So let’s get past the history of this argument that everyone is already sick of.  The conservative side is to point to the vagueness of the predictions, the inconsistencies they see in the data, and the fact that the scientific consensus is NOT actually 97%.  The liberal rebuttal being the results we’ve already observed, a correction of the conservative interpretation of the data and the reassertion of what the actual consensus of scientists is and what it needs to be to matter.  Then it decays into accusations of money, ultimately culminating in a series of conspiracy theories, my favorite of which is that climate change was invented by the largest consumer of coal in the world (China) in order to help Al Gore make millions of dollars.

Both parties, like every other major topic of contention between the parties ends with a complete dismissal of the other camp as idiotic and naive.

In light of how many times I have had this exact discussion on several issues, I see no choice but to attempt to take a different approach.

In the wake of all the contention that has arisen out of the last election cycle, we have all heard the same rallying cry, calling for an end to the vitriolic politics of the past that used these separating issues as their base platform.  It has become all too apparent that we are easier to control when we are divided, and this understanding has spurred a renewed effort to come together, and to cooperate so that we can take our country back for ourselves and dismiss the political monopoly of money’d interests that has been allowed to dictate the laws of our land for far too long.  This suggestion will be my first contribution toward that unifying ideal. And even if it is seen as naive or useless, I think it’s at least a fairly hilarious thought!

The thought came when I happened upon a map, outlining the geographical distribution of liberals vs. conservatives.  My first thought was a reactive comparison, suggesting that a correlation could easily be made, relating political views to a persons exposure to salt water.  I immediately rebuked myself once I remembered Utahs Great Salt Lake AND their title as one of the most conservative states in the country.  So it must have something specifically to do with ocean water!

No, of course not!  These thoughts were ONLY entertained out of complete boredom and I found them HILARIOUS!  But then a rational thought accidentally crept in, in the form of a question.  “What’s going to happen to all these red counties, once the blue counties are all flooded because the red guys decided climate change was a just a conspiracy?”  The answer was obvious.

The displacement of climate refugees in the U.S. represents the onset of a political invasion unlike anything we’ve ever seen.  Of course it depends on how much flooding actually may occur, but at a quick glance it is immediately striking.  Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Boston, New York, Portland, all MAJOR metropolitan areas, almost entirely populated by liberal voters.

Step 1:GTFO! In other words, people tend to run as far away as they can from any problem that is immediately threatening their livelihood. Where do they go?  Inland!  But not just inland.  They would have to go inland to a place that would most likely be able to support their livelihood.  Which leads us to Step 2.

Step 2: But where!?  If you’re a liberal and you have to move, would you rather move somewhere you know that you will have nothing in common with anyone? Or somewhere that may be threatening to provide you with a viable social outlet.  A place that has a tendency to make laws that reflect your beliefs as opposed to the polar opposite.  That’s right!  When it comes down to the choice, the wine connoisseurs will be sure to avoid the dry counties at all costs.  Somewhere well inland that has managed to avoid the religious monopolies of the truly red states.

So where does that lead them??? SWING STATES!  Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconson, Iowa, Arizona. Just between these 6 states, there are 74 electoral votes at stake.

Now take a look at http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

There is a lot of interesting information in this data, the most glaring of which is how we used to vote as a country.  Prior to the 90’s, it was totally common for the winning president to win in a landslide.  It looks like the country was in the habit of uniting behind the best candidate, until you see that Richard Nixon was a part of that trend, and then you begin to wonder if the consensus isn’t just an indication of our susceptibility to the influence of the media… I digress.

The point that I would like you to take away from the election cycles is the tightening margin by which the conservative party are winning by.  Every Democratic victory has been a land slide.  Bill Clinton won both elections by over 200 electoral votes.  George W. Bush one his first election by 10 votes, and his second by only 30. Barack Obama came back to win his first election by almost 200 electoral college votes and his second won by over 120 votes.

Donal Trump won this election by 74 votes.  If he hadn’t won, Pennsylvania and Ohio, he would have lost entirely. Just 2 of those swing states could have cost Republicans the election.

Point being, if the liberals are flooded out of their coastal havens, the Republican party is putting every presidential election for the foreseeable future and immitigable risk.  Couple that with the voting patterns in voters under 30 and there is no doubt that the Republican party is on course for complete dissolution.

In summary, the Republican party no longer has a choice.  It is either going to make the concessions required to exist at all in the future, or it can stay it’s current course and we will watch as it’s elderly base dies off and it’s younger half implodes under the weight of their nearsightedness.

References:
Maps and Cities by Political affiliation: http://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/top-conservative-and-liberal-cities-in-the-united-states/

Potential impact of sea level rise: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/18/how-high-can-the-sea-level-rise-if-all-the-glacial-ice-melted/

Millenial voters: https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11/14/how-millennials-voted

Swing States: http://potus2016.org/swing-states-election-2016/