any simpler.
Of course you can’t. There is no explanation, simple or otherwise, for phenomena that doesn’t exist.
Remember folks, inert gases don’t produce heat, despite what science-denying Jeff here has claimed multiple times.
Remember folks, it is a proven, verified fact that relatively “inert” gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and more reactive species such as methane (CH4) and N2O absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation in the infrared wavelengths, warming their environment.
Being “reactive” or “inert” is irrelevant! Why is f obsessed with this: ignorance.
There is only one explanation, simple or otherwise, for denying facts: willful ignorance.
Curiously, the ignorati, like our kid, fp, almost universally “believe” in an imaginary god, angels, miracles, heaven and hell, LOL.
Bless his/her heart…
“Earth is rapidly warming..”. Rapidly compared to what? Wide spread thermometer not until mid 1800s, and no real global coverage till
1920s-1930s. “Warming from CO2”. Again, an un-verified theory.
Yawn. Science denier. So why do Deniers talk about the Medieval Warm Period if there was no way of knowing before the 1920s-1930s? M’kay?
God is an unverified hypothesis, that is there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence. On the other hand, Denier Jl, there is substantial evidence supporting the theory of greenhouse gas global warming. M’kay?
You can’t have it both ways, now can you?
Rimjob and his non sequiturs again.
My Lil Copycunt using terms he doesn’t understand. LOL.
Hope this helps, Rimjob… educate yourself, m’kay.
non sequitur
-noun-
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
3. Any abrupt and inexplicable transition or occurrence.
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
AliasSmithSmith: “CO2 is not an inert gas.”
Jeff: “Yawn. Science denier.”
Well, Jeff, when you’re right, you’re right.
CO2 is not an inert gas. It isreactive but also often stable this is why we are now inflating tires with Nitrogen
From Science Direct:
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a triatomic molecule with a molecular weight of 44 Da. It is a gas at room temperature and pressure. At atmospheric pressure it sublimes directly from a solid to a gas at ?78 °C. Carbon dioxide is a relatively inert gas which is neither explosive nor flammable and which does not support combustion.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/carbon-dioxide
Internet rando says carbon dioxide isn’t an inert gas. Science Direct, along with many other reputable publications, says that it is. Whom to believe? *shrug*
Science is often wrong and is constantly testing itself and correcting itself.
Jl there many other ways to learn temps without using a thermometer. In fact there is a whole science devoted to that subject called Paleo climatology using proxies to determine temp and climate
Dunning Kruger
In addition
And your date of when the thermometer was invented is100s of years off Daniel Fahrenheit was 1712 but other s date to early 1600
Dunning Kruger
The current rate of temp rise is about .3 F per decade that would be 3 F degrees in 100 years although it is more likely to have that increase increase.of course some of the planet would be more than 3 degrees, some less. Definitely palms in DC. american agriculture will have difficulties keeping up with this change
“Science is often wrong and is constantly testing itself and correcting itself.”
Huh. Didn’t know Science was a sentient being. You learn something new every day.
What exactly is being denied? The evidence supporting the gh gas theory are still correlations, not evidence of causation.
“There are many other ways to learn temps….” Yes but none of them are anywhere near as accurate as thermometers. Paleo records cover tens or hundreds of thousands of years, so one can hardly compare 100 years to thousands. So again, when you say 3 degrees in a hundred years is rapid…rapid compared to what? In the 1600s Central Europe had thermometer stations, but basically the rest of the globe had no coverage. So there’s nothing to compare it to