
Yale Climate Opinion Maps - hunglee2
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/
======
sceew
In my experience with some conservatives, it seems that they believe global
warming is happening but they are skeptical of how effective left-leaning
politicians can be in combating climate change. Therefore it is not worth
conceding political turf on other issues if they will see little change in the
rate of global warming.

Interesting once you start to take into account other countries contributions
to global warming. The United States is relatively low among developed
economies when it comes to emissions per GDP :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions)
.

I am really not impressed by any sides efforts to combat global warming.

Of course this will be met by criticism from HN, but I would love to see more
discussion beyond conservatives are anti-science radicals who want to kill the
earth.

~~~
mrpopo
> I am really not impressed by any sides efforts to combat global warming.

The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political
movement on the planet to combat global warming, in the entire planet (except
perhaps the CPC of China, against all odds). American Republicans do not even
have the hint of honesty of admitting the issue at stake. They denied it 10
years ago, now they want to turn their audience into believing that it may not
be human-caused.

> I would love to see more discussion beyond conservatives are anti-science
> radicals who want to kill the earth.

The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate. Human
activity (intensive farming, petroleum and coal burning, cement production,
...) is causing climate change, period. And the changes are already past the
point of being reversible. The data is plentiful and everywhere for the world
to see.

~~~
mistermann
> The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate.

You might find this attitude counter-productive in achieving your goals,
especially in a democracy.

~~~
acqq
The "debate" means "a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public
meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward
and which usually ends with a vote."

If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists
and is human caused, that "formal discussion" is really over since 1990. Since
then there was no debate if. You can read the results of that discussion in
the IPCC reports, the last summary here:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf)

If you mean that the politicians would like to "debate" between themselves
"what to do about it," they sure do. But they shouldn't be allowed to _doubt_
all scientists of the world. It's criminally irresponsible, considering the
potential dangers.

It's also extremely simple in basic principles: without naturally occurring
greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C)
instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). More greenhouse gases, the higher the
temperature on the surface. The same way you cover yourself with the blanket,
under the blanket it's warmer, not because you produce more heat but because
more warmth stays under the blanket. It's that simple, as simple as wearing
the coat not to freeze in the winter, and unbelievable that somebody can be
manipulated to doubt it.

P.S. Surveys of scientists' views on climate change (to answer the question to
this post):

[https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-
conse...](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-
intermediate.htm)

But they are of course less important than the IPCC which is official,
worldwide and in the agreement since 1990.

~~~
mistermann
> If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists
> and is human caused.

I often read this number, do you know where it came from, and what 95% of
scientists agree on specifically?

~~~
computereye
You can check this source: [https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-
scientific-c...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-
consensus-advanced.htm)

~~~
mistermann
On one hand that seems fairly reasonable, on the other hand I can't escape the
feeling that the author had a conclusion and was fitting results to it. It is
an inherently messy and complicated field and there are many ways one could
interpret this largely qualitative data, but the author seems to have not a
shred of doubt or uncertainty, for my type of personality it makes my spider
senses tingle.

EDIT:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-
determine-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-
the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/)

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one
has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In
fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at
Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for
decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature,
it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick
said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?"
he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."

EDIT2: This might be an interesting read if it wasn't behind a paywall:

[https://www.iceagenow.info/97-percent-consensus-errrr-not-
ex...](https://www.iceagenow.info/97-percent-consensus-errrr-not-exactly/)

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#p...](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1)

~~~
acqq
> there are many ways one could interpret this largely qualitative data

Only if you don't understand the basic science or you have a denialist agenda.

If you want to know the facts, see:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-
wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

And those are good and precise calculations.

But even for the simplest, back-of-the-napkin calculations, you'd have to deny
the contribution of CO2 to conclude anything else. And the CO2 contribution is
100% proven.

The same stands for the basic chemistry: The humanity burns immense amounts of
carbon, burning hydrocarbons produces CO2 (if there's enough fresh air) or CO
(if there's not). If you don't believe that, I suggest you to close yourself
in a sealed room and burn a fire (coal) inside and keep it burning. You'd die,
provably, unless somebody rescues you.

[http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-died-from-carbon-monoxide-
pois...](http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-died-from-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-
after-using-heat-beads-in-greystanes-home-20150718-gif8d8.html)

The concentration of the CO2 increased proportionally to our burning of the
hydrocarbons increased, and additionally, the seas got more acidic. Everything
fits.

See also:

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)

P.S. If you "just" doubt in the study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate
science papers, you are free to evaluate them yourself and to publish your
take on them. I really doubt that the results would significantly change, if
the scientifically valid methods are used. I have emphatically not called you
personally a "denialist." But I argue that you can't be intellectually honest
if you use an "argument from incredulity" (which you suitably call your
"spider" that is, in reality non-existing, non-sense sense) or stating "there
are many ways one could interpret this" which obviously isn't true. You
linking to the work which main conclusion is "that partisan presentations of
controversies stifle debate" has also no relevant scientific value, as the
scientists agree about the human caused global warming occurring at least 30
years already. There are scientific facts, and to establish other facts you
have to do real scientifically valid work. Scientifically valid also means
accepted by the scientists. The majority of them in the relevant field. Again,
politicians, lobbyists and media don't count. It's very known that the US
public perception of the scientific agreement is wrong (including OP the
statistics we comment), and your "spider sense tingling" (your name for you
avoiding logically and technically valid arguments) fits that exactly.

[https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/consensus_gap.j...](https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/consensus_gap.jpg)

~~~
mistermann
> or you have a denialist agenda

Simple, honest skepticism, what used to be considered an intrinsic part of the
scientific process, literally isn't an option? The irony. :)

Note that in this case I wasn't questioning the science of global warming, I
was questioning the methodology and manner in which they qualitatively
reviewed these scientific papers. There are, in fact, many different
conclusions one could draw, depending on your agenda. Presenting it as nothing
more complicated than simple math seems suspicious. Being accused of being a
"denialist" when pointing this out is cringe worthy.

------
untangle
Interesting. My big takeaways were:

(1) For most of the country, 40-70% of the folks in sample say they are
concerned about global warming (GW); (2) Areas of widespread (70-90%) concern
are limited to the west and northeast coasts; (3) Many people believe that
scientists doubt GW too; (4) That all notwithstanding, many folks across the
land believe that we should reduce CO2 and take other green steps; and (5)
Nearly everybody thinks that this issue has been over-talked – that the talk
is way ahead of the science.

Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are
turning off your audience and volume won't change that.

edit: formatting

~~~
NoGravitas
The most interesting thing I found was that a strong majority, everywhere,
claims to trust climate scientists about global warming. But huge areas of the
country disbelieve the fact that most scientists think global warming is
happening! I'm not sure whether this reflects widespread cognitive dissonance,
or merely demonstrates the effectiveness of propaganda.

~~~
josephorjoe
Effective propaganda creates cognitive dissonance.

It seems it is likely easier to convince people scientists don't believe
something than it is to convince them scientists are stupid or lying.

I guess all you need is one of those "He Said/She Said" TV interviews where
you get one of the vast majority of scientists who believe something on one
side and one of the minority who disagree on the other side, and then the
conclusion is drawn: "Scientists evenly split on the issue! No actionable
information is available from Science!"

------
jeroen94704
Fascinating: 71% say they trust climate scientists regarding climate change,
yet only 49% say they think "most scientists think global warming is
happening". This would imply it is not necessary to convince people
anthropogenic climate change is real, only that most climate scientists think
it is real. Very different message.

~~~
VLM
Depends on your definition of "happening".

For most of the population their only daily contact with a STEM person is the
TV weatherman who typically goes to great wishy washy lengths to explain that
tonights snow fall or last weeks record high are not the sole or most
significant primary proof of the truth or falsehood of global warming.
Meanwhile clickbait and disaster pr0n movies for generations have implied we
all gonna die due to climate change yet for generations life has gone on, and
in fact will continue to go on, and the alarmists are looked with contempt
similar to pseudo-Christian preachers and cult leaders announcing the end of
the world, admittedly for differing strategies but identical reasons, gaining
money and power (edited)

So everyone knows most STEM people are honest and that honesty results in our
admittedly pretty awesome modern world, while simultaneously their personal
daily experience of a climate expert is at best extremely wishy washy and the
scam of begging for money and control via the impending apocalypse goes back
millennia before modern "climate change" and most people very wisely scoff at
it.

The results make sense that most scientists are technically trustworthy, as
opinion leaders their politics are less influential than your average
plumber's opinions, and apocalyptic preachers have always been full of it and
always will be.

For political reasons and tribal reasons, many will have to pretend to be
surprised to signal that they're in the in group and the out group suxs, but
we all know the above is how the world really works.

~~~
basurihn
Most STEM people are honest? No. Having worked decades as an engineer,
sometimes over scientists, I can tell you that STEM people are just as
susceptible to human frailty and peer pressure as any other group. Some of
them dont need help to be dishonest.

I posit that none of you have any daily experience with science, otherwise
you'd appreciate that 95 percent of PhDs dare not stand up against the
groupthink. You would also appreciate how much if clumate science is total
garbage.

What an echo chamber. Thankfully, the political pressure to accept climate
orthodoxy is currently waning.

And i give a damn about your downvotes, or your unqualified replies.

~~~
VLM
Well, I'll give you credit for pointing out I meant relative applied honesty.

An EE calculating a resistor for a circuit has a certain applied relative
honesty such that either he's truthful about 2+2=4 and the circuit works or he
lies and the 2+2=5 and the circuit doesn't work. That times 300 days/year time
millions of engineers times centuries of progress equals our pretty freaking
cool miracle of a modern world. Some individuals sometimes cheat when they
play poker, or lie about politics, whatever.

On the other hand consider a line of work inherently relatively on average
dishonest like marketing a dish soap via TV commercial method of marketing. No
amount of extra lying will eventually construct Hoover Dam or land men on the
moon.

------
andy_ppp
People have been trained to be individual consumers of both products and
information. They'll believe something so long as it's easy to fit in with
their other opinions. There is very little way of me understanding climate
change science myself, but I'm willing to believe climate scientists, but this
is actually an act of faith, I can't independently confirm that climate change
is caused by humans, just say that it's very likely.

My Dad is a little bit like Donald Trump in how he searches the Internet for
things which support his already well held views; he thinks that climate
change is a hoax. When I quote him this brilliant tweet from Scott Westerfeld:

"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis,
but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."

He just laughs and tell's me about fake news sites he's read as a counter
point.

This is a great piece of research anyway; I love that people largely are
willing to hedge their bets/beliefs and agree that investing in renewables is
massively important, even though a lot of those people don't believe in
climate change!

~~~
ysavir
> There is very little way of me understanding climate change science myself,
> but I'm willing to believe climate scientists, but this is actually an act
> of faith, I can't independently confirm that climate change is caused by
> humans, just say that it's very likely.

That's exactly how I feel. I tend to roll my eyes at people that deny global
warming is happening, but I equally roll them at people that talk about it
happening as if they've done the calculations themselves. It's refreshing to
see this sort of humility on HN. Thanks.

~~~
coldpie
I don't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than potato
chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion. There's
nothing wrong with trusting experts.

If you would like to have at least a conversant base of knowledge, read the
IPCC report Summary for Policymakers[1]. People who _do_ know what they're
talking about have done a great job summarizing the state of research,
evidence, and probability of outcomes given different projection scenarios.
It's not a particularly long or difficult read and you'll come out the other
side far more informed than you were before.

[1] [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf)

~~~
gus_massa
> _I don 't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than
> potato chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion.
> There's nothing wrong with trusting experts._

Nutrition is a specially bad example. There are plenty of studies that are
overhyped and make crazy claims about why some food is good or bad for you,
but the are not reproducible, have a small sample number, barely reach p=0.05
using p hacking. And a few weeks later you can read a equally bad study with
the opposing conclusions.

For example "I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss.
Here's How." [http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-
choco...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-
helps-weight-1707251800) It's a bad study made on purpose, but the problem is
that many studies have the same bad methodologies. Are eggs good for you? The
food pyramid?

Nutrition is a good example of a field were you have a very complex system and
you can´t make very controlled experiments, so it's very difficult to make
reliable measurements.

~~~
antisthenes
That's _exactly_ the same excuse people use to do nothing for climate change:
"it's too complex and there are conflicting opinions, so let's do nothing or
not enough"

The dietary variant of this is: "nutrition is too complex, so I'm going to
remain fat and do nothing for my health, except maybe get a diet soda once in
a while"

This is the most toxic anti-fact position possible and needs to be stomped out
with intensity every time it appears. It's the intellectual equivalent of
cupping your ears and sticking your head in the sand.

------
natch
Interesting to note in this map, the people generally more concerned about
climate change are in several types of places:

1) Near coasts. The traditional boring stereotype about the coasts having
higher levels of education overall.

The point to notice here is that a some people will see this map, see that
obvious fact, and then stop thinking. For example one commenter here said:

>Areas of widespread (70-90%) concern are limited to the west and northeast
coasts.

"Limited to." Quite a brushoff. But some of the other hotspots are interesting
too:

2) Near mountains. The Rocky Mountains stand out in particular. Because of
steep altitude changes, people who live there get exposed in their daily life
to many different microclimates in the short span of a few miles as they
travel around their locality -- if not by actually changing altitude as they
move around, then at least by being able to see from a distance things like
the changing leaf colors in the fall, having it essentially in their face what
changes are happening and when, each year. Some of these areas have also seen
an influx of new pests damaging tree populations in a highly noticable manner,
which are suspected to be related to changing temperatures.

3) Near rivers. See the Mississippi for example. I take it the impact of
changing water flow patterns raises awareness in nearby communities.

4) For different reasons, North and South Dakota. I would guess the opinions
there are influenced by the fact that the states have heavy involvement in
energy-related mining activities starting with coal but also with shale and
fracking, as well as alternative energy activities like wind power.

~~~
eduren
The hotspots in the Dakotas are slightly correlated to Native American
populations from what I can see.

------
awjr
Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism. I do wonder if it's a personal
choice. By being in denial you do not have to make any changes to the way you
live.

Locally they wanted to increase recycling. The answer is to provide offical
small bins (140l) that are collected only every two weeks, but collect
recycling waste weekly. We've gone beyond the carrot and are now using the
stick because many people simply do not want to change.

~~~
nabla9
Climate skepticism is Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. Political lobbying seems to be
big part of the phenomenon.

Poles Apart - The international reporting of climate scepticism
[http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-...](http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-
apart)

>It concludes that climate scepticism is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon,
found most frequently in the US and British newspapers, and explores the
reasons why this is so.

~~~
ajmurmann
Thank you for posting this. A international comparison was what I was hoping
to see when I clicked on this article.

------
bradfordarner
How is it that everyone (82% Nationally) seems to agree that the most critical
step forward (Funding Research in Renewable Energy) is a good thing BUT we
spend all of our time arguing about whether or not global warming is
happening??

This reminds me of a failing, early-stage start up. Rather than just getting
to the grind and finding a way to make money, it is so easy to just spend time
dreaming and argue about the way forward and spending your time ignoring
complaining customers while I'm sitting around pondering how to change the
world.

~~~
VLM
I like your idea of startup analogy.

I'd propose its more like you have two partners who hate each other viciously
and spend all their time scheming for their dominance and submission of the
other. Meanwhile there's programmers trying to ship a MVP. Now as long as the
partners verbally argue constantly, they can't screw up what the programmers
are trying to do. But if one partner gains total supremacy then they'll need
something to do all day, someone to verbally spar with, like maybe the
programmers. As long as they argue loudly progress can be made, but once the
micromanagement boom falls, all progress will cease, in fact retrograde
progress will begin regardless of who "wins".

------
charlesdenault
Incredible... the most eye-opening difference was the majority of Americans
believe global warming will harm people in the US, but very few people believe
it will harm them personally. And this isn't limited to west/northeast
coasts-- it covers the entire country. What would cause people to think GW
will harm others but not themselves?

~~~
VLM
To be extremely blunt, yet honest, poverty harms a lot of Americans but its
not going to harm my socioeconomic group very much. Ditto heroin, meth... Its
an admission of the death of class mobility. Most people will never be
economically mobile enough to hang with me and it would be virtually
impossible with my social support net to fall into extreme poverty. It could
happen. Due to lack of social mobility its very unlikely however.

You can either model the effects of climate change as a parallel argument or
merely a cloaked poverty argument. A parallel argument is Hurricane Katrina
only hurt people on the south coast but the entire country saw Americans being
hurt. The cloaked poverty argument is me and my descendants are in a
socioeconomic group that was mildly inconvenienced by the hurricane whereas
poor people, and we'll never be members of that group, literally died on TV.
Either way Hurricane Katrina is a great example of people being harmed in the
USA that could never in a geographic or socioeconomic sense hurt me and my
family, or frankly anyone I work with or hang out with.

~~~
eduren
Unfortunate but true. There's a large amount of people (especially in this
country), who feel that way. When they hear in policy discussions "X will harm
people", they automatically translate to "X will harm people that can't afford
to do Y". When a person's _entire_ social group can afford Y, then its really
hard to make them see the need for that policy.

It's not a lack of compassion, it's a lack of visibility.

------
TorKlingberg
US county maps always overemphasise land area over people. You can fit
millions of people in a pixel, but on this map they will be barely noticeable.

------
fierarul
I've always wanted to see a good site with the most habitable locations once
global warming is taken into effect.

Seems a bit late to wait to become a climate migrant. So, which is the best
place to move to (in Europe)?

I'm actually kinda surprised capitalists aren't investing in large tracts of
land.

~~~
earthtolazlo
The general rule of thumb is the farther north the better, although you
probably want to be south of melting permafrost. Europe is in for a rough
ride, as it will be faced with hundreds of millions if not billions of
refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia in the not-that-
distant future.

So, Alaska, northern Canada, or New Zealand if you can afford to buy
citizenship.

------
fooballs99
I wish there was more discussion of the core reason for Climate change - our
massive population explosion.

The world population has doubled in the last 30 years.

Instead, we argue over the symptoms, spend billions on things that won't make
any difference, rather than understanding the cause.

~~~
mikeash
Population growth is leveling off. Short of going out and murdering a hell of
a lot of people, there isn't much more that can be done on that front.

------
Insanity
Interesting data! I do wonder how this would compare to other countries.

------
wuschel
What kind of software/stack was used to make such a kind of visualization? Any
good tutorials, courses or books that can be recommended?

~~~
ropeladder
It's D3 according to the source file; the type of map is called a
'choropleth'. Here is a tutorial that might be useful. (I haven't done this
specific one but I've made similar stuff before.)
[http://www.cartographicperspectives.org/index.php/journal/ar...](http://www.cartographicperspectives.org/index.php/journal/article/view/cp78-sack-
et-al/1359)

~~~
wuschel
Thank you!

------
xname2
Many times survey does not matter (that much). People will say they are
concerned, but their action may reflect they do not really care at all.

Are people at east and west coast really concerned about global warming? Let's
don't simply ask them, but check their action instead. Are they selling beach
houses? Are we seeing price dropping in beach houses?

------
oldandtired
I have said this in the past (to climate scientists as well as others) and
I'll say it again. Check the energy equations for the climate science
predictions. It is easy enough to do, especially if you have a calculator or
spreadsheet.

The interesting thing is that the required energy for the predictions is the
bugbear and it cannot simply be gotten around. Even the analysis papers that
look at the last 50 odd years show a major discrepancy between the energy
required and the climate science predictions.

This leads me to believe that the climate science models in use are very
problematic (that is screwed badly).

It is also interesting to note that every technology that is posited to be
used to replace the current coal based or nuclear based has a high pollution
index for the creation of the base elements for these technologies - this is
something that is not discussed.

There is also some very interesting biological research that strongly
indicates a higher ecological benefit for increased CO2 levels (up to 1000 to
1500 ppm from the current levels) including increased plant growth and lower
water usage.

A recent study also indicates that in greenhouse environments, increased CO2
levels has a higher energy transference, that is the greenhouse environment
get colder quicker.

So what do we get from all this, as individuals, we can do some investigation
into the reasonableness of the climate science predictions and we can come to
our own conclusions as to whether or not climate science is sound science. We
don't actually have to take the word of either side, we can check the veracity
of both sides.

My own investigations have lead me to believe that climate scientists have
less an idea of what is causing climate change that do people who have
observed the world for 60, 70 or 80 years.

When the models give credible predictions for short, medium and longer term
periods then we can start to give credence to what climate scientists might
say.

Does waiting for this increase credibility mean we do nothing now. No. We have
various infrastructure problems now that need to be solved, some
environmental, some energy related, some populations related, etc.
Unfortunately, even though there are positive things we can do to mitigate
specific problems in the infrastructure realm, the political situation will
ensure that these are not done.

Even though the rightists have some good ideas, the leftists will object. Even
though the leftists have some good ideas the rightists will object. Any ideas
from the middle-of-the-roadists will get shot down by both sides.

So it is up to each of us as individuals to make changes that positively
effect our surrounding situations.

~~~
soVeryTired
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Check the energy equations for the
climate science predictions"?

------
gavinpc
Do you have children?

