Yes, witness the recent efforts to quash the free speech of valedictorians who wanted to speak out against climate change at their schools.

If you are ignorant on the specifics of why Trump, and his various organisations are being investigated, whose fault is that?

Which is kind of ironic, Hillary is just a bag man for the Mafia, Trump IS the Mafia. His supporters didn't want a president influenced by the elite who see themselves as above the law, so they elected someone who, at his core truly, honestly believes himself to be above the law, and, for all intents and purposes, is.

They don't seem to mind that Trump committed treason, so who knows? The US is not run by people who respect the rule of law.

Trump does what he is told.

Yeah that would require Trump to admit that he needed help - not a good idea to cross trumps demented ego.

And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.

"just ate a big sandwich and now I'm stuffed! So much for global hunger!"

[ credit: not me ]

And he was wrong then, what makes you think he is right this time?

What happened to the warming that should have occurred because the concentration of CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 410ppm ?

Which is the point. Fewer and fewer people are denying that the climate is warming. That's as expected - it's getting harder to deny and not look like a fool.

But historically, it was common practice: had your average denier made a bet 10-15 years ago, they would have lost that bet. Because all of the historical predictions made by deniers have been wrong. The fact that they have retreated from the indefensible to a position they hope to defend (but won't) doesn't make their position sensible.

Prior to about 1988, conservatives pretty much did agree that climate change was a problem, and the science was not at all controversial. For instance, it was well understood through the 60s-70s that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that made the surface of Venus so much hotter than Mercury, and conservatives weren't inclined to dispute it.

When it came to the point of deciding what to do, certain corporations used their lobbying arms to reset opinion amongst the conservatives, framing it along typical lines around controversy and the threat of socialism, in order to protect the profits of those corporations.

And by not participating in the discussion about what to do about climate change conservatives have created the impression that they do not have a solution, so we instead need to look to the left to solve it. Which is ridiculous, like every problem, there is a spectrum of approaches we can take.

You can't negotiate with the physical reality of climate change, it's not a matter of opinion, You can, however, advocate for more 'right friendly' ways of resolving the issue, and if you truly believe that 'right friendly' solutions are the best and most efficient, the right should be confident in advocating for those solutions.

The right saying that climate change is a socialist conspiracy is saying that only socialism can solve a class of global problems, which is not only incorrect it also invalidates the right wing altogether.

Surrender is one way of avoiding war, that's true.

Zimbabwean?

Actually the woke industry sponsored fake news has been saying for nearly forty years that price/kwh is the only metric of success and nuclear is as expensive as all get out - first compared to coal/gas, and now renewables.

Particularly for regions with no pre-existing nuclear industry: the vast majority of places.

Would you PAY for it though? Or is your expectation that other people ought to pay for it on your behalf, because you prefer it? Isn't that socialism?

It is hard to fit it into his busy schedule.