23 ms·

Yale Climate Opinion Maps

149 points by hunglee2 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
awjr 10y ago
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.
- melling 10y ago
  There's a large amount of effort put into denying climate change. There's even a movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg Kilimanjaro isn't losing snow because of global warming but because of deforestation, which I believe is true. https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanjaro-idUSTRE5B72AQ20091208 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanja...
  - arethuza 10y ago
    That article suggests that both global warming and deforestation are factors in the loss of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro: "forests that have disappeared in the past 30 to 40 years on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes -- cut down by villagers for charcoal and open farmland -- were just as much to blame as rising temperatures worldwide" Anyway this would probably only be a big deal if Kilimanjaro was the only mountain worldwide where glaciers are reducing in size - people only appear to be picking on it because it appeared in "An Inconvenient Truth" and imagining that if that one argument is wrong then the whole edifice of global warming collapses. Which really isn't how science works.
- 7952 10y ago
  I think social pressure plays an important role. People are more likely to protect the environment if that is common behaviour in their locality and social group. Policy like this is often more reactive to changing attitudes rather than being just a stick. I would love to see some data on social attitudes towards the environment. Are people starting to dislike big dirty cars?
- nabla9 10y ago
  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-apart http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-... >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.
  - therpe1 10y ago
    Indeed. I think this is the key idea. The rest of the world does not have this aversion to science and I've noticed in France (until very, very recently) "climate skepticism" was rightly understood to be an oxymoron by everybody. There's something unique to the US and the UK[1] that really empowers this kind of "skepticism." People on Hacker News speak seriously of the "debate" but, really, they're actually talking about a very local media phenomenon. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015...
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    Thank you for posting this. A international comparison was what I was hoping to see when I clicked on this article.
- creaghpatr 10y ago
  I rest easy knowing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have burned far more fossil fuels than I ever will in my entire life. When someone throws the 'denier' slur around, I throw a giant steak on my Big Green Egg, grass-fed for extra environmental impact. Edit: I just got off the set of a major motion picture and I've seen firsthand the incredible waste that goes into making movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" which isn't even a huge production. Don't even get me started on Leo's movies, those soundstages didn't light themselves.
  - earthtolazlo 10y ago
    You sound like a joy to interact with.
- thomaskcr 10y ago
  > Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations about our climate, I think the conclusion it's changing and humans are causing it is pretty well supported by that. Past there, we're basing policy decisions on modeling (so 1 level removed from observation) and then predicting the effects of those changes on the environment (2 levels removed from observation). So policy decisions based on projected effects in modeled changes to those parameters are pretty far removed from the actual "97% of scientists agree with this conclusion" part of the field. I live in an affluent area with a good job in a pretty future proof field - it's really easy for me to say "well, who cares if we make the world a better place for no reason". These policy decisions affect a lot of people in negative ways though - to pretend they don't have a valid reason to oppose those changes, and that those policies are based on bullet proof science (especially with the past of climate modeling) is just as anti-science to me as the people who deny the climate is changing. It indicates that a person doesn't understand confidence levels or how errors propagate through layers (especially in an non-linear system) or the difference between an observation, a forecast model and a projection.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.
Insanity 10y ago
Interesting data! I do wonder how this would compare to other countries.
- throwayawnotime 10y ago
  What strikes me the most is the large gap between "it will affect me" and "it will affect future generations".
jeroen94704 10y ago
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.
- minikites 10y ago
  Focusing on the past instead of the future works for a surprising number of people: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/wouldnt-it-be-great-if-the-planet-went-back-to-how-it-used-to-be/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/wouldnt-it-be-great-... > Half of the participants got a future-focused message, like “Looking forward to our nation’s future, there is increasing traffic on the road.” The other half were given a past-focused message, such as “Looking back to our nation’s past, there was less traffic on the road.” > After reading the message, the participants took a survey about it and their opinions on climate change and the environment. Participants who reported that they were conservative rated the past-focused message more positively and showed more pro-environmental attitudes in the survey.
- peteretep 10y ago
  I agree, that's my jaw-drop takeaway from it. I assumed it was science skeptisism, rather than simply being misinformed.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    I wonder if it would be an effective thing in the US to capitalize on that and put up billboards around the country saying something like: "{0}% of all US scientists believe global warming is real, it is almost entirely man-made and a grave threat to humanity". Fill in {0} with 95 or whatever the real number would be after a survey.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      you'd want to make that specifically US climate scientists - physicists or geneticists don't have relevant authority on the subject.
andy_ppp 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > 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.
  - yodsanklai 10y ago
    > I equally roll them at people that talk about it happening as if they've done the calculations themselves The two positions are very different though. There is an overwhelming consensus among specialists that climate change is happening (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/). Why would you roll your eyes at someone that base their understanding of the world on the current scientific knowledge?
untangle 10y ago
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
- s_kilk 10y ago
  > Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think some people are also just burnt out on the overemphasised message and wildly off-base predictions from the early days. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in school in the 90's and 00's we were told half of the landmass would be underwater by 2010. Now I know climate science is more subtle than that but I'd not be surprised if some people came away with the message that Scientists are just foaming at the mouth for no reason.
  - earlyriser 10y ago
    "Half of the landmass", wow. Do you know where your teachers found these numbers?
- zebrafish 10y ago
  I'm curious about who they surveyed and the methods they used to reach the survey takers. I have to think that there is some bias in the surveying methods themselves. I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might. Overall though, I'm with you. Around here its become a foregone conclusion that this is happening but I don't necessarily see many steps taken by the populace to alleviate the symptoms.
  - 10y ago
fierarul 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
charlesdenault 10y ago
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?
- golergka 10y ago
  Future generations.
  - bkkssnn 10y ago
    So dark and so true.
- rubyfan 10y ago
  Optimism bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
  - mnw21cam 10y ago
    Not even that. Say there is a random chance of 1 in 1,000,000 that any given person will be struck by a meteorite. In this case, I can quite happily say that the chance that I will be hit is very small, but the chance that someone will be hit is very high (because there are a lot more someones than just me). If the probability of people being affected is random and independent, then the above explanation holds. If the probability of people being affected is correlated, then it holds less. For example, say there is a random chance of 1 in 10 that the earth will be destroyed by a meteorite. Then, the chance that I will be destroyed is equal to the chance that someone will be destroyed. I think for global warming, it will be somewhere in-between.
- VLM 10y ago
  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.
wuschel 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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/article/view/cp78-sack-et-al/1359 http://www.cartographicperspectives.org/index.php/journal/ar...
  - wuschel 10y ago
    Thank you!
sceew 10y ago
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_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_... . 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 10y ago
  > 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.
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    >>The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming I don't think that is true, in the UK there have been efforts, for instance our coal use is the lowest for 150 years[1]. It isn't anywhere near enough to solve the problem but it isn't nothing either. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-decline-of-coal-use-leads-to-drop-in-uk-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-de...
TorKlingberg 10y ago
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.
fooballs99 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
bradfordarner 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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".
- exclusiv 10y ago
  I can explain that because it's an important data point that should be driving the positioning for the AGW crowd. I personally think that AGW is overblown, the models and methodologies are suspect and I question human's impact on climate change. However, I can easily get behind renewables. We shouldn't be dependent upon finite energy resources, many of which are largely controlled by dictatorships. Our investments in renewable clean energy can bring energy costs down for everyone, they're better for the environment (regardless of whether AGW is real, not debateable), and it could keep our money in our country instead of sending it overseas to non-Allied, terrorist supporting countries (hits pro-Trump, anti-AGW crowd). And oh, on the chance that the AGW crowd is right - we also saved humanity for the win! We've all aligned, some for different reasons. This is the right positioning and the GW alarmists are shooting themselves in the foot because they aren't telling the right story that almost everyone can get behind.
natch 10y ago
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 10y ago
  The hotspots in the Dakotas are slightly correlated to Native American populations from what I can see.
xname2 10y ago
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 10y ago
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 10y ago
oldandtired 10y ago
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.
gavinpc 10y ago
Do you have children?

149 points by hunglee2 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

awjr 10y ago

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.

melling 10y ago
There's a large amount of effort put into denying climate change. There's even a movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg Kilimanjaro isn't losing snow because of global warming but because of deforestation, which I believe is true. https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanjaro-idUSTRE5B72AQ20091208 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanja...
- arethuza 10y ago
  That article suggests that both global warming and deforestation are factors in the loss of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro: "forests that have disappeared in the past 30 to 40 years on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes -- cut down by villagers for charcoal and open farmland -- were just as much to blame as rising temperatures worldwide" Anyway this would probably only be a big deal if Kilimanjaro was the only mountain worldwide where glaciers are reducing in size - people only appear to be picking on it because it appeared in "An Inconvenient Truth" and imagining that if that one argument is wrong then the whole edifice of global warming collapses. Which really isn't how science works.
7952 10y ago
I think social pressure plays an important role. People are more likely to protect the environment if that is common behaviour in their locality and social group. Policy like this is often more reactive to changing attitudes rather than being just a stick. I would love to see some data on social attitudes towards the environment. Are people starting to dislike big dirty cars?
nabla9 10y ago
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-apart http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-... >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.
- therpe1 10y ago
  Indeed. I think this is the key idea. The rest of the world does not have this aversion to science and I've noticed in France (until very, very recently) "climate skepticism" was rightly understood to be an oxymoron by everybody. There's something unique to the US and the UK[1] that really empowers this kind of "skepticism." People on Hacker News speak seriously of the "debate" but, really, they're actually talking about a very local media phenomenon. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015...
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Thank you for posting this. A international comparison was what I was hoping to see when I clicked on this article.
creaghpatr 10y ago
I rest easy knowing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have burned far more fossil fuels than I ever will in my entire life. When someone throws the 'denier' slur around, I throw a giant steak on my Big Green Egg, grass-fed for extra environmental impact. Edit: I just got off the set of a major motion picture and I've seen firsthand the incredible waste that goes into making movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" which isn't even a huge production. Don't even get me started on Leo's movies, those soundstages didn't light themselves.
- earthtolazlo 10y ago
  You sound like a joy to interact with.
thomaskcr 10y ago
> Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations about our climate, I think the conclusion it's changing and humans are causing it is pretty well supported by that. Past there, we're basing policy decisions on modeling (so 1 level removed from observation) and then predicting the effects of those changes on the environment (2 levels removed from observation). So policy decisions based on projected effects in modeled changes to those parameters are pretty far removed from the actual "97% of scientists agree with this conclusion" part of the field. I live in an affluent area with a good job in a pretty future proof field - it's really easy for me to say "well, who cares if we make the world a better place for no reason". These policy decisions affect a lot of people in negative ways though - to pretend they don't have a valid reason to oppose those changes, and that those policies are based on bullet proof science (especially with the past of climate modeling) is just as anti-science to me as the people who deny the climate is changing. It indicates that a person doesn't understand confidence levels or how errors propagate through layers (especially in an non-linear system) or the difference between an observation, a forecast model and a projection.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.

Insanity 10y ago

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

throwayawnotime 10y ago
What strikes me the most is the large gap between "it will affect me" and "it will affect future generations".

jeroen94704 10y ago

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.

minikites 10y ago
Focusing on the past instead of the future works for a surprising number of people: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/wouldnt-it-be-great-if-the-planet-went-back-to-how-it-used-to-be/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/wouldnt-it-be-great-... > Half of the participants got a future-focused message, like “Looking forward to our nation’s future, there is increasing traffic on the road.” The other half were given a past-focused message, such as “Looking back to our nation’s past, there was less traffic on the road.” > After reading the message, the participants took a survey about it and their opinions on climate change and the environment. Participants who reported that they were conservative rated the past-focused message more positively and showed more pro-environmental attitudes in the survey.
peteretep 10y ago
I agree, that's my jaw-drop takeaway from it. I assumed it was science skeptisism, rather than simply being misinformed.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  I wonder if it would be an effective thing in the US to capitalize on that and put up billboards around the country saying something like: "{0}% of all US scientists believe global warming is real, it is almost entirely man-made and a grave threat to humanity". Fill in {0} with 95 or whatever the real number would be after a survey.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    you'd want to make that specifically US climate scientists - physicists or geneticists don't have relevant authority on the subject.

andy_ppp 10y ago

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 10y ago
> 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.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  > I equally roll them at people that talk about it happening as if they've done the calculations themselves The two positions are very different though. There is an overwhelming consensus among specialists that climate change is happening (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/). Why would you roll your eyes at someone that base their understanding of the world on the current scientific knowledge?

untangle 10y ago

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

s_kilk 10y ago
> Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think some people are also just burnt out on the overemphasised message and wildly off-base predictions from the early days. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in school in the 90's and 00's we were told half of the landmass would be underwater by 2010. Now I know climate science is more subtle than that but I'd not be surprised if some people came away with the message that Scientists are just foaming at the mouth for no reason.
- earlyriser 10y ago
  "Half of the landmass", wow. Do you know where your teachers found these numbers?
zebrafish 10y ago
I'm curious about who they surveyed and the methods they used to reach the survey takers. I have to think that there is some bias in the surveying methods themselves. I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might. Overall though, I'm with you. Around here its become a foregone conclusion that this is happening but I don't necessarily see many steps taken by the populace to alleviate the symptoms.
- 10y ago

fierarul 10y ago

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 10y ago
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.

charlesdenault 10y ago

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?

golergka 10y ago
Future generations.
- bkkssnn 10y ago
  So dark and so true.
rubyfan 10y ago
Optimism bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
- mnw21cam 10y ago
  Not even that. Say there is a random chance of 1 in 1,000,000 that any given person will be struck by a meteorite. In this case, I can quite happily say that the chance that I will be hit is very small, but the chance that someone will be hit is very high (because there are a lot more someones than just me). If the probability of people being affected is random and independent, then the above explanation holds. If the probability of people being affected is correlated, then it holds less. For example, say there is a random chance of 1 in 10 that the earth will be destroyed by a meteorite. Then, the chance that I will be destroyed is equal to the chance that someone will be destroyed. I think for global warming, it will be somewhere in-between.
VLM 10y ago
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.

wuschel 10y ago

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 10y ago
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/article/view/cp78-sack-et-al/1359 http://www.cartographicperspectives.org/index.php/journal/ar...
- wuschel 10y ago
  Thank you!

sceew 10y ago

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_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_... . 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 10y ago
> 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.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  >>The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming I don't think that is true, in the UK there have been efforts, for instance our coal use is the lowest for 150 years[1]. It isn't anywhere near enough to solve the problem but it isn't nothing either. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-decline-of-coal-use-leads-to-drop-in-uk-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-de...

TorKlingberg 10y ago

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.

fooballs99 10y ago

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 10y ago
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.

bradfordarner 10y ago

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 10y ago
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".
exclusiv 10y ago
I can explain that because it's an important data point that should be driving the positioning for the AGW crowd. I personally think that AGW is overblown, the models and methodologies are suspect and I question human's impact on climate change. However, I can easily get behind renewables. We shouldn't be dependent upon finite energy resources, many of which are largely controlled by dictatorships. Our investments in renewable clean energy can bring energy costs down for everyone, they're better for the environment (regardless of whether AGW is real, not debateable), and it could keep our money in our country instead of sending it overseas to non-Allied, terrorist supporting countries (hits pro-Trump, anti-AGW crowd). And oh, on the chance that the AGW crowd is right - we also saved humanity for the win! We've all aligned, some for different reasons. This is the right positioning and the GW alarmists are shooting themselves in the foot because they aren't telling the right story that almost everyone can get behind.

natch 10y ago

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 10y ago
The hotspots in the Dakotas are slightly correlated to Native American populations from what I can see.

xname2 10y ago

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 10y ago

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 10y ago

oldandtired 10y ago

gavinpc 10y ago

Do you have children?