The point, I suspect, is a headline like this – “US voters linking climate crisis to rising bills despite Trump’s ‘green scam’ claims” – and a secondary headline such as this – “New polling shows 65% of registered US voters believe global heating is affecting cost of living”. Inevitably, perhaps, these are the headings to a Guardian article about a polling report (“Climate Change in the American Mind: Politics & Policy, Fall 2025”) published just over a week ago.

I leave you, dear reader, to peruse the Guardian article, but its concluding paragraph makes it clear that it is delighted to be able to make use of this recent addition to its alarmist armoury:

“Looking at the long-term trajectory, there’s been a huge increase in the proportion of Americans who think climate change should be a priority for the president and Congress,” said Leiserowitz [one of the principal investigators/report authors]. “But with Republicans, this number has basically been flat the whole time. It hasn’t changed much.”

I suppose I should accept that it’s fair enough for the Guardian to report on results that support its agenda of climate alarmism, though it might have noted that the study interviewed only 1,146 adults (18+), just 990 of whom are registered to vote. The authors claim an average margin of error for registered voters of +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, but I can’t help thinking that it’s an extremely small sample. Then there’s the question of the funders, which include:

The US Energy Foundation (“U.S. Energy Foundation (EF) is a partnership of philanthropies focused on securing a clean and equitable energy future to tackle the climate crisis….Our goal is to reduce energy-related carbon emissions by over one-third by 2030 compared to a 2005 baseline, putting the U.S. on a trajectory toward an 80 percent carbon reduction consistent with long-term climate protection….”);

The Heising-Simons Foundation (“The Foundation’s Climate and Clean Energy program supports organizations, projects, and coalitions that help advance and implement policies to accelerate progress on clean energy and reduce suffering due to climate change…The program supports efforts primarily in the United States, focused on four strategic areas: advancing climate policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; transforming the energy sectors that are the primary source of pollution to accelerate the transition to clean energy; cutting the most potent pollutants, such as methane; and seizing time-sensitive opportunities to achieve large-scale emission reductions.”);

King Philanthropies (a website awash with images of wind turbines);

The Grantham Foundation (“Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. It is the race of our lives”); and

The MacArthur Foundation (a search of its website for the term “climate change” produces 1,931 results).

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I’d be surprised if those funders would be happy with a survey or poll which produced a result to the effect that US citizens couldn’t care less about climate change. And yet, despite leading questions that label CO2 as pollution, and which refer throughout to renewable energy as “clean” energy, the poll produced a very uncomfortable result, which the Guardian report ignores.

The inconvenient truth revealed by the poll/study/report (call it what you will) is that the registered voters who were questioned really couldn’t care less about climate change (or old-fashioned global warming, as the poll phrased it). They were asked to rank 25 issues in order of importance when deciding how to vote in the 2026 Congressional elections. In 23^rd place was “developing clean energy”; it was followed in 24^th place by “global warming”; and last among the 25 topics was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What would Greta say? Can you guess what came first and second? Yes, you guessed correctly – the economy, followed by the cost of living.

Even an attempt to make the results look a little more palatable by dividing the respondents into different categories of voters didn’t help much. “Liberal Democrats” rated global warming 13^th out of the 25 categories, and that’s as good as it got. “Moderate/Conservative Democrats” placed it 17^th in their list of concerns; “Liberal/Moderate Republicans” placed it 24^th; and Conservative Republicans placed it last.

What does this amount to? Possibly not a lot – after all, it was a lamentably small sample of the US electorate. Still, if the Guardian feels it has to ignore a key (but – for them – very uncomfortable) result from a poll funded by climate alarmist organisations, perhaps it tells us that the worm is turning. Decades of relentless propaganda, billions of dollars/euros/pounds spent funding lobby organisations, 30 UN COPs and all the rest of it, and people still aren’t interested. Perhaps the alarmists should take a lesson from an earlier US politician – what matters to voters is still the economy, stupid.