Did you know global warming is made up?

@BlueMetalChick I think we'll find out. Humans think we have this wink-wink, nod-nod inside relationship with nature. It could not care less about us.

@Thorstormbringer And thank God too because an ice age would suck.

We are also 175 years into a 400 to 500 year warm cycle as part of the interracial period.

Again, a good time to be alive Rath than the cold cycle which ended mid-Ninteenth century.

@Northerner Indeed. Unfortunately, the climate should be doing one thing right now, and it's actually doing the opposite.

@BlueMetalChick You mean we should be heading for another ice age?

@Northerner Not anything quite that extreme, but the planet should be cooling down. Sunspot activity is extremely low right now. That has a profound effect on the planet's temperature. And yet it is not cooling.

@Texasgurl Quelle surprise! 😀

<- This is your defenition of socialism. This template works for every form of state that has a "state" to begin with and believes that the state needs to have some function in society. Annything that uses "the state" (in what ever form it excists) will by defenition achieve "social ends" (as in, goals for society). Even Laissez Faire Capitalism that believes in the nightwatcherstate trust the state to intervene when things get fucked up. Hence that society believes that the state is a tool to achieve social ends (mainly, making sure people don't start robbing and rebelling)

And because you use a flawed defenition of "socialism" this next thing automatically becomes true:


Because your flawed premise allowed every system that has a state to be a bit socialist.


... But to be fair, you also added a part to your defenition here:


How are you going to make that argument work Joe? Let's say that in an extreme liberal case, where everyone is free, and the state is kinda the guardian for the verry basic principles. Making sure that people don't start killing eachother, making sure that people don't start taking away private property. Is that by itself not the control of peoples thoughts and their lives? Didn't society choice (lets hope by majority) to see these ideas as: "not killing one another" as productive, and doesn't the state enforce those ideas and even promote them? Doesn't the collective group of people, not put a block on your thoughts that when you think about "killing someone" you might consider repercusions by the state?

How does that defenition help annyone that wants to understand Socialism?






And this bit Joe? How is this ever going to work? Do you know what "Communism" as "Commune"+ism (the ideology or way of thinking that belongs in a "commune") go back to "fuedalism"? The idea is that everyone owns pretty much everything. (I mean there is a case for private property even in communist societies depending on who you read) So if everyone owns everything, how can a "lord" or a "king" start leanding out pieces of land that to give control over, so that they can reap benefits by forms of taxation? How does that work if everyone owns everything?

And "communism" can be found in literal communes, and abbeys. Where people work as a collective, do their shores, and reap the benefits as a collective. In it's purest ideal form "communism" doesnt have a state, it's inherently annarchistic.

The theory is:

Capitalism builds up a place, but because internal contradictions destroys itself. Workers (the proletariat, wagelaborers) get poor and get more exploited. Workers organise and don't take it annymore. Workers overthrow the class that holds the means of production (the bourgeoisie). The society moves towards a stage called "socialism" that is being governement by a dictatorship of the proletariat (as in the general will of the proletariat) and holds the means of production. And once everyone knows what to do, how to do it, there will be no need for state structures and we'll move to an anarchistic utopia called "Communism".

As Marx and Engels state in the communist manifesto: "you have nothing to loose but your chains"
reffering to a quote from JJ Rousseau: "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"
Used by annarchists because this idea creates a narrative that man his/her natural state is "free" and "good" (Rousseau was extremely optimistic) and that "society" corrupts man. So we need to get rid of society to get back to our natural state (and everyone that acted on those ideas had a really bad day).

There really is no end to the level of entertainment Hippy can provide just by opening his mouth and letting some shit run out of it.

@wendymt well said

@wendymt Very true. There are about 5 volcanoes going off right now. The climate shifting is being driven by the sun and yes it is a cycle. We are at a point called a grand solar minimum. It will cause more hail, cold, earthquakes and volcanic activity. It will also cause more flooding and much bigger storms. Look at this hurricane about to hit in May this weekend. I have never heard of a hurricane in the gulf in May. That is crazy.

LoL I don't have kids just because of the garbage this world has become. Who wants to give this to a kid and say good luck!

many of the world's illnesses, infectious diseases, etc. could easily be avoided if people would exercise a little discretion and common sense...

It isn't just coincidence that increased levels of STD's are on a parallel with polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, recreational drug use, etc.

@SW-User Forreal.

@SW-User lmfao

If it’s science, there are some who will reject the message without a thought.@SW-User

@Harriet03 💁‍♂️So what ? I thought you like big sweaty men grabbing at each other...

@MarmeeMarch 🙄

@Harriet03 hey - you are the one that brought it up.

BTW I am not denying climate change. I am denying human caused climate change. Yeah sure we have a small effect, everything does. But how do these global warming scientists explain increased earthquakes? How do they explain the fact that the cloud coverage is increasing? How do they explain the fact that the low pressure systems seem to be creating record storm surges? How do they explain the fact that this has happened before and is in recorded history? How do they deny that there is an obvious cycle? Why are they trying to force this human driven climate change when there is a history of this climate change happening two times in recorded history?

This is why I am extremely skeptical about global warming research. It is a bunch of time wasted trying to read their stuff when there is an obvious explanation. Also global warming experts dont explain why the earthquakes are increasing along with volcanic activity. I find it hilarious that the research I follow has explained this stuff from 10 years ago yet.... These global warming people just kind of release bogus papers trying to twiddle their thumbs and come up with some excuse why this or that started happening. Its obvious which community has the correct information. One has actual knowledge the other is just trying to get by with flimsy explanations. This earth is actually pretty easy to understand if you just think about it.

@S33K3R They... do explain the science. In great detail. Endlessly. There are probably tens of thousands of full books on the subject.

Look, we're not convincing each other of anything. What I want to leave you with is that the scenario of all the world's scientists being somehow paid actors in a hoax is a ludicrous, impossible conspiracy theory.

Go talk to some of them and find out. They aren't hard to find. Test your arguments. Find some counter-arguments that claim to debunk what you believe, and see if they pass muster.

Hold up. What is your "friends" name? I want to see their stuff. I hear back pedaling.

Haha yeah Ben Davidson! I have been watching him since 2012! Great channel indeed. You may also like adapt 2030. He talks about the various climate disasters. Not as much science but interesting info on crop losses and data. He seems to really have a nack for finding that stuff. Makes sense he is a commodity coffee trader.

@S33K3R The irony is that we haven't studied the actual impacts on climate long enough and/or have collected enough data to even surmise the long term effects; contrary to the tree huggers which are quick to jump to conclusions...

On top of that, actual evidence blows delusions like carbon consistency/equilibrium, carbon dating, evolution, origin of life, etc. out of the water...

In other words, they claim the amount of carbon 14 present in the atmosphere & living organisms was consistent until mankind came along, and that the amount of carbon/co2 is increasing [Dendrochronology (tree rings) & Palaeoatmospheric sampling (ice cores) disproves both]. It was actually higher in the past...

@wildbill83 it was higher... I read recently that the earth is now actually greening from the climate changes and increased CO2.

@S33K3R I wonder how environmentalists explain our sister planet, Venus?

It experienced greenhouse runaway without any people... 🤔

The reef has died from warming. This happens regularly. Part of the destruction is due to pollution. I do have data but reserve it for conversations not overly entitled people expecting me to waste my time to convince them of nothing.

What you see in others is often a projection of yourself. I'm content with you believing whatever you want. I know I read peer reviewed studies that contain raw data. I have nothing to prove ;)

@S33K3R At my age Ive seen at least a dozen 180 degree changes in the benefits/harm of coffee over time. Research often produces findings surprisingly in line with what the researcher wants to find. I dont think AGW is any different.

@wildbill83 haha right! Send them all to steamboat springs to clean up the global warming.

@redredred 80's sugar good, 90's sugar bad, 2000's sugar good, 2010's+ sugar bad... (personally, I'll take natural cane sugar over HFCS & artificial sweeteners any day...)

for decades they've been preaching how bad tobacco is, now they've discovered it may hold the cure to several diseases, including Alzheimers... (the irony is, if you look up a list of the world's longest lived people, a good portion of them are smokers...)

Caffeine in soda? supposedly bad for you. The solution? produce energy drinks that contain 5-10x the amount of caffeine in soda, market it as a health drink and claim it's good for you...

Many of the 90's era energy pills/supplements were outlawed due to all the heart attacks they were causing, but sure, drink up that Red Bull... we'll just blame it on something else this time... like sugar and/or smoking... 🤔

@VickyIcky I agree things are messed up. Its totally our fault. People are over populated. You cant have this many people on a planet and have them not trash it. You may be talking about the procession of the equinox? We are actually at the beginning of a mini ice age. It has been proven in historical records that right before this event there is an unusual warming period which was during 1990 to 2013 about. Then the climate started swinging slowly. Now it is going crazy.

@S33K3R No its not called that. I searched it up its called the Milankovitch Cycles. We are at the end of an ice age, which was part of the Pleistocene. Now we are in the Holocene which people debate whether or not we are in since the ice age hasn't ended yet. Holocene though just mean age of Humans. But either way we are still at the end of an ice age. Oh and global warming is true.

@AgapeLove you act as though ALL experts claim climate change is caused by humans. If you actually studied the subject you would know this is just not true. Your claim to superiority in this conversation reminds me of a Christian who claims superiority because they have Jesus on their side. I posted this to find out the intelligence of this community. There are very few people here that actually educate themselves on this subject here. Kind of sad. But go on continue crowning yourself winner because you blindly follow the most funded scientists while THOUSANDS of scientists who do have degrees refute those claims. You accuse me of being uneducated yet how many studies have you read?

@S33K3R There have been 13,952 peer-reviewed studies on climate science. 24 of them reject climate change. So THOUSANDS of scientists produced a total of 24 studies?

So yeah, pretty much all the experts agree and you're not one of them.

The one thing you said that was correct was about very few people educating themselves about the topic. That's correct. Example A: ypu.r last comment.

Meh skeptics think they have a phd with their Google skills. That's ok. I'm the one getting rich off my investments. You see.. When you know what's going to happen you can easily make moves at just the right time. Its like a game after a while. I enjoy debating small minded people occasionally.

✌🏻

@S33K3R

@Sharon

@newjaninev2
@CookieLuvsBunny

If you get tired of hippyjoe🤣

@MougyWolf Because of C02? That is literally a cartoon explanation of the climate. Yes C02 follows the temp... Does it cause the temp? Not at all. C02 is a indicator only.

@hahaheheuhhaha It just made me cringe

@questionWeaver Oh no climate is changing but its not warming. We are in for a real ride thats for sure!!

@SW-User Did you know that they are using global warming to cover up an even more scary thing? The climate is cooling, and they have no idea how bad it will get. The crops this year were planted 3 weeks late. That is a very big deal.

@Kimcat Well the fact the tornadoes seldom ever form in cities because tall buildings interrupt wind currents is proof of that one being wrong.

We know how to redirect lightning so it doesn't strike important things.

Hurricanes and earthquakes we haven't mastered yet.

@drymer I am not sure what that chart is indicating. I dont use wikipedia, I use peer reviewed studies to learn.

@drymer That looks like my EEG except that it's too regular.

@Peaches I agree. We are a cancer. I do enjoy studying our sun and its effects on earth though.

@Razorback Shut up you fool, 🎭️🃏I don't use any of which you mention. I'll stay until I'm ready to go. Here's a parting gift in advance...💩

@BlueMetalChick O have a whole post about it. I'm not retyping paragraphs on my phone just for you.

@HoraceGreenley A link might be more helpful than an image of Bart Simpson. If you even feel like you have to reply at all, because this is clearly going nowhere.

@BlueMetalChick zgo to my profile. It's pinned

@SW-User who are they?

@SW-User there are those guys and also scientists who just want to promote their observed truth. I agree humans are terrible for what we have done.

@Orbiter Yes I am. I should have been more clear.

@S33K3R That's not a problem. I just wanted to clarify. I've been reading through the comments, following the discussion.

@MarmeeMarch I'd rather look slightly weird for replying to old comments than I would look like a fool for saying what you did.

By the way, is it just me, or has it been weirdly common right now for old threads to become active again? I've been seeing a lot of that.