So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Stephanie wrote:Now, now there you go again, bm. AlGore, the liberal global warming guru, and his family, use far more energy in a year than your family, mine, Aaron's, Mike's and Jimmy's combined. That's quite an accomplishment.

What does it matter what Al Gore does? YOU may not have heard of global warming before he decided to bring it to the public's attention. But I, and the rest of the scientific community, have been aware of the problem for decades. In fact, I was doing research on the effects of sea level rise and changes in ocean current dynamics before I ever heard of Al Gore (although, I had heard that his wife was trying to ban risqué rock-n-roll lyrics). Al Gore has done no original research, he doesn't speak FOR the scientific community, he doesn't even speak for many environmentalists. He happens to be one person who has managed to bring this problem to the attention of the public to a far greater degree than anyone prior. Whether Al Gore sets a good example or not doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of population density in driving down per capita consumption. People in cities aren’t “greener” because out of any conscious effort to reduce energy consumption. It’s due entirely to the fact that they’re forced to crowd together. More live in smaller dwellings, like apartments and condos, have shorter commutes and are forced to use mass transit due to traffic congestion. Would residents of Los Angeles prefer the more wide open quality of life enjoyed by people living in Lexington, Kentucky? Most surely would, but it’s not an option for them. They’ve been crowded out of that kind of life style.

Oh, so they don't enjoy being huddled masses. They just are what they are.

About that global warming thing.....I thought all of you brilliant scientist who believe that global warming is caused by man and is destroying life on this planet had deciding climate change was the better catch phrase. You can't lose....it warms you win, it cools you win...

The climate changes, bm. You fancy yourself some sort of scientist, you know that. It warms it cools.....I think we're on the down side of an interglacial period and soon it's due to get reaaallly chilly.

But if you think it's all the result of the stuff "we're" pumping into the atmosphere, I want you to think about that the next time you mow your lawn or fill up the tank in that boat of yours or fire up the grill.

Then when you're done pondering that you think about what hill of beans it's going to matter if the US stops manufacturing and driving and heating homes when the damn Chinese and Indians are fouling the earth with ever increasing speed making cheaper products etc.

When you come up with a reasonable solution to China & India etc, and then tell me just how you plan on curbing the carbon emissions of the elite-do-as-I-say-not-as-my-richass-does, then talk to me about how much my fellow Americans and I should sacrifice for mother earth.

bmd wrote:In another thread, I presented an quick and dirty analysis (see below) showing that folks in putatively more conservative states tend to use more energy, per capita, than folks in putatively more liberal states. So, does anyone (other than Sam) wanna' take a crack (a serious crack) at "splainin'" this apparent relationship?

bmd wrote:Take the per capita energy use for all the states (and D.C., just for good measure), and rank them, highest to lowest. Then take the Novermber election results. Use the difference in the proportion of votes that McCain and Obama received in each state (i.e, if McCain received 49% of and states votes, and Obama received 45%, with the remainder going to "third party candidates", then the metric for that state would be 0.04. Rank the states (and D.C.) again using these data. Here are the ranks, sorted alphabetically by state, with energy use first, then conservative-liberal rank:

Alabama 7 Alabama 5
Alaska 1 Alaska 6
Arizona 45 Arizona 18
Arkansas 13 Arkansas 7
California 48 California 42
Colorado 39 Colorado 28
Connecticut 46 Connecticut 41
Delaware 20 Delaware 43
District of Columbia 37 District of Columbia 51
Florida 44 Florida 25
Georgia 26 Georgia 20
Hawaii 42 Hawaii 50
Idaho 22 Idaho 4
Illinois 32 Illinois 44
Indiana 9 Indiana 24
Iowa 14 Iowa 29
Kansas 16 Kansas 11
Kentucky 6 Kentucky 9
Louisiana 3 Louisiana 8
Maine 23 Maine 40
Maryland 43 Maryland 45
Massachusetts 49 Massachusetts 46
Michigan 40 Michigan 38
Minnesota 19 Minnesota 31
Mississippi 12 Mississippi 13
Missouri 28 Missouri 22
Montana 10 Montana 21
Nebraska 18 Nebraska 12
Nevada 33 Nevada 33
New Hampshire 47 New Hampshire 30
New Jersey 36 New Jersey 36
New Mexico 21 New Mexico 35
New York 50 New York 47
North Carolina 38 North Carolina 23
North Dakota 4 North Dakota 17
Ohio 25 Ohio 26
Oklahoma 11 Oklahoma 2
Oregon 35 Oregon 37
Pennsylvania 31 Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 51 Rhode Island 48
South Carolina 15 South Carolina 16
South Dakota 24 South Dakota 19
Tennessee 17 Tennessee 10
Texas 5 Texas 15
Utah 34 Utah 3
Vermont 41 Vermont 49
Virginia 27 Virginia 27
Washington 30 Washington 39
West Virginia 8 West Virginia 14
Wisconsin 29 Wisconsin 34
Wyoming 2 Wyoming 1

Now, is there a correlation? The data are not normal, so we can't use parametric stats. But!!! The Pearson Product-Moment method should suffice (it's a very standard statistical method, developed for just this sort of nonparametric situation). The answer? The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rho, in statistico-speak) is 0.72. What the &$^%&! does that mean, you ask? Well, if there were no relationship between the two data sets, rho would approach zero; if the ranks for each state were identical for both data sets, rho would approach one. So, even without getting into assigning a significance value to this stat, 0.72 is pretty highly correlated.

What can we infer from this? Per capita energy use and conservatism are closely related. The more conservative a state is (at least as indicated by the most recent presidential election) the more folks in that state burn up energy. So, guess what? Them wine-drinking, sushi-eating libs really are, on the whole, practicing what they preach.

No. Wine drinking sushi eating liberals are concentrated in cities with high density housing and public transportation.

Add to that cities like San Diego with rather low heating and cooling costs, and you find that California, a state that has to import power, and southern California, a region that has to import water, is hardly the paradigm of virtue that you claim it to be.

Let's have a look at your data, but I will put in Metropolitan Population Percentage (highly dense areas with access to public transit and high density housing) by state. Because we are considering high density as an explanation for energy usage, the number one state for metropolitan population percentage, New Jersey, will be reckoned as fifty, while Vermont, the state with the least, according to the US Census of 2000, will be reckoned as number one. Let's have a look.

Alabama 7 Alabama 5 (24)
Alaska 1 Alaska 6 (8--eight, frickin smiley)
Arizona 45 Arizona 18 (42 !)
Arkansas 13 Arkansas 7 (13!)
California 48 California 42 (49!)
Colorado 39 Colorado 28 (37 !)
Connecticut 46 Connecticut 41 (47 !)
Delaware 20 Delaware 43 (18 !)
District of Columbia 37 District of Columbia 51
Florida 44 Florida 25 (45 !)
Georgia 26 Georgia 20 (28 !)
Hawaii 42 Hawaii 50 (28--twenty-eight, the smilies are unintentional)
Idaho 22 Idaho 4 (7)
Illinois 32 Illinois 44 (40)
Indiana 9 Indiana 24 (27)
Iowa 14 Iowa 29 (11 !)
Kansas 16 Kansas 11 (15 !)
Kentucky 6 Kentucky 9 (12)
Louisiana 3 Louisiana 8 (30)
Maine 23 Maine 40 (6)
Maryland 43 Maryland 45 (44 !- )
Massachusetts 49 Massachusetts 46 (48 !- )
Michigan 40 Michigan 38 (35)
Minnesota 19 Minnesota 31 (26)
Mississippi 12 Mississippi 13 (5)
Missouri 28 Missouri 22 (20)
Montana 10 Montana 21 (3)
Nebraska 18 Nebraska 12 (14)
Nevada 33 Nevada 33 (41)
New Hampshire 47 New Hampshire 30 (17)
New Jersey 36 New Jersey 36 (50)
New Mexico 21 New Mexico 35 (16)
New York 50 New York 47 (43)
North Carolina 38 North Carolina 23 (19)
North Dakota 4 North Dakota 17 (10)
Ohio 25 Ohio 26 (34)
Oklahoma 11 Oklahoma 2 (18--eighteen, whoever thought of the automatic smileys can kiss my ass)
Oregon 35 Oregon 37 (29)
Pennsylvania 31 Pennsylvania 32 (38--thirty-eight, hey I can turn them off!)
Rhode Island 51 Rhode Island 48 (46)
South Carolina 15 South Carolina 16 (25)
South Dakota 24 South Dakota 19 (4)
Tennessee 17 Tennessee 10 (22)
Texas 5 Texas 15 (39)
Utah 34 Utah 3 (31!)
Vermont 41 Vermont 49 (1)
Virginia 27 Virginia 27 (32)
Washington 30 Washington 39 (36)
West Virginia 8 West Virginia 14 (9!)
Wisconsin 29 Wisconsin 34 (21)
Wyoming 2 Wyoming 1 (2 !- )

So under my comparison, 15 states are within three places of energy consumption and lack of metropolitanization. For bmd's consideration of energy consumption verses liberalism, 16 states fall within three places of rank. 3 states make both cases within three places (noted by a -). The people of Vermont are doing fantastically well--that Green Mountain thing really seems to be having an effect!

Conversely, while California may only be 48th in energy consumption, considering that it is 49th (or 2nd) in Metropolitanization), you could be doing better than you are. How is it that Vermont, where it gets colder (and there ARE summers there, too) can do better with energy consumption than you can? And that without cramming Mexicans into high density studio apartments. Is there some San Diego type climate somewhere there that the skiiers have been missing?

Incidentally, there is plenty more to say on the subject, but like many conservatives I have to go to work now.

Don't you know BMD doesn't have to worry about his boat of grill Stephanie. He and his neighbors have 17 million poor people crammed into apartments the size of his garage to offset his carbon footprint?

Well, SheikBen actually attempted something of a valid comparison. I ran the stats.....Drumroll........ Drumroll......... Drumroll........AND what do ya' know? SB's comparison results in a rho of 0.64 (w/o DC this time, since SB didn't have that in his data). So, it would appear that SB's metric does explain a bit more of the pattern than raw density. However, our political ordination STILL is a better predictor of per capita energy use. At the very least this demonstrates that liberals are NOT hypocritical about energy use (that is, after all, the starting point for this discussion), and appears to indicate that they are still a bit more conservative in their per capita use than are political conservatives.

Good job, Sheik!! (But, try not to pull anything patting yourself on the back)

Once again, it's curious that all conservative's are nation building, right's violating, torturing, neo cons because that's how they perceive GWB and DC but liberals aren't high energy wasting, huge carbon footprints because Al Gore and John Edwards are.

The hypocrisy amazes me.

Stephanie wrote:
But if you think it's all the result of the stuff "we're" pumping into the atmosphere, I want you to think about that the next time you mow your lawn or fill up the tank in that boat of yours or fire up the grill.

I hate to pop your bubble, but: most of our yard is xericscaped, and the little patch of lawn that we do have is mowed with a push-mower powered by yours truly; the boat is a SAILboat (it does have a 15hp diesel for getting in and out of the marina, but that burns biodiesel*; and only about 10 - 15 gal/year at that); and the grill probably doesn't burn much more gas than our oven (the grill on the boat is charcoal).

* - It smells kinda' like french fries as we put-put through the harbor.

I would venture the say that the amount of flatulence you put out puts your carbon footprint in the same neighborhood as Al Gore.

Aaron wrote:I would venture the say that the amount of flatulence you put out puts your carbon footprint in the same neighborhood as Al Gore.

And rhetorical auto-coprophagy reduces yours?

People who have to over compensate in one area are making up for a deficiency in another.

Aaron wrote:People who have to over compensate in one area are making up for a deficiency in another.

You should know.

Aaron, why don't you try your best "Yo Mama..." jokes. They'll work about as well as your current rhetoric.

I don't do jokes. Everything I've said is factual.

Aaron wrote:I don't do jokes. Everything I've said is factual.

That's the best joke you managed to tell, yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The FACT is that most of what you post is just opinion. That's why you have such a hard time accepting actual fact.

Aaron,

You seem to think that getting in the last word (or posting the last message to a thread, as the case may be) is equivalent to "winning" an argument. Newsflash!!! IT ISN'T!!!

I'm done with this thread. No one has posted anything to refute the correlation analysis I with which I started this conversation (however, unlike the cherry-picking of others, SB actually took a serious stab at it). You can go ahead and post the last message, if that makes you feel better. But my original objective here, to debunk the notion the liberals (as a group) are somehow hypocritical about energy conservation, has been pretty soundly accomplished.

Three people refuted your claim. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less fact.

I would say see ya but as you think you have to have the last word because you think you're smarter then everyone else, I'm sure you'll have some more tripe to post.

We've both shown a correlation between two things; neither of us have shown any kind of causation.

As such, bmd, you can hardly claim victory.

1-States are not monolithic entities.
2-Correlation does not equal causation.

What you are seeking to do is akin to the old statistician's gag of showing the relationship between murder and ice cream consumption. Sure murders spike in July and August, and so too does the consumption of ice cream. Better get the folks at Ben and Jerry's on the horn!

Maybe a subpoena is in order.

bmd wrote:Aaron,

You seem to think that getting in the last word (or posting the last message to a thread, as the case may be) is equivalent to "winning" an argument. Newsflash!!! IT ISN'T!!!

I'm done with this thread. No one has posted anything to refute the correlation analysis I with which I started this conversation (however, unlike the cherry-picking of others, SB actually took a serious stab at it). You can go ahead and post the last message, if that makes you feel better. But my original objective here, to debunk the notion the liberals (as a group) are somehow hypocritical about energy conservation, has been pretty soundly accomplished.

How Dirksenesque of you bm'd: "Declare victory and then get out!" I am reminded that figures don't lie--sometimes, liars figure.

bmd, the following .......

bmd wrote:In another thread, I presented an quick and dirty analysis (see below) showing that folks in putatively more conservative states tend to use more energy, per capita, than folks in putatively more liberal states. So, does anyone (other than Sam) wanna' take a crack (a serious crack) at "splainin'" this apparent relationship?

bmd wrote:Take the per capita energy use for all the states (and D.C., just for good measure), and rank them, highest to lowest. Then take the Novermber election results. Use the difference in the proportion of votes that McCain and Obama received in each state (i.e, if McCain received 49% of and states votes, and Obama received 45%, with the remainder going to "third party candidates", then the metric for that state would be 0.04. Rank the states (and D.C.) again using these data. Here are the ranks, sorted alphabetically by state, with energy use first, then conservative-liberal rank:

Alabama 7 Alabama 5
Alaska 1 Alaska 6
Arizona 45 Arizona 18
Arkansas 13 Arkansas 7
California 48 California 42
Colorado 39 Colorado 28
Connecticut 46 Connecticut 41
Delaware 20 Delaware 43
District of Columbia 37 District of Columbia 51
Florida 44 Florida 25
Georgia 26 Georgia 20
Hawaii 42 Hawaii 50
Idaho 22 Idaho 4
Illinois 32 Illinois 44
Indiana 9 Indiana 24
Iowa 14 Iowa 29
Kansas 16 Kansas 11
Kentucky 6 Kentucky 9
Louisiana 3 Louisiana 8
Maine 23 Maine 40
Maryland 43 Maryland 45
Massachusetts 49 Massachusetts 46
Michigan 40 Michigan 38
Minnesota 19 Minnesota 31
Mississippi 12 Mississippi 13
Missouri 28 Missouri 22
Montana 10 Montana 21
Nebraska 18 Nebraska 12
Nevada 33 Nevada 33
New Hampshire 47 New Hampshire 30
New Jersey 36 New Jersey 36
New Mexico 21 New Mexico 35
New York 50 New York 47
North Carolina 38 North Carolina 23
North Dakota 4 North Dakota 17
Ohio 25 Ohio 26
Oklahoma 11 Oklahoma 2
Oregon 35 Oregon 37
Pennsylvania 31 Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 51 Rhode Island 48
South Carolina 15 South Carolina 16
South Dakota 24 South Dakota 19
Tennessee 17 Tennessee 10
Texas 5 Texas 15
Utah 34 Utah 3
Vermont 41 Vermont 49
Virginia 27 Virginia 27
Washington 30 Washington 39
West Virginia 8 West Virginia 14
Wisconsin 29 Wisconsin 34
Wyoming 2 Wyoming 1

Now, is there a correlation? The data are not normal, so we can't use parametric stats. But!!! The Pearson Product-Moment method should suffice (it's a very standard statistical method, developed for just this sort of nonparametric situation). The answer? The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rho, in statistico-speak) is 0.72. What the &$^%&! does that mean, you ask? Well, if there were no relationship between the two data sets, rho would approach zero; if the ranks for each state were identical for both data sets, rho would approach one. So, even without getting into assigning a significance value to this stat, 0.72 is pretty highly correlated.

What can we infer from this? Per capita energy use and conservatism are closely related. The more conservative a state is (at least as indicated by the most recent presidential election) the more folks in that state burn up energy. So, guess what? Them wine-drinking, sushi-eating libs really are, on the whole, practicing what they preach.

nothing but pure horseshidt relative to what your are trying to prove.

The "per capita energy use for all the states" doesn't tell you one damn thing about the "lifestyles" of either liberals, conservatives or the queers.

The per capita energy use for the Jackson County, WV is higher than hell and that is because the Alcoa Aluminum Plant is there and it uses electric furnaces.

Hey Miss Dudess, plot yourself another similar chart only this time ..... with vehicle miles driven first, ..... and conservative-liberal rank second.

I'm sure that whatever you come up with ...... you will think it is extremely important for projecting what the DOW will be in 2014 or some other silly nonsense.

And bmd, BE SURE to list all your Degrees, etc. on the finished document so it will impress TRC and your other like kind.



.

I agree that bmd has hardly proven his point; however, I must say that the general topic leads to a whole bunch of fascinating questions.

One of which is why certain states do so much better with energy consumption than others. I would suggest that square footage has a lot to do with heating and cooling, as would the temperature, naturally, of the given area. Neither claim is particularly earth-shattering, but this then leads me to wonder why Vermont as a state is doing so very well?

It certainly is a quite liberal state (except for the gun issue) and perhaps we have here people practicing what they preach (I cannot dismiss that out of hand). I wonder what the business and manufacturing situation is like in Vermont. I was told by PBS (the fount of all knowledge--back when I could get tv stations) that young people are having a hard time staying in the state.

I still wonder what gives? Perhaps the folks in Vermont can tell us a thing or two.

Mrs Sheik just made a fascinating suggestion. She wondered if the folks in Vermont might be heating with wood more than others.

What do you all think, in particular Steph, being from NE?

This was interesting reading as well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92987505