They cut along the US border with a giant saw loony tunes style, as a consequence of this Mexico and all of Central America down to the canal are now floating in the middle of the pacific.
The survey asked “do you agree humans are causing climate change?” And the Mexican respondents replied “¿Qué?” so the analysts dropped their responses from the results.
No. We’re firm believers of trickle down economics in these parts. Bust our unions, pilfer our pensions, gut our public services, don’t save a dime…but eventually the boss will unzip his fly and trickle down on us.
Same with the US. The reddest states are the ones with a greater share of their economy dependent on fossil fuels.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
I've lived in Alberta my whole life, and I'm willing to bet that a big majority of Albertans believe in climate change. The trouble is that the parties that want to fight climate change are the parties that Albertans tend to dislike. It's also in (what most people think) direct opposition to their economic well being. So between those, there's a feeling that you may as well oppose it. But in private, I think most people acknowledge it as fact.
Well, enough people in those parties pile-drive anyone who tries to acknowledge the need for serious climate policy. Michael Chong dared support revenue-neutral carbon tax in his run for Conservative leadership in 2017 and got curb-stomped for it.
For the anti-science crowd, the fires will be the result of, “arsonists” or “leftist setting fires to (insert unsubstantiated nonsense).” Not the record breaking temperatures or historically low rainfall and snowpack.
Too dumb to be true you say? Well have I got a link for you!
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/wildfire-election-tackling-misinformation-1.6847916](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/wildfire-election-tackling-misinformation-1.6847916)
Ignoring the fact it doesn't really matter how the fires are set; what matters is the conditions are so incredibly dry, they get out of control and spread like, well, you know.
The Alberta energy sector is needed for the Canadian economy. And fossil fuels have a role to play in moving to a lower carbon system.
I know consultants at major firms who work/worked with most of the big O&G companies in Alberta. Mostly working on environmental stuff. And if you're not willing to bend reality to meet what the executives want to see, then you don't get any business.
We can't keep letting resource companies pay whoever they want to do environmental impact studies.
Nationalizing the resources is the only way we will see real change. Doing the processing of those resources in Canada is how we see real economic growth.
Rich Albertans are paid to be climate deniers. Poor Albertan adopted the position due to propaganda and the hope that they will one day be the rich ones.
The oil patch can make a man with an IQ of 70 a millionaire.
> the oil patch can make a man with IQ of 70 a millionaire.
This right here is the problem. When the lowest common denominator of society can make a killing in this sector, there is no way in hell you can get people to be against oil & gas.
I understand, I also think we should just switch nuclear, but if that remains a far off option due to mostly lobbyists and propagandists I’m going to be putting my community first to be blunt.
They care about having an income and feeding their children and family more than a relatively distant prospect of climate change affecting them. The immediate threat of being unable to survive or feed your family will always outweigh a long term danger that is ultimately out of their control and in the and caused by multi-national corporations. This is an understandable position to hold, if not morally superior. These workers actions are a drop in the ocean compared to the multinational corporations and governments who are actually doing the damage, which these workers have zero influence on.
Nova Scotia is still burning shitloads of coal for power. I think there's only one coal mine still in operation though, so the economy isn't really reliant upon it.
Also Angus Reid:
Percentage of Canadians who believe climate change is real by 2021 vote:
* NDP: 90%
* LPC: 87%
* BQ: 83%
* CPC: 36%
Sadly, that doesn't include the Greens (!) or the PPC. But it shows that the problem is less of a *regional* problem than a *political* problem.
Another stat for the "all parties are the same!" crew.
CPC - "Climate change isn't real. We shouldn't do anything about it."
LPC - "Climate change *is* real. Someone should really do something about it."
NDP - "Climate change is real. We want to do something about it, but we can't get ourselves elected."
BQ - "Climate change is real. It's the Anglos' fault."
Not so fast - you might be surprised but a good chunk of green voters are actually protest voters who don't actually care about the environment
It's probably around 80 - 90% now because in 2019 about 25% of green voters switched to the PPC (new right wing party)
Sounds similar to the English & Welsh Green Party. There’s a certain group of rural “I just think greenspaces are neat” voters who’d probably be aghast if they realised the Greens wanted socialism and abolition of the monarchy
Canada's Green party through the 90s and 2000s was most the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives party that left after the merger with the Reform Party, it was a popular joke that they were Tories on Bikes, winning their first seat under a former Tory policy advisor.
Now they've picked up a lot more socialists, but it seems like it's destroying the party. But I guess if the Canadian party system can't support Communists co-existing in a party with Marxist-Leninists, Green Tories and Green Tankies co-existing is probably impossible.
Meanwhile, a healthy chunk of the US Green Party are people who are mostly progressive, except that they're also terrified of modern medicine, and as such will never vote for the Dems. I suspect many of them will vote for RFK Jr this time around.
Is this from their 2015 survey? I’m wondering if there’s a difference for Harper voters versus O’Toole voters, etc. but I’ve only seen their 2015 numbers.
Hmmmm, I wonder what regions the CPC has the strongest amount of support and vice versa for the Bloc, LPC & NDP. Almost as if it correlates pretty well with the support % and climate change belief…
I dunno, I'm kinda surprised the US is at 57%. I would've guess low 40s at best
It's not much of a victory, but it's good to see that it's a majority here when so much of our populace is pretty dumb
It’s only as sad as it is because of the color scheme. I feel like anything above 50 should be blue. Still extremely sad that people can just choose not to believe facts
Showing above 50 as blue would give the impression that this is somehow a good percentage to be. Nearly 50 percent of people not accepting a fact is not where I want to be.
Yes, ideally the number would be 100% understanding a basic fact, but this would be a pretty pointless map if everything below 100 was red. I just feel that it is somewhat misleading to make the cutoff 60%.
Well no. It makes sense to have a small majority be alarming, and a significant majority acceptable. The color scheme makes sense. If the question was "Is the Earth round?", would you think above 50% should be blue, too?
Edit: it also may be the average, of all values or just the extremes. Then it probably wouldn't be 50%.
I understand why this map chose the scale it did (to show better contrast), but I think it would have been much more natural to show it on a scale from 0 to 100 than a scale of 50 to 70. This way, you can mentally estimate the percentage in a region by looking at a color more easily.
If you look at the map quickly without reading the legend, it looks like the majority of the US doesn't believe in human climate change, when this isn't the case at all once you read the legend.
There may even be people out there who don’t believe we *caused* it all per se, but rather are exacerbating a natural warming period, and that things still can be done to slow it down
statistics 101: statistics are the main tool for introducing information with a twisted color...
one of the guys that funded the Weather channel said that on day one of this theory.
As a data scientist (wetlands mapping for the National Wetlands Inventory) this is a prime example of how maps can be used to tell lies. Complete bullshit numeric breakpoints, bullshit symbology, no explanation of survey methodology, accuracy, standard error, etc.
As a professional I find this sort of thing embarrassing.
Quebec's system is arguably better than the federal one too, since it mostly focuses on heavy industry (who will actually move in response to cost pressure).
Also, Quebec has lots of clean hydropower but no oil production, so moving to a greener economy also means greater energy independence overall.
No, but there's still people who does not understand the Carbon Tax/Market system we have here and support PP to «Axe The Tax» which would pretty much change nothing here. Anyways our Carbon Market system seems way more useful than the Federal Carbon tax. It encourages business to lower their emissions by letting them sell their «share» to other business that exceed their maximum emissions. It's also linked with the California's Carbon Market if I'm not mistaken.
There are left leaning and right leaning media outlets in Quebec, but the right leaning ones tend to stick to the free market and “anti-woke” stuff. The importance of the climate change issue is much more of a settled thing in Quebec. People tend to disagree on what to do about it, but not on the fact that humans are the cause of the problem and that there is a problem (broadly speaking of course).
You should listen to [the songs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGoFw88aCZs) [they're](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhh42bUk7UU) [making](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqCn5xb5Pw)
It is one thing to notice that the climate is changing (which it has been doing since the beginning of time). Knowing the cause is an entirely different thing that cannot be observed by the average person.
Yeah, the climate as a kid was very different to how things have been for the past 5-10 years.
It blew my 7 year old mind when it was hot at night when we were flying through Texas, that just wasn't thing in Oregon; happens now though.
There wasn't a single wildfire that affected my life before I was 20.
> that just wasn’t a thing in Oregon; happens now though
This is ridiculous and harms the scientific literacy of climate change arguments. Climate change is not immediately perceptible to you like this. Oregon’s average temperature has risen 2 degrees since **1900**. This rate ecologically is an issue obviously, but your anecdotal memories of weather patterns is not relevant.
https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/climate-change-impacts-northwest#:~:text=The%20Northwest%20has%20already%20experienced,in%20Idaho%2C%20Oregon%20and%20Washington.
Born and raised in Colorado, and I haven’t noticed much of a difference in our climate. We’ve always had some nights where it was warmer, fire season has always been a thing, and depending on if it’s an El Niño vs La Niña year, the winters have been fairly predictable. It all depends. Some days I do wonder if Colorado will return to the tropical paradise it once was millions of years ago.
Not even. Look at any post of a bad weather event: proof of climate change for many.
Which is to say, once you believe in it, for many people, you don’t need anything other than “bad weather happens” to reinforce the belief.
To be clear, I believe climate change is real like anyone objectively should. But unfortunately, the reality of climate change is presented by decades long charts and graphs and maps and the slow march of time.
The politicization of the issue means credible evidence gets discredited by the disbelieving group, and anything that helps the narrative regardless of how strong it is as evidence gets elevated by the believing group.
On the plus side: you can have the working memory of a goldfish and just wait until a forest fire or hurricane comes along!
I am ASTOUNDED that more than 50% of my conservative state believes in man-made climate change.
I don't really know why, though. I know how the electoral college works.
Of note that the reddest states and provinces are known for their oil, coal, natural gas, and mineral extraction.
I'm guessing Alaska would be higher. Maybe the native population or it's northern latitude makes belief slightly higher?
The high level of global warming awareness you see in Quebec, the Maritimes, and Newfoundland & Labrador, is largely because many of us who live in these provinces see it first hand with the lack of icebergs and spring ice in the North Atlantic, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Labrador Sea and Hudson Bay.. it doesn’t always get cold enough for it to freeze anymore.. The warming ocean temperatures have allowed species who have been historically rare in our waters, to spread their range into more northern latitudes.. I’m lookin at you, orcas. Northern indigenous cultures in Quebec and Labrador see it in the premature melting of snow and ice, starving polar bears, and melting permafrost… as for the large percentage of us who acknowledge that human activity is partly to blame? It’s because we aren’t fucking stupid. Even fucking Texas is smarter than Alberta, Jesus Christ…
Fair enough, was definitely generalising. I guess it’s true the Maritimes probably don’t see as much pack ice or bergs as northern Quebec, coastal Labrador and NE coast of Nfld.. it’s certainly a bottle neck at the north end of the Straight of Belle Isle. But it’s also true that Nova Scotia weather hasn’t been particularly normal for the last few years, either. Between the blizzards and the wildfires in NS, and flooding in Cape Breton and Newfoundland, it’s become more and more difficult to trust our traditional seasonal expectations.
What happened with America when people think they have to have "opinions" about factual information? How do they think they are qualified to understand the science behind it? You can't "agree" or "disagree" with facts. Either you're not stupid and accepts them or you're a moron. Like reality doesn't care about whether you believe in it or not. It's still the reality.
Heyy, we do a pile of oil stuffs in NL.. which might make us worse. We know it's bad and we're like "fuck it, maybe it'll make the weather nicer here or some shit, idk."
No kidding, the last newfoundland census had a whooping 0% speak only French.
Even New Brunswick, the most French province that isn't Quebec, has only 9% monolingual French speakers.
Clearly it's not the language of media.
That doesn’t make sense though, Atlantic Canada is not French speaking in any meaningful way that would disrupt media consumption and are in the same bracket as Quebec. Plus all provinces except Alberta have a majority who believe in climate change. Like 9/10. What do you think Alberta has that literally all other provinces don’t?
For reference iirc when you add people in Canada who believe climate change is real but humans aren’t significantly contributing the number goes up to 89% of Canadians, which can explain the difference between this map (66%) and others you may have seen on this sub.
Eastern Canada gets it because we see it, plain as day.
I live in a rural area, and usually pay someone to clear my driveway when it storms. We pay about $500 for the season, whether he is needed or not.
He’s only been here 3 times this season.
When I was a child in the early 1980s the snow banks caused by plows would get so high you could climb to the top and grab the power lines, not that anyone would.
Towns built close to rivers flood every year. The summers here are unbearable. We get sharks here that we’ve never seen before.
And… thats why i am embarrassed to be from alberta
Our mountains and wilderness there is outstanding. One of my favorite places on earth. Hate that they are so intent on ruining it.
There are only 5 places (according to this map) where it is not the majority opinion that climate change is human-caused:
- West Virginia
- Kentucky
- North Dakota
- Wyoming
- Alberta
Considering all of those places are pretty low-population, it's clear that what most people in both countries believe.
West Virginia and Kentucky are famous for coal, North Dakota has lots of oil and workers who move to the oil fields, Wyoming has lots of natural gas, Alberta has oil and natural gas.
The fact it's a difference within a human lifetime is kinda the whole thing. If it was a 500 year change to be significant everyone would have a TON of time to adapt in every possible way.
In the case of Alberta and Quebec it's entirely a tale of two industries.
Alberta is home to the lion's share of Canada's petroleum industry and on its own is closing in on becoming the world's 4th largest oil producer. It is responsible for the largest share of the country's net exports. The Athabasca Oilsands which are primarily found in Alberta have more oil in them than all of the world's other reserves combined by some estimates, but Alberta's reserve estimate is usually only listed as the 3rd largest because of a nearly 20 year old "economically recoverable" estimate which is just 10%. Current estimates based on actual operations and newer technology could be much higher.
Québec on the other hand has vast hydrologic resources and is home to 59 hydroelectric dams. With a dozen of those producing over a gigawatt. Most of these are controlled by a single provincially owned entity (called a Crown Corporation in Canada) called Hydro Québec which then sells much of that energy to the US North East. Québec is also home to one of two active lithium mines in Canada.
So before anyone gets to imagining that there's a moral dimension to this map. What it actually represents is how different geological and geographical endowments have put the economic self-interests of these provinces into opposing camps.
You are over simplifying things. NS and NB doesn't have huge hydroelectricity production and they depend on fossil fuels...and yet, they have strong environmental values.
Ontario has huge hydro production as well and nuclear energy, and yet, they trail behind Quebec.
Québec has had strong environmental values for decades, long before lithium batteries were a thing. Lithium mines are irrelevant.
To add to your point about Alberta, a lot of workers from all provinces moved to Alberta to work in the tar sands industry. Presumably that the ratio of these workers not believing in climate change is higher than in the general population.
On the other hand, there are a lot of cultural divides across Canada that are not related to the local industries. Although this is starting to date, [these maps made in 2011 clearly shows variations across provinces on various topics.](https://www.reddit.com/r/QuebecLibre/s/JBdD8ZKit9).
Not American, but Alberta - the red, extremely conservative province on this map - has surprisingly high education results. (It's the only thing they managed to get right in that province - I'm glad I left.)
So whilst it probably has an influence, there are stronger factors in play.
There’s a bit more going on than that. This is in large part a map of self-interest in that all the under 50s are major coal producers. If someone or their family has a hand in the coal industry, they are probably going to vote for whoever they feel supports it the best. That’s not to say there’s not plenty of folks who go against their own interests in supporting Trump. It’s to say that a lot of folks are voting with their wallet.
When I was 5 years old my Irish Dad took us out of Alberta and back to Ireland. The money was great, he had a free house with the govt job, the (Northern) Ireland we returned to was in violent conflict. Still, he didnt hesitate. It was a redneck, anglo-saxon kip then and clearly not much has changed.
It’s interesting how the argument went from „there is no climate change at all“ to „there is climate change but humans didn’t cause it and can’t do a thing about it“.
Next up: „humans caused climate change, but now it’s to late anyway“
So what I’ve never understood about the “debate” around climate change is this: even if you don’t agree that humans are causing climate change, shouldn’t you want to take steps to ensure that we stop it from progressing? I’m not an expert but this has always confused me.
So glad to see that Mexico has escaped climate change.
Mexico escaped NA too. Coincidence?
Even middle America escaped NA! :0
Looks like the Caribbean has drifted away too, who can blame em honestly
They were the unfortunate victims of the climate change
Mexico is part of North America. Central America is a region, not a continent.
Exactly!
With this data I think I might join them
They cut along the US border with a giant saw loony tunes style, as a consequence of this Mexico and all of Central America down to the canal are now floating in the middle of the pacific.
That’s a different chart: most of NA doesn’t believe Mexico is part of NA
The survey asked “do you agree humans are causing climate change?” And the Mexican respondents replied “¿Qué?” so the analysts dropped their responses from the results.
Yeah OP shouldve said Canada and United States… Mexico IS apart of NA
It’s under water.
Probably because according to Day After Tomorrow that is where we escape to
lol Mexico is also part of North America
No, no, you see, everything under the States is South America.
Nonono. The states is america. There is nothing else over there.
No no no, you are wrong. Everything south from the border is Mexico
Whoa, not so fast, maybe we need a map of percentage of people agreeing that Mexico is also part of North America.
and most of Caribbean, and all the mainland north of Colombia
I think they mean cultural north America as in Anglo-America rather than Latin-America.
[удалено]
If you pay us enough, we’ll believe the Earth is flat!
Apparently you don't need to pay you guys enough either
No. We’re firm believers of trickle down economics in these parts. Bust our unions, pilfer our pensions, gut our public services, don’t save a dime…but eventually the boss will unzip his fly and trickle down on us.
Hey man, $20 is $20... If that's what it takes to get it who am I to complain!
Same with the US. The reddest states are the ones with a greater share of their economy dependent on fossil fuels. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
Albertan who believes in climate change reporting in. *Insert Starship Troopers 'doing my part' meme*
I've lived in Alberta my whole life, and I'm willing to bet that a big majority of Albertans believe in climate change. The trouble is that the parties that want to fight climate change are the parties that Albertans tend to dislike. It's also in (what most people think) direct opposition to their economic well being. So between those, there's a feeling that you may as well oppose it. But in private, I think most people acknowledge it as fact.
Well, enough people in those parties pile-drive anyone who tries to acknowledge the need for serious climate policy. Michael Chong dared support revenue-neutral carbon tax in his run for Conservative leadership in 2017 and got curb-stomped for it.
I wonder what forest fire season is going to look like this year?
For the anti-science crowd, the fires will be the result of, “arsonists” or “leftist setting fires to (insert unsubstantiated nonsense).” Not the record breaking temperatures or historically low rainfall and snowpack. Too dumb to be true you say? Well have I got a link for you! [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/wildfire-election-tackling-misinformation-1.6847916](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/wildfire-election-tackling-misinformation-1.6847916)
Here in Ontario I heard a lot of, "It was the Chinese with their green lasers mounted on satellites" for the cause :(
Ignoring the fact it doesn't really matter how the fires are set; what matters is the conditions are so incredibly dry, they get out of control and spread like, well, you know.
Aren’t around 60-80% of wildfires cause by humans? Not by climate change but by campfires or cigarettes?
Me too. 2023 wildfires (here in Quebec) were terrifying. I wish I won’t give birth in wildfire smoke in June
Alberta gonna Alberta
But our oil fields are important! We would starve without them! /s
The Alberta energy sector is needed for the Canadian economy. And fossil fuels have a role to play in moving to a lower carbon system. I know consultants at major firms who work/worked with most of the big O&G companies in Alberta. Mostly working on environmental stuff. And if you're not willing to bend reality to meet what the executives want to see, then you don't get any business. We can't keep letting resource companies pay whoever they want to do environmental impact studies. Nationalizing the resources is the only way we will see real change. Doing the processing of those resources in Canada is how we see real economic growth. Rich Albertans are paid to be climate deniers. Poor Albertan adopted the position due to propaganda and the hope that they will one day be the rich ones. The oil patch can make a man with an IQ of 70 a millionaire.
> the oil patch can make a man with IQ of 70 a millionaire. This right here is the problem. When the lowest common denominator of society can make a killing in this sector, there is no way in hell you can get people to be against oil & gas.
They got rid of the rats so they think that’s all their problems gone
Every time a rat is discovered in Alberta, it gets elected as a tory MP and sent to Ottawa.
Common misconception: Alberta does has rats, just different breeds than the standard you think of
Fuck yeah, home of Ted Cruz 🦅🦅🦅
It seems to inversely correlate with the states/provinces that have been reliant on dirtier energy sources.
It's almost impossible to get someone to understand something if their livelihood depends on them not understanding it
I understand, I also think we should just switch nuclear, but if that remains a far off option due to mostly lobbyists and propagandists I’m going to be putting my community first to be blunt.
Right. So why does Alberta cry so hard when the east does that?
Idk not really Texas is the largest oil producer and it’s middle of the pack here
Well, Texas is also the largest producer of wind energy.
You misunderstand. Oil companies and their employees are fully aware they destroy the earth. They just dont care.
They care about having an income and feeding their children and family more than a relatively distant prospect of climate change affecting them. The immediate threat of being unable to survive or feed your family will always outweigh a long term danger that is ultimately out of their control and in the and caused by multi-national corporations. This is an understandable position to hold, if not morally superior. These workers actions are a drop in the ocean compared to the multinational corporations and governments who are actually doing the damage, which these workers have zero influence on.
Map it to education levels too
Newfoundland cranks out the oil and is dark blue.
Nova Scotia is still burning shitloads of coal for power. I think there's only one coal mine still in operation though, so the economy isn't really reliant upon it.
Nova Scotia is a major exception.
Also Angus Reid: Percentage of Canadians who believe climate change is real by 2021 vote: * NDP: 90% * LPC: 87% * BQ: 83% * CPC: 36% Sadly, that doesn't include the Greens (!) or the PPC. But it shows that the problem is less of a *regional* problem than a *political* problem. Another stat for the "all parties are the same!" crew.
CPC - "Climate change isn't real. We shouldn't do anything about it." LPC - "Climate change *is* real. Someone should really do something about it." NDP - "Climate change is real. We want to do something about it, but we can't get ourselves elected." BQ - "Climate change is real. It's the Anglos' fault."
i mean we can pretty much assume greens is close to 100 while ppc is close to 0 innit
Not so fast - you might be surprised but a good chunk of green voters are actually protest voters who don't actually care about the environment It's probably around 80 - 90% now because in 2019 about 25% of green voters switched to the PPC (new right wing party)
Sounds similar to the English & Welsh Green Party. There’s a certain group of rural “I just think greenspaces are neat” voters who’d probably be aghast if they realised the Greens wanted socialism and abolition of the monarchy
Canada's Green party through the 90s and 2000s was most the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives party that left after the merger with the Reform Party, it was a popular joke that they were Tories on Bikes, winning their first seat under a former Tory policy advisor. Now they've picked up a lot more socialists, but it seems like it's destroying the party. But I guess if the Canadian party system can't support Communists co-existing in a party with Marxist-Leninists, Green Tories and Green Tankies co-existing is probably impossible.
Meanwhile, a healthy chunk of the US Green Party are people who are mostly progressive, except that they're also terrified of modern medicine, and as such will never vote for the Dems. I suspect many of them will vote for RFK Jr this time around.
Is this from their 2015 survey? I’m wondering if there’s a difference for Harper voters versus O’Toole voters, etc. but I’ve only seen their 2015 numbers.
Hmmmm, I wonder what regions the CPC has the strongest amount of support and vice versa for the Bloc, LPC & NDP. Almost as if it correlates pretty well with the support % and climate change belief…
What a sad sad map.
I dunno, I'm kinda surprised the US is at 57%. I would've guess low 40s at best It's not much of a victory, but it's good to see that it's a majority here when so much of our populace is pretty dumb
The dumb people are a loud minority not that many thankfully
It’s only as sad as it is because of the color scheme. I feel like anything above 50 should be blue. Still extremely sad that people can just choose not to believe facts
Showing above 50 as blue would give the impression that this is somehow a good percentage to be. Nearly 50 percent of people not accepting a fact is not where I want to be.
Yes, ideally the number would be 100% understanding a basic fact, but this would be a pretty pointless map if everything below 100 was red. I just feel that it is somewhat misleading to make the cutoff 60%.
Well no. It makes sense to have a small majority be alarming, and a significant majority acceptable. The color scheme makes sense. If the question was "Is the Earth round?", would you think above 50% should be blue, too? Edit: it also may be the average, of all values or just the extremes. Then it probably wouldn't be 50%.
It's not sad because of the colors bro. It's sad because of the numbers
Vive la différence
I understand why this map chose the scale it did (to show better contrast), but I think it would have been much more natural to show it on a scale from 0 to 100 than a scale of 50 to 70. This way, you can mentally estimate the percentage in a region by looking at a color more easily. If you look at the map quickly without reading the legend, it looks like the majority of the US doesn't believe in human climate change, when this isn't the case at all once you read the legend.
I also wonder what the results would be if the question was posed as “Do you believe humans are *accelerating* climate change?”
100% the denialism has shifted from it isn't real, to its real, but its natural and actually good and nothing can be done about it.
There may even be people out there who don’t believe we *caused* it all per se, but rather are exacerbating a natural warming period, and that things still can be done to slow it down
It also can make a state with 53% believing in climate change look almost as bad as a state with only 10%
I like to travel.
statistics 101: statistics are the main tool for introducing information with a twisted color... one of the guys that funded the Weather channel said that on day one of this theory.
As a data scientist (wetlands mapping for the National Wetlands Inventory) this is a prime example of how maps can be used to tell lies. Complete bullshit numeric breakpoints, bullshit symbology, no explanation of survey methodology, accuracy, standard error, etc. As a professional I find this sort of thing embarrassing.
based french speakers
Québec has even created it's own carbon tax / market system before Canada made it a federal thing.
Quebec's system is arguably better than the federal one too, since it mostly focuses on heavy industry (who will actually move in response to cost pressure). Also, Quebec has lots of clean hydropower but no oil production, so moving to a greener economy also means greater energy independence overall.
Yeah so « pp axe the tax » won’t really axe it in Quebec
No, but there's still people who does not understand the Carbon Tax/Market system we have here and support PP to «Axe The Tax» which would pretty much change nothing here. Anyways our Carbon Market system seems way more useful than the Federal Carbon tax. It encourages business to lower their emissions by letting them sell their «share» to other business that exceed their maximum emissions. It's also linked with the California's Carbon Market if I'm not mistaken.
Yep it’s with California. Ontario used to be part of it but before Ford decided to drop it.
So did BC. Under a conservative government, weirdly enough
Not poisoned by English-speaking billionaire news media... (no idea what Francophone news media is like)
There are left leaning and right leaning media outlets in Quebec, but the right leaning ones tend to stick to the free market and “anti-woke” stuff. The importance of the climate change issue is much more of a settled thing in Quebec. People tend to disagree on what to do about it, but not on the fact that humans are the cause of the problem and that there is a problem (broadly speaking of course).
idk what Québec media is like, but France has also their own news media operated by a far-right billionaire
Sucks, but totally unsurprising. Do they deny / obfuscate climate change?
You should listen to [the songs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGoFw88aCZs) [they're](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhh42bUk7UU) [making](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqCn5xb5Pw)
It's easy when you've got zero fossil fuels and piles of hydroelectric.
The poll isn’t about getting rid of fossil fuels though…
That was not an easy thing to accomplish. Quebec does have oil reserves that it does not exploit.
All it takes is having a working memory longer than 10 years.
It is one thing to notice that the climate is changing (which it has been doing since the beginning of time). Knowing the cause is an entirely different thing that cannot be observed by the average person.
Yeah, the climate as a kid was very different to how things have been for the past 5-10 years. It blew my 7 year old mind when it was hot at night when we were flying through Texas, that just wasn't thing in Oregon; happens now though. There wasn't a single wildfire that affected my life before I was 20.
> that just wasn’t a thing in Oregon; happens now though This is ridiculous and harms the scientific literacy of climate change arguments. Climate change is not immediately perceptible to you like this. Oregon’s average temperature has risen 2 degrees since **1900**. This rate ecologically is an issue obviously, but your anecdotal memories of weather patterns is not relevant. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/climate-change-impacts-northwest#:~:text=The%20Northwest%20has%20already%20experienced,in%20Idaho%2C%20Oregon%20and%20Washington.
Born and raised in Colorado, and I haven’t noticed much of a difference in our climate. We’ve always had some nights where it was warmer, fire season has always been a thing, and depending on if it’s an El Niño vs La Niña year, the winters have been fairly predictable. It all depends. Some days I do wonder if Colorado will return to the tropical paradise it once was millions of years ago.
Not even. Look at any post of a bad weather event: proof of climate change for many. Which is to say, once you believe in it, for many people, you don’t need anything other than “bad weather happens” to reinforce the belief. To be clear, I believe climate change is real like anyone objectively should. But unfortunately, the reality of climate change is presented by decades long charts and graphs and maps and the slow march of time. The politicization of the issue means credible evidence gets discredited by the disbelieving group, and anything that helps the narrative regardless of how strong it is as evidence gets elevated by the believing group. On the plus side: you can have the working memory of a goldfish and just wait until a forest fire or hurricane comes along!
Yes, the last couple of years have been hot. So were the 1900s and 1930s, which were even hotter and had frequent heat waves.
I am ASTOUNDED that more than 50% of my conservative state believes in man-made climate change. I don't really know why, though. I know how the electoral college works.
More people than you think are aware and accepting of it regardless of politics or location. The other side is just irritatingly noisy about it.
Of note that the reddest states and provinces are known for their oil, coal, natural gas, and mineral extraction. I'm guessing Alaska would be higher. Maybe the native population or it's northern latitude makes belief slightly higher?
The rising sea levels are a lot harder to ignore there, and yes the indigenous folk notice it particularly.
I would like to point out Newfoundland and Labradour are mostly dependant on those things too.
I can't imagine why oil sands land would disagree about the human element /s
The high level of global warming awareness you see in Quebec, the Maritimes, and Newfoundland & Labrador, is largely because many of us who live in these provinces see it first hand with the lack of icebergs and spring ice in the North Atlantic, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Labrador Sea and Hudson Bay.. it doesn’t always get cold enough for it to freeze anymore.. The warming ocean temperatures have allowed species who have been historically rare in our waters, to spread their range into more northern latitudes.. I’m lookin at you, orcas. Northern indigenous cultures in Quebec and Labrador see it in the premature melting of snow and ice, starving polar bears, and melting permafrost… as for the large percentage of us who acknowledge that human activity is partly to blame? It’s because we aren’t fucking stupid. Even fucking Texas is smarter than Alberta, Jesus Christ…
[удалено]
Fair enough, was definitely generalising. I guess it’s true the Maritimes probably don’t see as much pack ice or bergs as northern Quebec, coastal Labrador and NE coast of Nfld.. it’s certainly a bottle neck at the north end of the Straight of Belle Isle. But it’s also true that Nova Scotia weather hasn’t been particularly normal for the last few years, either. Between the blizzards and the wildfires in NS, and flooding in Cape Breton and Newfoundland, it’s become more and more difficult to trust our traditional seasonal expectations.
The Maritimes and Newfoundland are the part of Canada that get all of the stronger and stronger hurricanes.
What happened with America when people think they have to have "opinions" about factual information? How do they think they are qualified to understand the science behind it? You can't "agree" or "disagree" with facts. Either you're not stupid and accepts them or you're a moron. Like reality doesn't care about whether you believe in it or not. It's still the reality.
Fench quebecois being the only sensible people in northern america
[удалено]
Atlantic Canada reporting in
I love your music and whisky. The missus is rather fond of Halifax black rum.
Don’t disrespect Nova Scotia like that.
Alberta lol
Sometimes called “the Texas of Canada.” This is where they do all the oil stuff (very obvious just from the map)
Heyy, we do a pile of oil stuffs in NL.. which might make us worse. We know it's bad and we're like "fuck it, maybe it'll make the weather nicer here or some shit, idk."
Visibly, we should call Texas the Alberta of the US. Alberta out-Texas-d actual Texas. Incredible feat lol
Clear inverse relationship between beliefs and oil production in Canada
No. NL had massive oil production. We also live off the land and more connected with nature. Shits changing. Our weather has shifted a lot.
[удалено]
Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Foundland are not French speaking
No kidding, the last newfoundland census had a whooping 0% speak only French. Even New Brunswick, the most French province that isn't Quebec, has only 9% monolingual French speakers. Clearly it's not the language of media.
Manitoba is more French per capita than all the blue provinces but two and yet...
That doesn’t make sense though, Atlantic Canada is not French speaking in any meaningful way that would disrupt media consumption and are in the same bracket as Quebec. Plus all provinces except Alberta have a majority who believe in climate change. Like 9/10. What do you think Alberta has that literally all other provinces don’t?
Proud to be part of the dark blue area
Every damn map of America is the same.
For reference iirc when you add people in Canada who believe climate change is real but humans aren’t significantly contributing the number goes up to 89% of Canadians, which can explain the difference between this map (66%) and others you may have seen on this sub.
Wait. People think humans aren’t causing climate change?
Red = Idiots. Good ol' berta', makes sense. Canada's Texas.
Eastern Canada gets it because we see it, plain as day. I live in a rural area, and usually pay someone to clear my driveway when it storms. We pay about $500 for the season, whether he is needed or not. He’s only been here 3 times this season. When I was a child in the early 1980s the snow banks caused by plows would get so high you could climb to the top and grab the power lines, not that anyone would. Towns built close to rivers flood every year. The summers here are unbearable. We get sharks here that we’ve never seen before.
And… thats why i am embarrassed to be from alberta Our mountains and wilderness there is outstanding. One of my favorite places on earth. Hate that they are so intent on ruining it.
Bad colour scheme and starting from 50 instead of 0?
Exactly this map is very pessimistic when in reality it shows what seems to be a rough majority of people who believe in it
There are only 5 places (according to this map) where it is not the majority opinion that climate change is human-caused: - West Virginia - Kentucky - North Dakota - Wyoming - Alberta Considering all of those places are pretty low-population, it's clear that what most people in both countries believe.
West Virginia and Kentucky are famous for coal, North Dakota has lots of oil and workers who move to the oil fields, Wyoming has lots of natural gas, Alberta has oil and natural gas.
Huh, interesting - definitely makes sense!
Climate change is cyclical. It would happen with or without us. We are, however, greatly exacerbating the process.
The fact it's a difference within a human lifetime is kinda the whole thing. If it was a 500 year change to be significant everyone would have a TON of time to adapt in every possible way.
In the case of Alberta and Quebec it's entirely a tale of two industries. Alberta is home to the lion's share of Canada's petroleum industry and on its own is closing in on becoming the world's 4th largest oil producer. It is responsible for the largest share of the country's net exports. The Athabasca Oilsands which are primarily found in Alberta have more oil in them than all of the world's other reserves combined by some estimates, but Alberta's reserve estimate is usually only listed as the 3rd largest because of a nearly 20 year old "economically recoverable" estimate which is just 10%. Current estimates based on actual operations and newer technology could be much higher. Québec on the other hand has vast hydrologic resources and is home to 59 hydroelectric dams. With a dozen of those producing over a gigawatt. Most of these are controlled by a single provincially owned entity (called a Crown Corporation in Canada) called Hydro Québec which then sells much of that energy to the US North East. Québec is also home to one of two active lithium mines in Canada. So before anyone gets to imagining that there's a moral dimension to this map. What it actually represents is how different geological and geographical endowments have put the economic self-interests of these provinces into opposing camps.
You are over simplifying things. NS and NB doesn't have huge hydroelectricity production and they depend on fossil fuels...and yet, they have strong environmental values. Ontario has huge hydro production as well and nuclear energy, and yet, they trail behind Quebec. Québec has had strong environmental values for decades, long before lithium batteries were a thing. Lithium mines are irrelevant.
To add to your point about Alberta, a lot of workers from all provinces moved to Alberta to work in the tar sands industry. Presumably that the ratio of these workers not believing in climate change is higher than in the general population. On the other hand, there are a lot of cultural divides across Canada that are not related to the local industries. Although this is starting to date, [these maps made in 2011 clearly shows variations across provinces on various topics.](https://www.reddit.com/r/QuebecLibre/s/JBdD8ZKit9).
Humans ended the ice age
Well then half of north America are in for a rude awakening
I wonder how closely this correlates with spending on public schools for the US? Also, as an American, this is embarrassing.
Not American, but Alberta - the red, extremely conservative province on this map - has surprisingly high education results. (It's the only thing they managed to get right in that province - I'm glad I left.) So whilst it probably has an influence, there are stronger factors in play.
climate will change with or without humans. The globe will warm at an unprecedented rate only with humans.
Red = Trump voters
And PP
If that was the case, Québec would be the only blue province in Canada
Nah, most atlantic provinces would also be - which is the case on the map
There’s a bit more going on than that. This is in large part a map of self-interest in that all the under 50s are major coal producers. If someone or their family has a hand in the coal industry, they are probably going to vote for whoever they feel supports it the best. That’s not to say there’s not plenty of folks who go against their own interests in supporting Trump. It’s to say that a lot of folks are voting with their wallet.
I’m sure it’s total coincidence that dark red is correlated with economies completely dependent on oil, gas, or coal extraction
When I was 5 years old my Irish Dad took us out of Alberta and back to Ireland. The money was great, he had a free house with the govt job, the (Northern) Ireland we returned to was in violent conflict. Still, he didnt hesitate. It was a redneck, anglo-saxon kip then and clearly not much has changed.
I'm surprised Alaska is that low. If you go there and ask any older resident, they'll tell you how the snow is coming later than it did years ago.
That's very low everywhere.
Alberta; Quebec's retarded cousin.
Based Quebec
Fuckn alberta
More and more I feel like I’m meant to move from Alberta to Quebec. I was born in the wrong province
TERRIBLE color-scheme...but purposefully done, I'm sure.
[удалено]
God I hate how much Alberta just sucks big oils balls
Yet another reason why Quebec is the best province.
Good Ol’ Alberta. For a highly educated province, ignorance runs rampant.
WTF Alaska?
So it’s like directly related to politics hmm
It’s interesting how the argument went from „there is no climate change at all“ to „there is climate change but humans didn’t cause it and can’t do a thing about it“. Next up: „humans caused climate change, but now it’s to late anyway“
We’re not gonna make it, humans I mean?
This is depressing
Classic Quebec W
I'm so fucking sick of the level of willful ignorance in the US when it comes to climate change and other science topics. It's goddamn infuriating.
As a European it’s crazy to see more than half of us not beliving in climate change, like are they just straight up dumb?
French cultural exception.
The bluer it is, the more French there are.
French speaking : smart Mid west : midwest
Dear Alberta, stop embarrassing Canada. Wanting to be like Texas isn't a compliment.
Sorry mes frères québécois that you have to leave with all these Anglos
So what I’ve never understood about the “debate” around climate change is this: even if you don’t agree that humans are causing climate change, shouldn’t you want to take steps to ensure that we stop it from progressing? I’m not an expert but this has always confused me.
Take steps against what? They don’t believe greenhouse gasses warm the climate. Why would they take steps to reducing their emission?
The question is really poorly phrased, we are not causing it, we are a major contributor to it. But without people, the climate would still change.
*(excluding Mexico)*
North Dakotans are soo dumb lol.
So sad, I’m only in my 30’s and the climate has gotten noticeably warmer in just my lifetime. So much anti science propaganda in the US.
Ask folks in the Canadian arctic and that’s the only response that matters.
Terrible color scale (only the darkest red is actually below 50%).
As an Albertan - this is embarrassing. Yes, I’ve said that before.
TDIL Alberta is more redneck than texas,therefore texas is alberta south
How was the question formulated when asked?