re: Anti- science liberals vs anti-science conservatives: who is more dangerous?

volcanic eruptions (co2 release) and things like limestone formation (c02 sequestering) are natural cycles that have for eons reached some form of a balance. there are variations from this from time to time and they can be quite catastrophic.

the removal of carbon from deep earth and combustion/release of it (at continuously rising amounts for over 100 years) has most certainly increased ppm in our atmosphere. i'll assume most people by now understand how scientists know this - but the most commonly cited example is probably analysis of trapped gas in ice cores.

coupled with the immense release of stored solar energy (in the form of fossil fuel combustion) is considerable deforestation around the planet. earth has a large buffering capacity for co2 changes, but co2 is no doubt changing and there is no reason i see to take this lightly or brush it off as so many seem to be inclined to do.

i focus in on global atmospheric changes because its been my experience that democrats and conservatives are much easier to agree on other environmental problems (ex: water pollution, conservation of endangered species, etc).