SHOCKING: Weird climate change poll suggests that money matters to people.

Liberals have been trumpeting a recent poll result that suggests people are willing to pay more for their energy bills in order to fight global warming a.k.a. climate change.

“By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions,” says the Bloomberg National Poll website.

This goes against the headlines from 2012, where a Huffington Post poll said that 54% would be unwilling to pay more to fight climate change, compared to only 20% who said they would be willing.

Has the American population shifted its opinion THAT DRAMATICALLY in less than two years?

(the answer is below the image… can you guess it before you scroll down?)

Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.
Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.

No, it hasn’t. In fact, there is no evidence that the American people have changed their opinions on this issue at all. This is something that gets us really, really mad here at Liberal Bias because it involves biased reporting about NUMBERS AND STATISTICS, and unfortunately in this case it is not tied to one side of the partisan divide or the other. Both liberals and conservatives have mis-reported this result.

The difference is in the details of the questions on the surveys.

The 2012 survey asked: “If it meant we could stop climate change, would you personally be willing to pay 50 percent more on your gas and electricity bills?” (emphasis added).

The 2014 survey asked: “What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION:

So the first survey did not find “people unwilling to pay more”; it found “people unwilling to pay 50% more.”

The second survey did not find “people willing to pay more”; it found “people willing to pay $20 more.”

These two survey results, together, do not show that people’s opinions about climate change are “evolving”.  They merely show that the amount of money that people are asked to pay to fight climate change matters.

Shocking result, right?

 


 

Now, let’s talk about liberal bias.  For dedicated Tea Partiers and Conservatives, who live in a world where “unbiased” means “not liberal” and “fair and balanced” actually describes what Fox News does, the 2012 poll result represents the real truth, because “OMG FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SO EXPENSIVE IT WILL CAUSE TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!!!!1”

Obviously, asking people to pay a mere $20 more for climate change is unrealistic, right? We have to make the number big enough to seem scary.  If we don’t make regulation seem scary, well then that is just LIBERAL BIAS.

Do you agree?

 

“Regulations are a burden on business” says Rick Perry

government regulation

government regulation

Rick Perry says, “Come to Texas where your business won’t be burdened with regulations!” Unfortunately, this graph isn’t cooperating very well with his slogan.

 

There isn’t too much else to say about this graph, except maybe to point out this:

When Rand Paul says, “We don’t need regulations, just let market forces decide who wins and loses….”

The “market forces” that he is talking about include things like this.

That’s what “let market forces decide” means: the “force” that prevents sloppy businesses from succeeding sometimes include violent explosions.

So there you have it: This is capitalism at work. And we all love capitalism. Therefore, you can’t be mad about this explosion that killed 14 people.  Because that would mean you hate America. Q.E.D.

 

NOTE: Exact values are not shown in the above graph, but the magnitudes of the bars are estimated based on estimated damages and insurance claims made during comparable tragedies.

Talking about specific gun regulations can lead to liberal bias!

Specific Gun Control Policies

Specific Gun Control Policies

Good conservatives know to always, always debate gun control using the most abstract ideas and words possible. Details and specifics have a nasty habit of leading to liberal bias.

This graph about gun control is a perfect illustration of this principle. When the general population is asked about “gun control” in general they quite naturally oppose it. This is because most people associated the idea of “gun control” with “taking away all guns” and “making guns totally illegal” and other vague and mysterious and menacing things.

Unfortunately, liberal law-makers are trying to distort this debate by actually talking about specifics!

For example, they will try to mention things like “banning semi-automatics”, which tricks people by sounding reasonable. They will ask for things like “background checks”, which confuses people because it seems like common sense.

THIS KIND OF TRICKERY WITH DETAILS CANNOT BE ALLOWED!

Whenever the topic of gun control comes up, you must remember to always keep it as abstract as possible.

DO talk about these things: rights, freedom, liberty, self-defense, the constitution.

DO NOT talk about these things: waiting periods, background checks to make it harder for criminals to get guns, background checks to make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns, banning automatic weapons for personal recreational use.

Allowing yourself to get caught up in specific details like those will only lead you down the dark and sinister path of liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: August CNN/ORC poll
graph found via: Ezra Klein

Acid rain has liberal bias!

Liberal Acid RainAccording to this graph, sulfur dioxide emissions have decreased dramatically since the 1990 “Clean Air Act,” which used a cap-and-trade system to regulate sulfur dioxide, took effect. It also shows that the overall cost of the program is much lower than was projected at the time. According to some reports, the overall benefits and health savings of this decrease in acid rain far outweighs the cost of the regulation program.

NOW HANG ON A MINUTE, BUCKO!

The government should never regulate businesses. The fact that acid rain would drop so dramatically as a result of regulation, and that the health benefits would be so much greater than the costs of the regulation program itself, shows that something fishy is going on here.  It’s pretty obvious that acid rain must conspiring with leftists and shares in their liberal bias!!!

Source: Graph from the Environmental Defense Fund with data from the Department of Energy and the EPA
Via: ThinkProgress.org

 

Electricity has a liberal bias!

Liberal Electricity

Regulation destroys the free market and inflates costs by adding unneeded costs to business. This is just good conservative sense. Any conservative economist will tell you that removing regulation and allowing competition to reign supreme will result in lower prices.

However, data from the deregulation of electricity providers in Texas seems to contradict this fact: the prices in deregulated areas are actually inexplicably higher than the prices in regulated areas!

It is clear that electricity has must have a liberal bias!!!!!

Source: US EIA
Via: Fuel Fix Blog