Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Vox contributor David Roberts, a right wing army of people in the media always stands ready to kill off the green shoots of Conservative climate action.
Don’t bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change
A new report examines the climate right. It doesn’t find much.
By David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com Apr 26, 2019, 10:00am EDT
…
The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it.
Meanwhile, the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook dedicated to shaping public opinion, stoking it, dragging it rightward. Not investigating it, not charting it, not reacting to it — creating it.
The left’s technocrats are targeting values-based messages at New Era Enterprisers while the right is out building full-fledged identities, letting conservatives know what they’re supposed to think.
Imagine, if you will, that “innovation” really started taking off and becoming the basis for bipartisan climate policy. Or imagine that New Era Enterprisers really started coalescing around climate action. Imagine that earnest conservative advocacy groups succeeded in generating some small movement, among some part of the GOP, toward some kind of climate action.
If Fox didn’t like it — and Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels — Fox would kill it. Immediately. End of story. Sad trumpet.
And it wouldn’t be hard. All they would have to do is make up some scary story about how it, whatever “it” is, is socialism, or some variety of Other, and then repeat that story, over and over, for a week or two. Voila: conservatives would turn against … whatever it is. The green shoots would be crushed.
…
This can be simplified even further, since that trait is highly correlated with sensitivity to fear. The more sensitive someone is to negative or threatening stimuli — even, experiments have found, negative stimuli flashed by too fast for the conscious mind to register — the more likely that person is to prize order, tidiness, predictability, and routine. In other words, the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative. (Ezra Klein rounds up some of the growing evidence for this thesis in this post.)
…
Read more: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives
David cites a recent think tank study into why Conservatives reject climate action. Interestingly the study David cites hilights the damage combining socialism with green activism has done to wider acceptance of climate action.
Prospects for Climate Change Policy Reform
A Landscape Study of the Conservative Environmental Movement
By: Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris
Last updated on April 23rd, 2019Climate policy in the United States is in a time of great uncertainty. The Trump administration has moved to roll back much of the policy momentum the sector had experienced in previous administrations. After a number of years of climate policy being a relatively low priority for voters, its salience is rising on the left as progressives move toward a strategy of yoking climate to a larger set of progressive priorities in the form of the Green New Deal. However, as this report explains, such a broad and multi-issue message is less effective with conservatives and may also polarize opinion on some aspects of climate response where bipartisan support had existed. The narrower messages focused on innovation and energy reforms which reach many conservatives, on the other hand, may become less acceptable on the left if they are seen as an alternative to or negation of some of the economic and social policy ideas in the Green New Deal.
Read more: https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/prospects-climate-change-policy-reform/
There is no evidence Conservatives are inherently hostile towards climate action.
Perhaps David Roberts forgets there was a time when Conservatives were strongly in favour of climate action. Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, who stood with President Ronald Reagan during the final years of the Cold War, was a strong supporter of climate action.
What happened to turn Conservatives against climate action? The Ecologist magazine provides a surprisingly thoughtful answer to this question.
her [Thatcher’s] autobiography states: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying.
“So in a speech to scientists in 1990 I observed: whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable all our economies to grow and develop because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”
Read more: https://theecologist.org/2018/oct/17/who-drove-thatchers-climate-change-u-turn
Thirty years after James Hansen announced his climate emergency in Congress, nothing unusually bad has happened to the global climate. But as genuine scientific evidence of the need for climate action faded, the Left and their academic enablers increasingly embraced the climate cause as a political trojan horse to overturn Capitalism.
David fails to question the “army of people in universities”. How did universities become so polarised?
We have one example of how this might have happened – a university which recently compromised academic freedom to purge its ranks of someone who disputed the university’s cosy green consensus.
Fast forward to today, and it is completely obvious what the problem is.
Today’s “army” of politically polarised climate academics embrace dubious temperature adjustments and academic totalitarianism to maintain the fiction that climate stability is at risk.
Most of their friends in the green movement continue to reject obvious low socio-economic impact solutions like nuclear power in favour of promoting an extremist political agenda of green socialism, while forlornly spinning insulting theories about why Conservatives remain unconvinced by their openly political climate dogma and abuse of process.
One constant with liberals. When you want to know what they are thinking, look first to what they are accusing conservatives of doing.
Bingo!
Seems like a classic case of “projection,” to me.
Liberals are terrified of change, even a fraction of a degree of change. Despite the dearth of evidence that modest warming would be significantly harmful, the climate hypochondriacs have managed to convince one another that the sky is falling.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”
-Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT)
“A right wing army of people in the media”.
What army, what media? A left wing, maybe?
Yes, if Fox can squash a new Green initiative, it must be a pretty weak concept.
many leftists believe that anything to the right of pure communism, is conservative.
I’m confident that I’m not the only 70’s liberal here that feels ousted by the dems for becoming a centrist by 60-something. Using common sense seems to be a right-wing signal to the climate zombies these days. Critical thought is political heresy.
The idea that conservatives don’t like change is one of the myths that liberals keep telling each other as an explanation why conservatives don’t immediately adopt every nutty idea that liberals come up with.
Conservatives take the position that before we toss out a social/economic/political system that has worked for decades/centuries/millenia, prove that it will be better.
But what the author cannot begin o se, let alone understand, is that every singke proposed solution is basically socialism Trojan horse, as Maggie worked out.
I’d be interested to see one, just one, proposed solution to the believed CAGW that does not involve more taxes, more government control, and just more government!
Nuclear power. By embracing nuclear power, France and Sweden proved you can kick a massive dent in CO2 emissions without messing up your economy or political system. But for some reason most greens hate nuclear power…
Eric Worrall
“But for some reason most greens hate nuclear power…”
Sensitivity to fear!
Exactly. That refusal to accept nuclear power as a ‘solution’ proves that the green movement has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with politics.
Bot noooooooo! Apparently I’m a conspiracy theorist whose opinions are dictated by some vast secret conservative cabal.
Greens use the climate to promote socialism, scientists use climate to promote their paychecks and the deep state uses climate to promote governmental growth.
After 30 years of actively thinning the scientist herd of conservatives in favor of young activist liberals (and no promotions for honest conservatives that might get funding cut off) the scientists are thrilled to be able to “change the world” while gaining power and recognition (as the brains behind the socialist movement)…and then top that all off by getting the productive taxpayers (your evil capitalist enemies) to fork out ~$10 Billion annually for them to do a respectable job of socialist activist propaganda…while padding their wallets. All the while getting 24/7/365 cover from their fraud by the MSM and Academia.
What’s not to like about all of that?
Greens hate nuclear, and so do green Swedes, they decided to close nuclear power facilities in 1980. It follows naturally, that while committed to this virtue-signalling, they were not committed to the said policy and they are more dependent on nuclear power now than in 1980.
Swedes just love virtue signalling.
The Swedes are a bit more cagey than you might guess. They promised to close nuclear power plants and cut back on CO2. They closed one nuclear plant but greatly expanded the power output of the remaining one. So they both cut and increased nuclear power at the same time.
Also they managed to get emissions from wood chip burning classed as carbon neutral by the EU. Aside from a small amount of wind and hydro that’s it. They have no coal, oil, or natural gas unless they ship it in.
I agree!
“Meanwhile, the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook dedicated to shaping public opinion, stoking it, dragging it rightward. Not investigating it, not charting it, not reacting to it — creating it. ”
AEUHHH? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji9qSuQapFY
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
“Conservative fear… conservative media control…”
This VOX article can only have been written (and/or believed,) by someone fundamentally dishonest with themselves and others.
In other words, a liberal.
I read their article at https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives What a lot of tripe! Do they actually have readers?
Anyway as there was no provision for comments I tried a letter to the editor, but there was no provision for a critical discourse on article and when I tried to put it under the nearest heading I could find even that was refused.
Methinks VOX cannot handle criticism of any degree. Who reads this anyway> They would get more readers by following the royals or TV stars in my view.
Their is a browser plug in called “dissenter” that enables comment on web pages etc such as youtube videos with comments disabled etc. Naturally there is a big backlash to ban it from by those who seek to steer narrative.
So true!
I find this quote comical but not funny:
“Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels ”
Not funny, because the fact that these people reject center-right Fox and think extreme left is ‘right’ is mind-blowing.
I’m sure Fox News could improve, they e.g. publish too much human interest in form of mugshots, but then again far-left like CNN and The Guardian have largely lost contact with this planet apparently by reading too much Vox and Kos.
Far-right media are largely nonexistent. There is Breitbart, but projew, pro-Israel, pro-life is something that far-left has managed to destroy.
I’m sad because the Soviet Union was anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-religion, pro-arab, antifascist in name but antijewish in reality. And the left (as in greens and communists) share all these values. They attack Israel and side with its enemies never seeing guilt there. They talk about being international just the way the Soviet Union was ‘international’.
Their idea of economy is anticapitalism, again just like in the Soviet Union.
And yet they don’t see if they get what they ask for, they’ll get what they didn’t want.
+100
Ever time a Leftist mentions being ‘International’ I hear an echo of ‘and tomorrow the world!’
~¿~
Precisely. This is a central tenet of their Religion. Not to be confused with “Do unto others as you would have others do onto you” it is “Project unto others the evil you are orchestrating for the unknowing dupes.”
It’s call PROJECTION.
Liberals have a deep-seated fear of change because there are changes they can’t control. The stability of marxist/socialist ideology promises a world where they can control everything, similar to Aldous Huxleys’s brave new world.
Of course, no human endeavor can control everything. Most people can’t even control what they eat, much less what they think. They do well to get through the day alive.
You can only “control” what you do to a limited degree. A person can try to control themselves. The top 67% of the bell curve are smart enough to do that- get up in the morning, pick up after yourself, get to work, make a contribution big enough to come back the next day,……..
To think one can control the world, i.e. the climate, is hubris beyond belief.
“How did universities become so polarised?”
When conservatives ran universities, they practiced tolerance and inclusion and were willing to hire people who disagreed with them. Figuring that the debate between the two positions would strengthen both sides.
As soon as liberals started getting into positions of powers, the first thing they did was to start getting rid of anyone who disagreed with them. While preaching tolerance, liberals have never felt the slightest desire to show any themselves.
+100
Seconded.
Not wanting to derail this thread; but I note that if you replace “liberals” with “Muslim” you get exactly the same answer. Mods; delete if this goes too far.
Todays newspeak with high level political correctness is killing our languages. If you have two books with same message but different names, there shold be, or even must be a way to point out those similarities. I think it´s great that you bring those up. I take that as a warning, and I´m grateful that you opened a new channel somewhere between my ears. Thank you, sir.
With the left the next great cause is always an excuse for trampling peoples rights.
Again so true! Totalitarians may get power in a normal way, once in power, they want to destroy the democracy and free opinionating. They talk about democracy yes, but include only totalitarians and their left-leaning supporters as eligible.
We need to make sure diversity means diversity and not submitting to ‘pork-haters’.
George Orwell wrote:
“In our country … it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.”
Methinks David Roberts is guilty of projection in a big way. Reverse just about everything he is quoted as saying and you come quite close to the facts.
Someone can say this with a straight face?
Amen to that, brother. Along with what MarkW said. These knuckleheads like this guy from Vox think we conservatives are stupid. But they fail to fool us. Because we know this is fundamentally NOT about “climate action” (an interesting term in and of itself, because of what it implies in revolutionary terms). It is about power and control taken into the hands of an ever-shrinking number of wonkish elites who think they know better than the rest of us do about how our lives should work.
I have nothing but snarling contempt for the Vox crowd and their mindless totalitarian sycophants.
Larry: I find some small consolation in this thought- if the Vox crowd propaganda succeeds, the first group locked up in the new people’s concentration facilities will be the useful idiots at Vox. History is my guide.
My thought exactly; accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing and claim the moral high ground by being immoral!
I first rejected the proposed climate action because the science supporting such action was horrible. I was politically neutral at the time. 30 years later, the science still does not support the need for the proposed action. Today, the ‘science’ does not even resemble science. It has become completely surreal! The history of the man-made climate paradigm has made me into a staunch conservative. More than anything else, the climate disaster myth has revealed to me how dangerous the left truly is!
Well, yes, but you see, if someone is opposing and/or disputing your silly notions publicly, e.g., TV/online media, there has to be an army behind him/her/it. This is because in a closed mind society, one person supposedly speaks for all the other closed minds. Free thinking is anathema to them. They are as close to clones as you can get.
Can we please just find them their own planet so that this one isn’t threatened by them any more? Alpha Centauri may have TWO habitable worlds they could land on. And no polluting infrastructure to contaminate them!! Whatta deal!!!
Most conservatives recognize that, after the media hype is stripped away, 0.8 C temperature rise in the last century like the IPPC says, isn’t actually detectable by a human being’s senses, and takes very accurate instrumentation and high level statistical analysis to show its existence.
And, as the IPCC also stated, any effects of the projected warming will be mostly mitigated by changes in technology and society.
It’s only people with socialist agenda that are creating alarm, because it’s all just political hype from the Summary for Policy-makers (read ‘socialists) on upward, and almost nobody reads what the scientists actually say.
And the IPCC started with the premise that CO2 controlled the temperature of the atmosphere and that humans’s are the major cause of increasing CO2.
Yeah I’m afraid.
I’m afraid the green new deal proposals will be enacted and kill untold thousands (possibly millions?) of people.
“The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it”.
This statement is a joke. Nothing in this sophosticated analysis of public opinion comes even close to describing my position on climate or the opinion of any conservative I know.
I am sensitive to fear? Well now, that is a new one. No one has EVER accused me of being sensitive to fear.
Texans aren’t known for their shy and timid personalities… 😉
From the “paper?”the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative.
Thank you, now I know why I object to expensive environmentally damaging wind, solar and bio-fuels. Object to sanctuary cities, oppose giving $billions to a country like Iran that supports terrorists, dislike the idea that universities won’t allow conservatives an opportunity to speak on campus, and on and on. It’s because of my sensitivity to fear (not my sensitivity to liberal delusionment like I had previously maintained). Wow, took me 76 years to get “woke”.
Dennis: I guess I am a lost cause. At age 88 I am still not “woke”.
You can’t whack every mole.
True indeed. I often go onto aol/HuffPo to play whack-a-libtard, but the censors catch up with me after a while. Like the Guardian. If only the young wide-eyed deluded libtards knew how many comments were removed before they were able to read them.
This could be a stunt though. After all, wouldn’t this be a marriage made in heaven? Talking, jawing and BSing about getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere IS THE MULTI-HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR industry. Actually having to do it would a) reduce the kleptocrat take and b) cut them out of the equation based on their abject uselessness. I can’t thank my parents enough for not having the libtard genes.
Barbarians’ lack of self-awareness is seemingly absolute. Those who deal in Fear think that some don’t buy their scary message because of…Fear.
If conservatives are more “sensitive to fear”, why aren’t we fearing climate change?
After all, isn’t the claim that it’s gonna kill us all in 12 years?
Snort
Well, remember that climate change’s potential to spoil the earth in 12 years time is the considered assertion of a trained bar tender who would know all about making change (e.g. for a $20 bill). That’s all it takes in this new age of post-modern science for unquestioned expertise.
Who needs to attend to a record of actual measurements, except to in retrospect adjust for a desirable effect those that others have made who themselves couldn’t read a thermometer just right? I don’t know why my physics professor was so unprogressive to insist that we not change our original entries in our laboratory notebooks. Didn’t he realize that we could then be spot on to our preferred expectations?
Simple way to convince conservatives:
SHOW REAL EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Hear, hear!
“Simple way to convince conservatives:
SHOW REAL EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.”
Yes, that’s the way to convince me. Unfortunately, after all these years, no such evidence has ever been presented.
Conservatives have asked for evidence thousands of times. It has never been supplied even once. It won’t be supplied today, either, because there is no evidence of CAGW. Alarmists could prove that statement wrong, but they won’t, because they can’t. Yet they continue to ring the alarm bell over CAGW.
A little evidence please. Conservatives aren’t mentally defective, they just want a little evidence that CAGW exists and skeptics are smart enough to know the difference between evidence and mere speculation. We get lots of CAGW speculation but no evidence it exists. Why should we believe in CAGW under these circumstances?
Actually, first show real evidence that the Greenhouse Effect works in the manner claimed.
Then Jim’s bit.
Then show real evidence that a warmer planet is actually bad.
And THEN – go deal with China and stop blaming the West for your problems!
No, that’s not the ticket. They need to show that their lib policies actually make a difference by changing a serious climate change noticeably less serious, while not harming people.
Atm the policies often harm people and don’t have a freaking chance of making a better climate.
Remember Ottmar Edenhofer’s ‘We must’. Climate policy is not a climate policy. Never was, in fact. This is all about power and money, all simply a Menckenian hobgoblin.
So that is why I am concerned by insane public policies that waste my tax dollars .
Cause I fear.
You know this “expert” could be on to something, for fear does play a part.
I fear the idiocy of Gang Green.
I fear the money and power grubbing chicken littles,who have shown themselves willing to lie and mislead in anyway they can imagine to support the promotion of their “narrative”.
I fear that the idiocy,greed and corruption of these people will gull enough voters to allow the undermining of civil society, leading to the collapse of the best standard of living ever known to the average citizen.
I fear the willful spurning and premature destruction of viable reliable sources of power, coal power plants,leading to rolling black outs and loss of critical power.
I fear Gang Green.Their emotional immaturity, their potential for mob violence,their refusal to respect the rights of any who disagree with their poorly thought out points of view.
Indeed I fear the raving mob. The drooling idiocy and hysterical righteousness of virtue signalling hypocrites.
See even a stopped clock can be right,2 times a day.
All one has to do is look at a range of issues today to know where the fear and fear-mongering predominates –
Conservative or liberal:
– fear of GMO foods?
– fear of vaccines?
– Buys only “organic” foods?
The Left wants people to be sheeple so that can be easily manipulated with propaganda and fear-mongering.
Like most faux progressives, the author at Vox is merely yet another intellectual coward who can’t imagine he might be wrong and who is especially too afraid to actually speak to serious skeptics in an honest dialogue.
Instead he relies on creating false images and knocking them down.
At the rate the climate obsessed are using red herrings there will soon be a shortage.
The climate consensus keeps demonstrating that they are unworthy of a meaningful role in a democratic free society.
‘The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it.’
Bullcrap… _they’re_ the ones shaping public opinion, through their constant brainwashing of young people in schools, from elementary to college, and constant pushing of the message “climate change is real!” in virtually every mass media outlet.
The Left has an army in universities, thank tanks, and media that act to silence the conservative perspective
It was the left, with their army of outstanding scholars, consultancies and think tanks, that repeated endlessly, right into the “eleventh hour” that Trump had no “pathway to victory”. Sure had their handle on that one didn’t they. Peanuts from Canada.
” … while the right is out building full-fledged identities, letting conservatives know what they’re supposed to think. …”
This part I agree is increasingly the case. I regularly see ‘Conservative media commentators’ trying to tell me that I must be Christian or at least support a Western Christian ethos (which I mostly do, but often think they’re just hypocrits) and that I must always cut Israel a free-pass in all things (for no obvious, logical or good reasons that I can see), and that I as a >politicalConservative Party< voter at some damned ballot box. I don't need a blind-guide.
Half of that comment went missing in moderation (without explanation).
The missing parts are that I’m increasingly being told by ‘Conservative media’ here that I must be defined as not having any ‘Republican’ leaning, i.e. that I should not want full Australian Independence from a British Monarchy. Except I do want full independence from Royal Assent and Royal control of critical institutions and law, and I do not want “Her Majesty’s”Australian Ship (HMAS) or Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) plastered on the side off our military hardware and buildings, etc. This is not the British Empire or a Crown family we fight for, so why is their name and Royal Title on our kit? It offends me and I want it gone. It’s not her majesty’s ship at all, it is our ship, we paid for it, to defend us.
Lastly, I said that I’m increasingly told that to be Conservative is at olds with being Secular, and this is most certainly not the case. I AM conservative, I don;t needa definer, and not just for the purposes of being a ” … >political Conservative Party< voter at some damned ballot box." (which is what I said in the original), and I am Secular, and have no intention of being otherwise, just because some political ideology of 'Conservatism' would like me to 'self' define (for me) as such for it's purposes and conditioning.
I am Conservative long before I'm a political conservative, and I don't intend to alter to match a political ideology's definition of what 'Conservative' is.
Actually, it’s kind of a hallmark of conservatives that NO ONE can “tell them what to think.” We also tend to be a bit older, to have seen a bit of history come and go, and have very sensitive BS detectors. Having seen no evidence for pie in the sky, we tend to be realists as well.
I was taught to write to the audience you are trying to reach.
I have no clue what audience David Roberts is trying to reach and persuade. I’ve been hanging out at WUWT long enough to know that his target audience is definitely the typical denizen of WUWT.
Does anyone here recognize themselves or find themselves getting the warm fuzzies from that article?……….. I didn’t think so.
Why is it seemingly just the Regressives on the left that feel they have to analyze the, to them, mysterious and unfathomable psychology of people that are skeptical of or outright reject their positions? And it seems to me that they always get it wrong.
Whatever it is, we’re not like that.
If The Left thought they could persuade people by reasoning with them, then force/coercion/government would not be the sole means of achieving their goals. IOW they wouldn’t be leftists.
They also fail to ask conservatives “why”. This is what baffles me the most.
They analyse the conservative mindset, but they fail to recognize that it’s different to their own. This confuses them, so they make up reasons that make sense to them, but is wrong for us. They’ll never get it right because they can’t imagine someone not believing the things they do, or understand why.
Looks to me like WordPress is throttling comments here and holding them back, delaying their actual posting even though the actual comment submission time is still there when they finally show up.
Look at the time stamps gaps.
Nothing right now between 7:25 from “damp” until jim at 8:02pm.
Now nothing after 8:02pm at 9:00pm. I just did a re-fresh ((reload page) to confirm that.
I’ve had my comment “missing” now for better than 40 minutes.
It will show up eventually, with the original submission time on the time stamp, but delying it’s posting is what Twitter does with shadow banning and delaying users with large followers from getting timely tweets to retweet them. By the time they show up, they are stale and far down the time-dependent feed, effectively lost and lowering impact.
Conservatives reject ‘Climate Change’ because they are ‘insensitive’ to baseless fear mongering and fraud.
Conservative = conservation
Progressive = progression
Conservation maintains nature.
Progression changes nature.
Conservation recognizes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The quickest way to screw up nature is for humans to try and help.
Liberalism is divergent, which engenders a perception of tolerance. Progressivism is monotonic change or affirmative action. Conservatism mitigates perturbations through systemic inertia. #PrinciplesMatter
It is now 9:20pm, and no new comments (included my two, now over an hour old). Last comment right now is time stamped 8:02pm from John Robertson. I just refreshed this page before submitting this comment.
WordPress is throttling comments here at WUWT.
It’s 1:08 AM EDT. Just checking.
Agree Joel, I asked a related question here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/26/new-york-to-ban-hot-dogs-because-climate-change/#comment-2690054
Plus one of my comments was mangled above.
From my perspective, it seems that progressives live in an alternative reality and come up with all kinds of rationalizations to convince themselves that they are correct, and those that don’t agree with their views must have some serious mental or emotional issues — all of which reinforce my view that they are not in touch with reality!
“Sensitivity to Fear”
========
Nope. What I’ve got is a well developed BS detector.
Those with the greatest sensitivity to fear are those that fear climate change is going to wipe out the world in 12 years.
Those that don’t fear climate change have the least sensitivity to fear.
Using fear of climate change has failed because it isn’t scary. Losing your job, that is scary.
Come on ferd, bravado is fine but you must admit that 3 mm/year sea level rise is purtty dern terrifying. Think about it … in 30 years your ankles could get wet … who do you call?
Would you guys like to see the surf crashing on the shore of Lake Michigan?
I have pictures!!!! 🙂
There are only a certain number of electrons and as more and more people use the technology the systems have to wait, and accumulate, enough to run you comments through the æther. It’s complex.
However, to test your hypothesis, I will post this short note at 10:20 PST.
Then I’m off to bed. I check on Saturday morning to see if it shows up.