Study: Global Warming Hoax Deniers Take Better Care of the Environment

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
May 9, 2018

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, you’d better start with stopping volcanic eruptions, because that shit is really bad for “the environment.”

I’ve always felt like there was an inverse relationship between believing in these various environmentalist hoaxes (like global warming, veganism and peak oil) and actually having a deep understanding and appreciation for nature.

Most people in the West are urbanite bugmen completely disconnected from nature. They have no idea about it’s scale and power. So to these people, it makes perfect sense that human activity like driving cars or turning up the AC could cause the earth’s weather to change.

But that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket compared with the “carbon emissions” from things like volcanic eruptions, natural coal fires, oceanic gas leaks and so on. And those things have been happening non-stop for billions of years.

People who’ve always lived in the cities or suburbs often think that the earth is like Star Wars’ Coruscant or some shit:

A planet covered in concrete, with a few little parks here and there.

In fact, you could fit the entire human population of earth in an area the size of texas, with the rest of the planet covered in forests, farmland, swamps, deserts and so on. It’s currently estimated that between 97-99% of the earth’s surface is not urbanized – and that’s without counting the oceans and Antarctica.

So this whole bit about humans producing too much CO2 is absurd on its face, which anyone who spends a lot of time in the countryside will understand intuitively. Nature is much, much greater and stronger than we are.

A coal seam fire. These can happen naturally, last for hundreds of years, and release unfathomable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In this light, it’s unsurprising that a new study shows that climate change deniers are actually more likely to take care of the environment than gullible normies.

Science Direct:

Highlights

-We conducted a one-year longitudinal study of 600 Americans’ climate beliefs.

-Cluster analyses found three distinct groups based on climate belief trajectories.

-Climate change believers were most likely to endorse federal climate policies.

Climate change skeptics were most likely to report pro-environmental behavior.

Abstract

We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

So much for SWPL hippies saving the earth.

Look, there are genuine environmental concerns. Soil erosion, desertification of forests, destruction of the rain forests, over-fishing, poaching of endengered species, and so on.

But the funny thing is that practically all of these things are caused, directly or indirectly, by brown people. Especially, by their immense population sizes and total disregard for nature.

As such, pretty much any environmental policy that would actually make a positive difference would necessarily entail harming third world people. If South Americans stopped destroying their rain forests to make farmlands, they’d starve. If we stopped using pesticides and chemical fertilizers to grow food, we wouldn’t have enough to feed Africa. If we started sinking ships that fish illegally, the victims would mostly be poor Asians.

So of course, none of these obvious measures are even considered.

Instead, we’re told that in order to save the earth, we have to de-industrialize the West and reduce our own population, while the third-world explodes and brings devastation to the earth.

Ridiculous. This is something so stupid that only Jews could possibly come up with it.

Join the discussion at The Goyim Know BBS