Climate change/global warming started in the late 1980's. And yet the weather hasn't changed in the slightest.

The climate change scare works on the young because they haven't been around for very long. I'm not young. I'm a few years shy of being around for 7 decades (that's 70 years for the left). I was told when they gave up on trying to promote the ozone hole idea (apparently the ozone hole must have fixed itself) that there wouldn't be any more snow, that Florida would be mostly underwater, that the polar bears would go extinct, that we would run out of water and that CO2 was air pollution (tell that to the plants). I even heard one climate change nitwit blame a meteor that passed a little closer to the earth than originally expected on climate change.

AOC told us in 2019 that we have 11 years left. So that means we only have 5 more years before the point of no return.

Shouldn't we have seen ANY change in the global climate by now? Any change at all? Anything at all???

I just heard in the mainstream news that Antarctica's ice has grown a lot more than expected. EXPECTED!?!?!?!?!?!? We were told it was going to disappear completely. How could they "expect" more ice when there's supposed to be less ice.

When are we ever going to see anything at all that might tell us that the global climate is doing anything at all out of the ordinary. WHEN??????

USA indoctrinates students to believe the climate myth. This lowers their IQs and their ability to contribute to our economy and national defense. The climate myth indoctrination was the basis for the COVID myth.

Bunch of fear mongering doomsday alarmist. Saddly adults now have the mental capacity of a kid and fall for it easily.

USA regulations force businesses to support green energy and its taxes.
Deficits increase inflation and distort the economy. USA stopped giving research grants and contracts for true climate physics research in 1992.

Sorry, dude. You can't even spell "sadly" or "alarmists" properly (or you're too lazy to spellcheck). And you missed a hyphen on "fear-mongering" but meh. But you expect us to take your predictions seriously. Do you have a PhD in Climate Science? Did you even study Biology or Chemistry in high school?

Have you spent decades of your life examining ice cores? But you know better than tens of thousands of scientists who've spent years studying this stuff?

You don't have to agree with them. That's how science works. Just because 97+% of scientists agree on something doesn't actually mean they're right. They could all be wrong. Literally. That's how science works. Unlike religion. Or Trumpism.

Are you a scientist? Have you done extensive research? Do you have peer-reviewed papers? Have you ever published anything?

You can sit in your armchair and mock science. Do you even have the faintest understanding of how climate works? Or did you read something somewhere in some meme or article?

If you're actually a scientist, then my apologies.

Anyone can make a meme in 5 minutes. Have you been to Antarctica? Have you actually studied any of this stuff? If you have, my apologies.

I don't have time for this shit any more, sorry. If you're not an actual climate scientist, then I don't take you seriously. Sorry. I just don't have time for this nonsense now.

You are now deleting your comments? Typical liberal propaganda.

Haha. You get points for the quick screenshots tbf. 💪

I did that because I made some annoying typos on my shitty phone and this dumb website doesn't let you edit comments so sometimes I delete a comment I just posted and then repost it a few moments later before anyone has commented on it. That's all.

Anyway, my points still stand about other people's typos lol. 🤣 Okay, whatever. Shoot me.

I still don't believe you about climate change. I've literally watched the climate change in the last 5 years with my own eyes.

And in any case, this is completely separate to other environmental stuff. Even if anthropogenic climate change is literally a hoax (for the sake of argument), what about deforestation, acid rain, desertification, species extinction, microplastics? And so on. Did everyone just forget about all this other stuff or something??

Let's say climate change isn't a problem and that's all some fearmongering bullshit. We're still polluting the planet. What is Trump planning to do about it? Species are still going extinct every year. Habitats are disappearing. Forests are being cut down. Microplastics are everywhere. They're literally in your brain right now lol. Oh well. We're all made of plastic now, dude. Etc.

i live in utah, and due to climate change, our salt lake is drying up and was expected to dry up by 2030 but in recent years its made a rebound by HUMANS putting in shit to conserve the lake, and im really happy about it, it plays a vital role in the ecosystem, it boasts large populations of brine shrimp and brine gnats that are vital for aquaculture as a cheap local fish food and for migratory birds heading both ways, if it dried up into a salt flat it would tank our local economy as anything involving domestic fish became more expensive and tourism to see the western hemispheres biggest salt lake and the worlds 8th largest terminal lake (Doesn't output into the sea), and the populations of our state bird (CA Gull) would also tank as it uses the shrimp as food.

TLDR, Climate change actually DOES affect me

I live in Utah also. The Great Salt Lake has been drying up for centuries. It is what is left of Lake Bonneville which took in most of Utah and a lot of Nevada.

If you don't believe me then what is your explanation of the Bonneville Salt Flats. Can you explain why the Salt Palace is so far away from the lake? When it was built it was at the lakes edge.

Humans haven't conserved the lake. We had a few really good winters with a huge snow pack in the mountains. Last winter wasn't so great but the two before that were great. We actually saw the lake rise.

It will eventually disappear and maybe in our lifetime but it has absolutely nothing to do with mankind. It is just the way things are in the desert.

The only concern that I've heard when the lake dries up is the some of the contaminants will get into the atmosphere causing illnesses in the Wasatch front. I really don't think losing out on the brine shrimp is going to affect the economy.

I'm not looking forward to the Great Salt Lake drying up but it is inevitable. Climate change has nothing to do with it In fact it is because the climate has remained the same since prehistoric times is the reason we are losing the lake.

then what are the seemingly unrelated water conservation efforts about, and yes it has been drying up for a while now but in recent years it seems to be speeding up "for totally natural reasons that are unrelated to the affairs of man as people can not affect the environment what so ever and when people actually do affect it, it really doesnt matter" and okay, lets say brine shrimp wont affect the economy, what about the loss of tourism and the shrimp being food for beautiful gull?

We have 2 problems that are actually 1 problem. We are in a drought and California Governor, Gavin Newsom is driving everyone out of the state. Most of the LDS people came to Utah. So we have a drought and a huge influx of people.

Why this is actually 1 problem is because a drought is directly proportionate to the number of people needing water. If only 100 people lived in Utah there would be no drought. But we have more people moving into Utah than we can know what to do with.

There is a huge housing shortage in Utah which has turned Utah into 1 of the most expensive states to live in. This is crazy because Utah used to be one of the most affordable states in the country. I will thank Gov Newsom for one thing, he's caused my house to more than double in value. But seeing that I grew up in So. Cal and lived there when it was great to live there, Newsom has caused more damage to California than any wildfire could.

I know. I feel pity for those people who only know one language correct me, a trilengual. I also noticed the pattern about pointing out my grammar when they know I am right and can't argue my point. Is there anything I can do for you?

Oh, you're not even a native speaker? Well, that changes everything! Okay, ignore me then. 🤗 Sorry, bud, I was deliberately a bit of a dick, yeah. Have an upvote. (Also kind of half-trolling tbf cuz I make typos too all the time when typing too fast on here so major hypocrite alert lol 👀).

And you're right: it's a bit petty ngl. My argument is simply that we're dealing with one of the most complex phenomena of our times that affects all of us and that no one fully understands (hence the, uh, "heated" debates). So details matter.

And if someone appears to confidently dismiss mountains of evidence and research about something this complex where precision is paramount but makes simple slipups, it's low-lying fruit. Loads of people do that here so it's tempting to nitpick like a jerk for kicks. But yeah, cheap and lazy attack, you're right. Bad habit so you're justified in calling that out.

I'm not a monoglot btw. This site has an English-only policy though for some reason.

What can you do for me? Nah, you're good but thanks for offering. 🙏 I want the answers just as much as you do.

i dont see no damn climate change. i see people coloring weather maps red!

Why are they trying to rebuild in Malibu then and how do they get insurance? Oh yeah, they don’t believe their own propaganda.

Pretty sure it has changed actually. Go and ask the scientists with PhDs who actually work with this stuff (unlike you?) and have dedicated their lives to measuring stuff. Ask them about glaciers. Ask them how much ice has melted since 1980. Ask them how much – actually, you know what? Forget it. I can't even be f**ked any more.

Yes, climate change is a hoax. So is plastic in the ocean. Plastic is a hoax too. Plastic pollution doesn't exist and in any case plastic is good for you. (It's in all our brains now btw but it's fine because it's harmless. It's in your cock too btw, if you have one. It's everywhere.)

Deforestation is a hoax. Species going extinct? Also a hoax. No species have gone extinct in the last 30 years. No habitats have been destroyed. It's all a globalist conspiracy. All species are doing absolutely fine. All those birds you used to see in your garden when you were kids and for some reason you don't see any more? Just coincidence. Nothing to see here.

In fact, I admit it: every single environmental problem in history is a hoax. It's all a hoax, folks. Bill Gates just wants to raise your taxes. There are literally no environmental problems at all. Everything is fine. Humans have zero effect on the environment. Don't fall for the leftie woke agenda. The planet is invincible and it's all fake news. Trump knows everything.

(Believe what you want. It's your grandkids who will have to deal with this. How convenient.)

Luckily your beliefs won't affect you. They will affect your grandkids. If you have any.

Who even cares? F**k them. F**k everyone. Science is a hoax. Everything scientists say, who've dedicated their lives to this stuff, is fake news. They're all delusional. But everything the populists say is Gospel.

I'm supposed to go find a scientist to tell me what I can see for myself????

As far as ice goes did you not read my comment did you? We're gaining ice in the Antarctic, not losing it.

Never make assumptions based on your straw man image of conservatives. The plastic collecting in the Pacific Ocean, trees being cut down in the Amazon and species going extinct have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

We ship a lot of our plastic to China to be recycled. Some of that plastic plus whole lot of China's waste ends up in the Pacific Ocean stuck in a giant slow moving whirlpool.

Deforestation is definitely happening in the Amazon but in spite of all of that there are more trees on the planet now than there was a century ago. Nearly all of the businesses who harvest trees for lumber are replanting in areas where trees have been cut down. They have to if they are ever going stay in business for any length of time. Not because of government coercion but because of capitalism.

Species have been going extinct since the beginning. That is nothing new. More recently some of that has been caused by man but for the most part it is still happening naturally.

What their needs to be is accountability. The "science" behind global warming/climate change was invented as the worlds biggest scam to create a global fascist government. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. It is exactly what the UN's project 21 and project 2030 are about. It is what the World Economic Forum's great reset is all about. They're all hiding behind climate change as means to control the world. They're not hiding it. You can find what they are planning on the World Economic Forum and UN's website.

There are a whole lot of other scientists who disagree with climate change. But you don't need a PhD in anything to think for yourself. All you have to do is look around and compare everything to what has happened before. Nothing has changed in our climate and everything has changed. There is one constant and that is the earth's climate will always change and mankind has nothing to do with any of it. The earth has gone through very drastic climate changes in it's history. Most of that is controlled by the sun but volcanic activity can play a role also. These changes will continue long after all of the "scientists" and the UN and the WEF are long gone. Eventually the sun will go supernova and consume the earth but that is far into the future.

Mass Extinction obsessed dude here, no the sun really hasn't caused any of the major 5, the first was an ice age (Contested but most probable), second saw drops in O2 levels as the cause, the third was Volcanos + Asteroids, the fourth is debated between asteroids, volcanos, or both, and fifth was asteroid. while true that species go extinct constantly that is called background extinction rates, currently we are hitting rates over 100 times that and losing around 10 species a year

So then you don't follow science. CO2 has nothing to do with the earth's temperature. Just because some of the time temps go up after a CO2 increase means nothing because sometimes CO2 goes up after a temperature increase. And some times the temperature just went up.

What science believes that solar activity seems to have correlation with the Maunder and Dalton minimums and the Medieval warming period. Climate change "scientists" seem to want to exclude those two mini-ages and especially the Medieval warming period.

There is a huge difference between knowing about how the earth ends and obsessing over it. It it was happening next week or even in my lifetime I might be obsessed but I don't even think about it unless I have to explain science to a person who hasn't thought through the "sky is falling" crap that is pushed far more by politicians than by scientists.

now your putting words in my mouth because your shitty argument requires that you do so, never once did i mention CO2 at all in that comment, closest thing i mentioned to CO2 was O2 aka oxygen aka not CO2. literally all i did was fact correct your post because you got some pretty important shit wrong.

Just because you insult what I say does not make it any less true. You didn't have even say O2. The entire argument for global warming and now climate change is too much CO2 and man is the cause and fascism is the solution. Any possible discussion made about climate change has to include CO2.

And when you're talking about the history of this planet, we are in a CO2 deficit. We had twice the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as we now have. And that was before mankind existed on this planet.

Climate change politicians don't want you to know that. That's why they label it air pollution. Ask the trees and plants how they feel about these nitwits trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere.

IF CO2 caused an increase in temperature did you ever think about what would happen independent from the fear mongers? Plants would grow stronger and produce a lot more fruits and vegetables. It would give us longer growing seasons. In turn wildlife would flourish because of an abundance of food. We could effectively end world hunger.

It would be awesome, just the medieval warming period, only with much better technology and no bubonic plague.

Use your brain. It's not hard to do.

"you didnt even say O2" how is "second [Mass extinction] saw drops in O2 levels as the cause" for you? and nobody is trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, for a stable climate you need a balance, and what theyre trying to do is restore it to lower levels. and i dont think you understand how plants work if you think global warming with lead to bigger harvests

Wake up. It's been declared a pollutant. Maybe no one is trying to eliminate CO2 (because that's impossible) but there are nitwits proposing ideas of releasing chemicals in the upper atmosphere to block the sun so the earth will cool.

I seriously hope they don't do something that idiotic. They'll create an ice age and I will say that man caused that. At least with global warming we'll have more food but not with an ice age.

once again higher temps do not increase crop yield, a majority of crops have vey specific temperature ranges at which they can properly grow, anything outside this range is very detrimental to the plant, and a majority of tropical/sub-tropical plants stand at the higher end of their ranges and further heat increases could be extremely detrimental to tropical crops specifically, and for the rest, they often aren't on the higher end of their accepted temperature scale but increased temperatures that go over that threshold could, in an abstract sense, starve millions. oh, and there is plenty of food to go around to solve world hunger, the problem is that third world countries that are victim to it dont have the infrastructure to get it to where it needs to be, and those who can actually fund it, refuse to.

But what the global warming alarmist are bent out of shape over is about a 0.5° temperature increase over the next 100 years. We're not going to burn up. The sky is not falling. On top of all of that, the earth is just not cooperating with the global warming "scientists".

Plus we just do not have an accurate way of measuring the global temperatures. Thermometers were placed around the world in various locations but no thought was taken for accuracy. Some were in wooded areas, some were attached to the sides of buildings, some where in a parking lot. Many had fallen into disrepair. You cannot get accurate temperature readings that way. More recently they have been doing satellite imaging but we didn't do that until the last two, maybe three, decades. So you cannot get a trend over a long enough period of time to see what is happening.

I am saying global warming instead of climate change because most people think climate change is global warming. It is not. It could be but it could also be global cooling. It's a catch all phrase to keep the scare factor going because they could not longer say the earth is warming. What exactly is supposed to be killing us all from climate change. If you say the earth is going to burn up then you haven't been paying attention. Climate change is NOT global warming. Global warming stopped in 1997.

Global warming "scientists" kept trying to explain why their predictions weren't happening. The governments funding them had to act quickly before it went the way of the the ozone hole scare that preceded (and for a while overlapped with global warming). Once scientists were given the orders to push global warming over the ozone depletion no one has ever talked about it since. It was never "solved" it was just dropped as a scare tactic.

You would have thought the whole global warming scare would have fallen apart when emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, one of only 3 organizations that were studying global warming.

The emails showed us all that their computers that were giving us the warming data was nothing but random number generators.

Then hushed that up and about a year later more emails leaked and the same thing. They just made the numbers up. It wasn't any kind of computer modeling that took in data points and made predictions. It was a program that was designed specifically to give the numbers that the UN wanted.

dude, wtf, calm down, all i did was correct you on how plants work and now your going off on a tangent about the "Climate scare" even though it wasnt at all what i was talking about.

"dude, wtf, calm down"

I am calm. What made you think I was unsettled? All I am doing is trying to get you to think. Don't just listen to what the talking head on the TV tells you.

You're not correcting me, you're just telling me what I already know. I know what the the propaganda machine tries to force down your throats but I see it for what it is because I can think outside of their very tiny box. I am saying that I am a super intellectual or anything like that but I am smart enough to figure things out for myself.

Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they are the ultimate authority and you never have to verify what they are saying. Academia and intellections maybe very smart but they can also be very stupid and they get stuff wrong all the time.

And politicians are the worst. Especially Democrat politicians but there's a lot of Republicans that do not deserve to be in the position they are in. But when you get greedy, self-interested, narcissistic politicians who work with global organizations filled with the same kind of scum then you get stuff like global warming/climate change. You get stuff like you must take the COVID-19 vaccine so you won't get COVID, except for when you get COVID.

You just have to see through the caca and ask what is the goal behind all of this.

Ask yourself, why does every proposed solution to stop climate change take my freedom away? I get that there are a lot of liberals who are more than willing to give up all of their freedom for the government to take care of them. They think that is the job of the government. Those liberals may no know it but that is socialism. If people want to live that way that's fine, just don't do it in the United States of America. Go find some country that will take care of your every need and live there and never return. Don't try to turn us into your prison nation.

AAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDD I'm calm. I'm not upset. That's not who I am.

oh and one more thing you got wrong in your post is a "lot of scientists dont believe in climate change" you mean the group that has "belief" rates in it over 97% percent? or are you talking about people with degrees in theology?

I'm talking about scientist who are independent from any government and think for themselves.

You want to criticize theology. Then explain how science got involved in prognostication? When did science ever become about predicting the future ESPECIALLY when there is just do much we don't know about how the climate works.

What I'm saying is you using faith in their ability to predict the future. Good luck with that.

BTW science is not now nor has it ever been about fortune telling. It's about what is observable and repeatable. If it can be observed and observed happening every time then it is a fact.

Predicting the future is NOT science. People can have theories but that is not fact. Which means, despite Al Gore, the science is NOT settled.

around 91% percent of scientist are independent from the government, split around 50/50 between education and private sectors (Industry and business). lets assume all the ones that dont believe in climate change are part of the 91%, that still makes a majority of independent scientists "Believers" in climate change

So if 91% of independent scientists do not believe in man-made climate change then that would mean the majority believes what? Take you time, Ill wait.

Yes. It means that 91% of all independent scientists do NOT believe in man-made climate change.

It don't know where you're getting you information but I do know that back in the 2000's the UN released a document claiming they had 1,000's of scientists who support the man-made global warming model. This got a lot of people upset. And who were those people. It was the people named on that list. They never said they supported global warming and there were a lot of people on that list who weren't even scientists.

This prompted a reaction to where 900 or so scientists produced their own document saying they didn't believe in man-made global warming.

This was before they changed the name to the much more vague and undefined "climate change". You see, the earth just stopped cooperating with the global warming alarmists after 1997. They came with all sorts of explanations. Some called it a "pause". Then they just gave up and changed the name to climate change. Because climate change is undefinable. It could be anything. A hurricane hits Florida and all the sudden, it's climate change. Nevermind that Florida always gets hit by hurricanes. And it's been hit harder and with more frequency in its history than anything recent. Utah get an unusually snowy winter and it's climate change. Because its never snowed in Utah before.

Climate change is a real handy word. But if it isn't defined (and it can't be global warming or else they would have kept that name) then how do you fix it? The WEF and UN have got that figured out. They want to force us to all live in "Smart Cities" or "15 minute Cities". You'll not be allowed to drive more than 15 minutes away from your house. Only the oligarchy is allowed to do that.

BTW they've already started creating these cities and some of them are in the US. They haven't started with driving restrictions yet. They've planned that for sometime between 2030 and 2050. It's on the WEF's website. Go look for it.

I'm not sure how that will solve climate change but once their global government is in place climate change will just be forgotten about. No one will even talk about it. And if they do they will say it was solved and the science is settled.

"So if 91% of independent scientists do not believe in man-made climate change then that would mean the majority believes what? Take you time, Ill wait." not what i said, you cherry picked whatever the hell that is outta "lets assume all the ones that dont believe in climate change are part of the 91%, that still makes a majority of independent scientists "Believers" in climate change" key phrase "a MAJORITY of INDEPENDENT scientists 'believers" in climate change"

How do you know they are the MAJORITY? You are making an assumption. Most scientists work for the government, either directly or they are employed by a government run university. And nearly every college and university has been taken over by the left. It is really hard to take a class where the professor is spreading some line of leftist BS and you have to take a test based on his/her lies. If you answer correctly you get a bad grade.

But I digress... Anyway... The important take away is that it is possible for 100% of scientists to be wrong about something. In fact it happens more than you think. All it takes is for one scientist or anyone else to question the science. It is how theories get rejected or modified. It is how science is supposed to work.

However, there are scientist with egos too big for their job who will reject any questioning because they know better than anyone else. Scientists are just people. That's how you get theories like evolution, which when we didn't know any better sounded plausible. There is so much wrong with evolution but the theory is not going away anytime soon. Mainly because evolution is the religion of socialism and socialism isn't going away either. Even though socialism has been so totally discredited.

The ones the government turns to are presented with the conclusion and instructed to find the "science" that prove what the government is telling them. And that is how global warming/climate change came about. It is responsible for the colossal blunder of how they handled COVID-19. But then I think the virus was created to reduce the population but that is another topic.

I'm actually enjoying this thread and your long responses (genuinely and non-sarcastically).

Tons of points raised here which would need hours (or weeks) to go through. People have been debating this stuff for years.

And you're right that science has often been proved wrong. But it's quite rare for an entire body of evidence to be overturned. It does happen though, and paradigm shifts do occur. You'd still need to explain all the observations though with a solid new theory.

I'll just say a couple of things: a scientific "theory" isn't the same as how the word is used in normal colloquial speech. It's called the Theory of Evolution but that doesn't mean it's just a guess or a hunch. A scientific theory is more like an explanation of rules to explain a phenomenon that can then be tested and corroborated by observations and evidence.

There's also the Theory of Gravity, but I'm not sure even the most hardened skeptic would take their chances disproving that by leaping off a cliff...

Also not sure what the connection is between evolution and socialism, but anyway. 🤔

I believe you also mentioned earlier how CO2 had "nothing to do with" the earth's temperature. Except CO2 is actually a known greenhouse gas and that's a basic fact of science in every high school textbook. Along with methane and water vapor, which is actually the main one. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

Anyway, you're raising a lot of interesting and important questions and taking the time to look into and think about it all more than a lot of us do, so I applaud you for that. The next step is to work out whether those assumptions/statements can be backed up or proven.

I wish I was actually a climate scientist with experience in the field and could answer every point. But I guess even if I was, if we could definitively and conclusively prove to everyone what is going on with no room for doubt, we wouldn't be here having this debate.

"I'm actually enjoying this thread and your long responses (genuinely and non-sarcastically)."

Thanks. Not too many people who seem to disagree with me like my comments. I try not to insult or demean anyone and if you felt I was trying to demean you I do apologize (and am not saying that sarcastically).

I rarely, if ever, proof read what I type so I apologize for misspelled words or other grammatical errors.

'It's called the Theory of Evolution but that doesn't mean it's just a guess or a hunch."

I agree. There has to be compelling evidence before it can be a theory. Gravity is a theory only in the sense that there are many variables in gravity. There is slightly less gravity at higher elevations. Different planets have different gravitational pulls, mostly based on size. The only thing constant about gravity is that so far as our exploration goes it exists everywhere. What is not constant is the amount of force.

The theory of evolution when it was first proposed made a lot of sense based on our level of scientific understanding at the time. And for a number of years and decades after it was the best scientific theory. However, it is falling behind many of our newer discoveries.

What it has to do with socialism is that both the Charles Darwin and Karl Marx came up with their ideas relatively close together. I am not sure when Darwin lived but I do not think they were contemporaries. I think Darwin lived before Marx.

Marx based his political theory on atheism. The only think supernatural he believed was Satan. He wrote poems and plays in adoration of the German demon, Mephistopheles. He welcomed the idea of going to hell.

Marx called his political philosophy, communism. Communism is not new but it is not the same as Marx's communism. Marx based his ideology on socialism, which is why so many socialists today look up to Marx.

In the early 20th century (and late 19th century) began the Progressive era. The Progressives introduce America to Marx, Marx's communism, socialism, fascism and later Nazism. They were advocates of all of those ideologies because they are all based on socialism.

These early socialists stated as their goal the elimination of religion. They believe their success depends on diverting religious fervor to the state instead of a supreme being. They latched on to the theory of evolution as their "proof" that God does not exist. It was lost on them that evolution neither proves or disproves the existence of God.

>Not too many people who seem to disagree with me like my comments.

I mean, I upvote posts, even if I hold completely opposite political views to the person who posted it. Maybe I'm weird... I disagree more with my own friends and family actually. If people can't deal with disagreement, that's their problem. Just because we disagree on politics doesn't mean we should hate each other as people. Some of my best friends have completely opposite political opinions to me and we're always arguing over that. So this place is tame in comparison lol.

>I apologize for misspelled words or other grammatical errors

No issue so don't sweat it. I take the piss out of people's spelling and grammar here but that's just cos I'm petty, immature and lazy. I know it doesn't actually mean anything. I've seen plenty of leftwing people who can't spell for shit too. And I also make loads of typos lol. Oops.

Charles Darwin and Karl Marx happened to be contemporaries. So that makes their theories connected? I'm a bit confused. I could come up with a theory right now, and that happens to be contemporary with Trump or Andrew Tate. Does that mean my ideas are connected with theirs? 🤔

And yes, state Communist regimes weren't exactly fans of religion. Hitler killed a lot of Muslims and Communists.

Which is why it's a bit weird that some people here conflate them all. The idea that "libs" are all simultaneously Marxist, Muslim and atheist is a bit bizarre. Hitler hated Communists and sent them to death camps. He also murdered a few Muslims, although as far as I know he didn't target them specifically and wasn't quite as obsessed with them as he was with the Jews. I don't know what history textbooks people here are reading. It's all pretty weird.

"I mean, I upvote posts, even if I hold completely opposite political views to the person who posted it. Maybe I'm weird"

Probably not weird. I think if someone makes a very valid point even if you disagree with it, an upvote is not unwarranted. I've never done it just because I never thought about it before. I've rarely ever downvoted anyone unless they were just rude. I have never ever reported anyone even if I thought they were rude.

"Charles Darwin and Karl Marx happened to be contemporaries."

I wasn't sure if they were or not. I know about when Marx lived but I had forgotten when Darwin lived. I don't know if they knew either other or not. Darwin was English and Marx was a German living in England. It could have happened but I am not saying that they did.

The correlation is between early 20th century Progressives (aka socialist) and Darwin's theory (I have no idea if any of the associated with the man), and as far as I know, that correlation had nothing to do with Karl Marx. Marx's belief in evolution is unknown to me.

The connection that I made was that of the early 20th century Progressives and evolution, They were the ones who adopted evolution as a sort of state religion. A religion to replace all other religions. I don't even think they cared if it was a valid theory or not, it was just a tool they were going to use to replace belief in a Supreme Being, a means to an end.

"Hitler killed a lot of Muslims and Communists."

Hitler was a psycho and so was Stalin. Yes he did kill communists but he had a secret arrangement with Stalin. They were allies who fought each other. Socialists look at the individual as expendable. Neither Hitler or Stalin cared anything about human life so they had absolutely no problem sending their soldiers to fight each other.

Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mussolini were all socialists. None of them cared about the individual. It is the reason why Lenin, Stalin and Hitler committed genocide. Maybe Mussolini care some and that might be the only real difference between fascism and the others.

"Which is why it's a bit weird that some people here conflate them all. The idea that "libs" are all simultaneously Marxist, Muslim and atheist is a bit bizarre"

It is not at all bizarre. The America left, as I mentioned before, has a long history courting communists, fascist, Marxists, Nazis and any other variation of socialism.

Also as I said above, they don't all hate each other... sort of. Stalin and Hitler were buddies. However, the rank and file Nazis and Soviets did hate each other.

Hitler almost worshipped Mussolini until he met Mussolini. When he realized Mussolini was smarter then him, he despised Mussolini and not based on political ideology, just jealousy.

All variations of socialism are based on the same principles. Marx helped codify those principles. They are all collectivists who promise to take care of all of the needs of the collective. It is a one size fits all style of governing. They all believe that wealth should be redistributed so there is no income divide between the rich and poor. They all believe that the economy must be controlled by the government and that government control will produce a better product and life for everyone who lives under the regime. They all promise all sorts of government handouts as part of their taking care of the collective. Hitler promised to give the Germans free healthcare and free education from kindergarten through college.

I have noticed that, with the exception of America Progressives, the variations do seem to get violent with each other. They get violent within each other as well. Hitler's National socialism was at odds with German socialism so Hitler killed the German socialists. Mussolini's fascism had some modifications to socialism that the Italian socialists didn't like so they killed Mussolini.

A lot of people use those two events to try to separate socialism from Nazis and fascists but that is a mistake.

We seem to call the Soviet Union a communist nation but Lenin called himself a "democratic socialist" and Stalin called himself an "international socialist". There is just not enough different between socialism and communism to matter.

And with all 4 being virtually identical then where do you find freedom with two groups on one side and two groups on the other side? You don't. Freedom does not exist between or in any of those groups. Freedom belong as the complete other end of the political scale.

Evolution has nothing to do with socialism but socialists (which includes communists and fascists) have adopted evolution as their state religion. Hitler believed in restoring an ancient German paganism; therefore, he wasn’t an atheist and that means Nazis were not atheists.

There are socialist countries that retain Christianity or some other religion but it is very much controlled by the state.

There are a lot of socialists in our government who hold tightly to the theory of evolution. And in some places, it is even promoted as a fact and not a theory.

But like I said, it is more than a hunch. There is evidence. But there are starting to be some gaping holes in the theory. For example, the Cambrian explosion. About 75% to 90% of all live that exists today, existed at this time. Even more evidence has arisen that the time that these species appeared is now too short for evolution to be viable. Evolution from simple cells to animals that exist today is supposed to have taken several million years. Some are now saying the Cambrian period might have less than a million years. Others mathematicians have calculated that even at the first excepted time period it is still not enough time for evolution to have occurred.

Because of the Progressives that have planted themselves in our government, they are not about to let the theory of evolution go away because there is nothing to replace it with unless you believe in aliens but that asks where did aliens come from. There may or may not be aliens and there just isn’t enough evidence to build a theory on life coming from another planet. Without that, the Progressives fear people will turn back to God because that is the only other plausible theory of the origin of life. Especially considering the complexity of DNA found in every cell.

There’s more I could say but I’m getting tired of typing. Take care.

current estimates put it at around a 1 degree rise (In Celsius) or around 2 degrees Fahrenheit, overall manageable for right now.

The Texas flooding that you guys ignored because it contradicts your point:

heres an up bro, feels like your comment needed a pick me up