Timeline for right wingers acceptance of mainstream science:
On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. 156 years later most polling indicates that approximately 37% of conservatives accept the Theory of Evolution. Thus we can conclude that by 2060 the majority of conservatives will accept what has been universally accepted in science for 150 years now.
The first IPCC assessment was released in 1990. Thus we can assume that the majority of conservatives will not accept AGW until approximately 2190. As it seems to take approximately 8 generations for conservatives to arrive at the same position that mainstream science can arrive at in 1 generation. :2razz:
I never suggested they did. I understand it can be difficult when you comment on something without the benefit of content or context.
LOL
I have no idea where you are in your thinking my friend. Perhaps you were struck by something in that intersection.
I presented what I've learned, including the massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Another poster attempted to present a rebuttal, but only established that these releases could stay in the atmosphere for centuries. I have no idea how you have concluded I suggested atmospheric CO2 was not impacted by these events.
Perhaps before you complain about the right and science, you should strive to improve your ability to comprehend what you are reading. It would make the complaint so much more impactful.
This may be true, but I'll bet you politicians respond much more to citizens lining up at polling stations to vote and they listen to them when they scream about the increasing costs in their daily lives as a result, partially, of inefficient and exceedingly costly green energy alternatives. You can also bet that most people who vote have no interest in exchanging their comfortable lives to live in the equivalent of a cave.
As for politicians paying attention to large crowds marching, regale us if you would with all the legislation and government action that resulted from the summer sit-in and march-fest around Occupy Wall Street. The 300,000 in NYC were basically the same band of union activists, brainwashed teenagers, and societal miscreants looking for a street party to pass the time.
This pretty much sums up the climate change deniers. They are in the proud tradition of conservative ignorance and backward anti-science.
In all fairness, crunchy liberals can buy into pretty absurd crap as well. Just look at the anti-vax bunch or how neurotic some hardcore libs are about GMOs, and don't get me started on the gluten free nonsense. However, the anti-science on the left more or less follows trends, and only lasts a few years to a decade or so before they move on to something else. Moreover, stupid liberals get ridiculed by other liberals. For example, most liberals are not anti-vaccinations, so the ones that are get ridiculed by the ones that are not so ignorant.
I seriously doubt they would protest something they believe happens naturally.Although that crowd is littered with communist so I could see them trying to exploit the man made global warming fairy tale cause to further their own goals.I don't know. I don't argue about hypotheticals here.
BUZZZZZ! 180 degrees wrong.
The timber industry stopped control burns because they wanted all the timber. The Forest Service, in the thrall of the industry, acquiesced.
It was the environmentalists, in conjunction with ecologists and conservation biologists, who finally got the Forest Service to follow science instead of political lobbying. This began in the 1960s with the so-called Leopold Report, which took years to be implemented due to industry obstructionism.
Leopold Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Honestly, you shouldn't get your information about environmentalism from Fox News.
You are mistaken if you think these facts exclude increased large uncontrolled fires due to human activity. Surely you've heard of matches?
I seriously doubt they would protest something they believe happens naturally. Although that crowd is littered with communist so I could see them trying to exploit the man made global warming fairy tale cause to further their own goals.
I love the smell of fear in the morning as conservatives understand that they are losing on another issue, and so have to resort to another feckless smear campaign.
That was not an honest or accurate portrayal of the discussion, which you began by citing all the forest fires that happened, compared them to the CO2 emissions from human activity and asked why they didn't affect the climate
The only way you could ask how those fires did not affect the climate while human activity did is by ignoring the effect both have had on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If you considered the CO2 concentrations, you wouldn't have asked because CO2 concentration is the answer - specifically, those fires did not raise the CO2 concentrations higher than they are today.
And if you spent as much time trying to understand how forests have affected the concentrations levels as you have spent on trying to win the internets, you'd understand why human activity has increased CO2 concentrations to the point that they affect global warming but the forest fires you speak of did not. (Hint: because of human activity, there is less carbon locked up in forests and guess where most of it went?)
And I never suggested there weren't natural fires. So look who's taking things out of context. If you can't stand the heat . . .
Since you have yet to rebut the clear fact that a large portion of fires are man-made either directly or indirectly, you seem to be arguing against yourself again.
And of course, what happens when you get a huge mob of wrong-wingers together, in an event that is ostensibly intended to show concern over the climate? Typical wrong-wing hypocrisy.
View attachment 67173288
Climate Marchers Leave Trail of Trash EVERYWHERE.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Leopold report predates the shift in policy by the congress regarding the forest service management by decades. The problem with central administration and management is that what works for East Coast forest management is not the same as the West or even the regions in the flyover.
Your info seems the sort that has no real world experience. I'm very familiar with our forests out West here.
Not dead yet hippies, unemployed socialists and goth kids who graduated HS and don't know what to do.
Just making stuff up at this point, aren't you.
The timber industry introduced fire suppression. Environmentalists ended that bad policy -- over decades of timber industry opposition.
Funny. I don't ever recall similar site conditions after a Tea Party rally. You'd think that these ecomentalists would like give a **** about the environment. So I take away from this that they aren't really serious, and that it's just so much hot air and political posturing.
I find it amazing that they can mock the natural climate change side for believing that the man made global warming fairy tale religion is nothing more than a scam when they push for socialist nonsense,carbon credits,extra taxes and other nonsense.That is the agenda that has pretty much dominated the environmentalist movement for at least a generation or so. Watermelons—green on the outside; red on the inside.
A refreshing change from the ignorant white trash that constitutes the GOP and their anti-science screeds.
Fact is that less and less scientists are claiming the AGW theory and some that did are now jumping the ship.
It seems the socialists grab on to this boogieman because it is the only place they can feel empowered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?