Global Warming is a Progressive/USA-Liberal Belief System

No, not my opinion. The result of a survey of who / where it is believed. I’d run into this myself, somewhere or other, then in trying to find it again, found someone else who had posted about it and had the link, so here is their write up:

Opinion of Global Warming by Congressional District
October 25, 2014 by Norbert Haupt
Below is the map of how people responded to the question: “Is global warming a threat to the environment?”

The deeper the red, the more the answer was Yes. The deeper the blue and purple, the more No.

What I take away from that is:

In the cities, in the large metropolitan areas and where most of the universities are, we are leaning to the red, to the Yes. In the coal and oil states we’re in the deep No. And then there is Texas and the South.

The original site is here:

And here is the saved image from Norbert (saving me the trouble of making my own screen capture / edit. Thanks Norbert! ;-)

Click on it for a really big view. (Though, oddly, in Chrome I had to also prune off the
from the end of the URL, after opening it in a new tab, to get the big image… I’m still getting used to the ‘special’ way Chrome behaves some times…)

So the Bos-Wash Corridor (from Boston to Washington where all the government / financier folks live / work) along with some other bits of New England like Vermont. No idea why Vermont would be a hot spot. Perhaps this winter and last will be giving them something to think about while they shovel…

Then a blotch in Wisconsin. I also wonder what is there… Downtown Chicago, no surprise… (zoom in to see it in the big map). Down near Miami where all the retired folks from Bos-Wash move on their government dole. A touch around the Progressive Mecca of Texas: Austin (where a lot of California folks moved when Apple set up shop there a few decades back) and a yellow blob near Denver. Classic.

At that point, it’s off to the West Coast for the core of Seattle, Portland, and then the ultra USA-Liberal/Progressive coastline of California from the Dope Coast Humboldt et. al. to Marin County / San Francisco on down to the L.A. Basin. Missing the Conservative farming and logging oriented Central Valley and Mountains, and also skipping the more Conservative areas like Orange County (named for the orange groves that dominated the farming in prior years), San Diego (think Navy), and other inland / suburbs areas. And the Deserts…

Now there’s a pretty clear take away from this: Most States think global warming is bunk and are skeptics. A few over populated urban progressive/USA-Liberal areas are True Believers. It is very important to find a way for the vast bulk of America to be heard and to bottle up Bos-Wash and the Californian Fruits and Nuts, label it as what it is, and put “Snake Oil” on the front in large letters.

Folks who live with the land. Folks who are up close and personal with the climate and live based on making the right decisions about weather and what to plant are just not seeing any change, nor any reason TO change (or be taxed and regulated more by those government lucre dependent urban cores).

Also, this map needs to be put in front of the Congressional Representatives from all those blue and purple districts with a short note about how soon their next election arrives and just who will be watching how they vote… Heck, even the green ‘neutral’ areas need a poke or two about the snow levels this year, and a reminder that snow, contrary to Global Warming Religion, is NOT warm…

I’d also suggest starting an information campaign from those blue / purple areas. Lock them down, then expand into the greens and yellows. Leave the Orange areas hung out to dry looking ever more loony and extremist. Get the local grange, the local farmers and even the local fishing and hunting groups involved in reporting “No Change Here!” other than some deep cold snow…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Global Warming is a Progressive/USA-Liberal Belief System

  1. philjourdan says:

    The map is nice and merely demonstrates the old adage about fooling all the people all the time.

    If the representatives are not going to look at the science, they will not listen to the people.

  2. Pouncer says:

    When I was 17 up for a scholarship, I had to take some sort of personality profile that asked a bunch of questions, not as a “survey” but as a series of comparisons. The form would start apparently rationally “would you rather work (a) inside like an accountant, or (b) outside like a forest ranger? ” and “Would you rather (a) work with friends who support you or (b) compete with rivals who challenge you?” and “Do you prefer carrots (a) cooked or (b) raw?” But as the questions went on there’d be versions of the form “Do you prefer (a) cooked carrots or (b) working outside?” and “Would you rather (a) work outside, as an accountant or (b) compete with rivals while traveling?” The questions and dilemmas got pretty surreal near the end.

    But the Lomberg reports indicate the same sort of thing on international political policy preferences. You can ask to make “rational” choices such as “Do you expect the climate tomorrow to be (a) about the same as you grew up with or (b) different than you’ve experienced before now?” and “Do you think military alliances (a) deter aggression and prevent war or (b) encourage minor grievances to be contested by force rather than diplomacy?” and get about the results you expect. But if you ask “Would you prefer (a) a military alliance to enforce strict climate-protective carbon-management treaties or (b) allow the science and market to evolve competing national and regional climate responses?” then you get much different and — I believe — informative, sometime surprising, results.

    Better yet: “Consider gun laws, abortion laws, immigration law, the “war on terror”, and carbon dioxide management/ climate change mitigation laws. Imagine a presidential candidate who solidly agrees with you on four of the five issues but is firmly opposed to your views on the fifth. Which of the five policy areas would you sacrifice in order to support a candidate agreeable on the the other four? ” I would predict and expect a broad bi-partisan coalition that would agree, in a heart beat, to abandon “climate” as a political football. Quite obviously this is therefore a form of the question that will never be asked.

  3. LeeHarvey says:

    That red blotch in the middle of Wisconsin is The People’s Republic of Madison.

  4. Ron C. says:

    How about a program where states enact a responsible position regarding climate change.

    An appropriate legislative motion would read like this:

    Whereas, Extent of global sea ice is at or above historical averages;

    Whereas, Populations of polar bears are generally growing;

    Whereas, Sea levels have been slowly rising at the same rate since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago;

    Whereas, Oceans will not become acidic due to buffering from extensive mineral deposits and marine life is well adapted to pH fluctuations that do occur;

    Whereas, Extreme weather events have not increased in recent decades and such events are more associated to periods of cooling rather than warming;

    Whereas, Cold spells, not heat waves, are the greater threat to human life and prosperity;

    Therefore, This chamber agrees that climate is variable and prudent public officials should plan for future periods both colder and warmer than the present. Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and cheap, reliable energy.

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    ” Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and cheap, reliable energy.”

    Understand this and you can create the conditions needed for a National wealth creation system! Bureaucratic oversight and regulation is the brake to such a system. To lead a nation to prosperity is a very simple thing if you can grasp those 3 things. Far too simple for modern educated people to understand. They think that THEY are needed to manage everything for everyone and that infrastructure and energy are inputs that can be reduced as they are too costly for general consumption. pg

  6. Jason Calley says:

    Why is it so difficult for humans to analyze subjects with a little less bias? I won’t say “no bias” but even a little less would be an improvement!

    Consider, Norbert Haupt says: “What I take away from that is: In the cities, in the large metropolitan areas and where most of the universities are, we are leaning to the red, to the Yes. In the coal and oil states we’re in the deep No. And then there is Texas and the South.”

    Mr. Haupt (who believes in Global warming) seems to implicitly assume that support of Global Warming must indicate better knowledge and education, thus it is a more popular belief where the urban universities are… Any bets whether Mr. Haupt has an urban background and a university indoctrination, uh, “education”? And next he implies that disbelief is associated with dealers of coal and oil? And as for “Texas and the South”…. well, that explains itself!

    He says plainly that the question is, “Is global warming a threat to the environment?” but then goes on to say: “It’s pretty hard for me to come up with a scenario where an educated person will say “Well, no, cranking up the Earth’s temperature by 2 degrees Celsius is not a problem at all. Let’s go and melt to Antarctic ice sheet and flood Los Angeles, Miami and New York. Go right ahead.” Doesn’t it dawn on him that an educated person might believe in a “Global Warming” of only 0.2 degrees? Or that maybe it will warm some and the cities WON”T flood? Doesn’t he realize that “Global Warming” might not instantly start at 2 degrees? Does he really believe that 2 degrees of warming is enough to melt an ice cap with an average temperature far, far below zero?

    One of the dangers of intellect is that we think that being bright about one or two subjects means that we have equally bright opinions on other subjects which we have no particular expertise on. I suspect Mr. Haupt is a very bright man — and probably good to his family and friends. How can he be so ignorant (or gullible) about CAGW and yet so sure he is correct?

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    Being educated means they are TRAINED not that they are intelligent. Elitists think that their education confers wisdom and the non-educated are ignorant clods. Country people know better, Wisdom is attained with experience regardless of education.

    pg says: “Those that can, will learn. Those that can not must be taught”.

    People that live in cities depending on unknown others for their welfare, while looking down their noses at country bumpkins that feed and clothe them. People that tend to live outside cities are more independent minded and self sufficient. People in cities tend to be followers and spectators. People in the country must think and plan for themselves. Small wonder that the cities are full of Liberal Progressives and the country people are more Conservative thinking. pg

  8. Jason Calley says:

    @ p.g.
    Yes, only in the city is life so easy and protected that people can afford the luxury (dangerous luxury!) of retaining ideas that contradict reality.

  9. cdquarles says:

    You know what I don’t get from that map? I live in the 3rd CD of Alabama. That’s the one that has the lightest shade. What’s in the 3rd CD? No big cities, just a few small ones. There are only a few relatively small colleges/universities in the CD and there are a lot of military families here and a lot of old fashioned small-town living next to forested areas with lots of hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing, etc., for entertainment. It must be TV then.

    Oh wait, the linked image does not match the linked jpg. It seems as if the link points to a different question than the one referenced by the jpg. Check it out now.

    @ Jason, well I’ve lived in big cities and I’ve lived away from them. It isn’t so much that life in the big city is easier in my estimation. Life in the big city is harder in the sense of relative risk. I much prefer the small town/country life. I don’t have to worry much about no-legged or four-legged critters. I do have to worry about the two-legged ones and having fewer of them around is much safer.

Comments are closed.