Now you're about to realize why leftists care so much about trees

Now you're about to realize why leftists care so much about trees

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Countries
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

Caring about the environment isn't a "leftist" or "rightist" thing (those are fucking dumb American terms anyway), it's a matter of whether or not you're a cunt.
Only dumb cunts don't give a shit about the environment and the vital (for humanity) role trees play.

retard

as a national bolshevik I'm ready to genocide vast numbers of people if that would mean saving earth's flora and fauna

Came here to post exactly this

Spain doesn't have that much forest.

It's a traditionally left-wing cause.

I'm a boring conservative and like trees

this

>It's a traditionally left-wing cause.
No, you idiot.

Yes. They care more about trees than homicide rates

>It's a traditionally left-wing cause.
Not really. Before anti-climate change idiots started grouping all forms of environmentalism together and condemning it, environmentalism was a neutral cause, that people from all sides could support.

>traditionally left wing cause

Maybe in Spain, in North America habitat conservation is a traditionally right wing cause funded by hunters and anglers. Now it's just a common sense cause

leftists care more about genociding the white race than they care about trees.

>in North America habitat conservation is a traditionally right wing cause funded by hunters and anglers
Pretty much the same here

>Spain doesn't have that much forest.
It actually does.

>Spain
I take it "Forest" is being liberally used here.

>anti-climate change idiots
forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
The most important argument can be found on the second page.

>This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

>But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

>Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

This decent opinion from beef nigger

>It's a traditionally left-wing cause.
Not really saving the rainforest shit was big here in the 90s. Even lumber companies replant trees because as a business it's a good idea.

>The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
>
>“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
>
>—Dr. Richard Tol
>
>“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
>
>—Dr. Craig Idso
>
>“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
>
>—Dr. Nir Shaviv
>
>“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
>
>—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
>
>Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
>
>It’s time to revoke that license.

They are required by law to replant in Canada

>conservation is a traditionally right wing cause funded by hunters and anglers.
Definitely. Sportsmen are probably the biggest supporters of a large and clean natural environment.

Spain ranks 36th out of 183 countries measured for forestation, so they have more forest than 80% of countries.

It ranges by state and province from 60%-95%+. They also tried to get non-consumptive wilderness users (hikers, bird watchers, backpackers, etc) to start paying a share in the late 90s in your country and it was shot down bad.

Not sure what your post and map are supposed to mean. I am a conservative and I care about protecting forests. Also, Slovenia's forest coverage is about 62%.

germans are stupid. they believe whatever their kike media tells them to believe.

What you mean are German-Americans.

>#7
see

>It's a traditionally left-wing cause.
No

These are twigs with no undergrowth.

This is a forest.

butthurt rightwing scum

leftie care for trees:
>NO WE HAVE TO SAVE EVERY TREE
>GROWING TREES FOR HUMAN USE IS BAD
>WE SHOULD JUST LET THE TREES GROW AS THEY ALWAYS DID, IF THEY DIE OF PARASITES THAT'S WHAT MOTHER NATURE WANTED

I'm not right wing. I was just saying that it's a modern left wing cause. That's because the right has embraced anti science and anti climate change beliefs in the modern era. Traditionally, when environmentalism meant protecting animals and trees, it was supported by people from all over, and wasn't an ideological issue.

low level bait

>neets in their dark basement doesnt care what happens with the planet because they wont have children anyway

what a shocker

Our forest code from 1930 until 2010-something was based on Nazi Germany's environmental laws.
It was really good until the faggots from the communist party decided to change it.

>be me
>pick up a german friend of my brother in the airport
>be driving back to my city
>the german asks where are the lions
>me goes full wut
>he says the trip back my home is full of dense woods

Not all Spain is Castille or the thin strip in the mediterranean coast.

The map color is wrong according to wiki spain is 36.70% and they compiled the values into the world map and got wrong in spain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Countries

|

This, ecology should be a priority in every political spectrum

This is a really lazy strawman.
You argue like a woman.

Look at green programs all around Europe. They are completely anti-industrial.

>It's a traditionally left-wing cause.

Only in America where the different political wings compete to see which of them can ignore reality the hardest without overlapping in what they ignore.

>its an American thing
>originates from France a couple hundred years ago

i mean german-germans. German-Americans are in many ways more German than modern german-germans.

are you implying these Sudaca countries have leftist tradition?

Colombia never had leftist governments. Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay and Bolivia got their first leftist governments in the 2000s.

>Spain
>leftie
Pick one

>traditionally

Except it's the fucking opposite you faggot. It has only been a leftie cause in the last 20 or so years.