Infidel Dog

Yeah...I know. I remember that one. You caught the date on it, right? It's over 40 years old. My impression is the general knowledge there has changed. Scientists (or rather the NY Times interpreting scientists) have stopped saying that. Or maybe they didn't. Do you have anything more recent? I'd be interested.

Carbon dioxide emissions don't matter much. Carbon emissions are actual pollution. But even if you're talking Carbon dioxide they might not matter as potential harm but they matter to the debate because if you want to change the world by thinking you can control the climate through lowering CO2 emissions you'd need to start with China. It's the number one emitter. Then India.

They'll have to re-categorize the TV series Yellowstone as science fiction.

Alert! Alert! Robo! You need to jump in the spellingmobile and get down here stat. Siren screaming and red light flashing. There's been a spelling mistake. I don't want to look but I can't look away. The horror. Only you can save us R&R. Come quick. Immediately if not sooner.

I always thought that claim about the termites was interesting. One hears it from time to time. I did a bit of a search on it one time some time ago. Near as I can figure they're confusing Carbon dioxide with methane. His #3 is actually true. Kind of. "97% of greenhouse gases are water vapor." I believe the correct number is 95. But that's interesting because it's how climate alarmists are able to postulate crisis warming. There isn't actually enough warming in 1 degree per doubling of CO2 to cause a crisis so they hypothesize a situation where carbon dioxide warming creates a positive feedback of added warming in water vapor. Just a couple of interesting but irrelevant little factoids. Trust me I'm not the guy who's going to back up anything from the WEF. Feel free to continue attacking the guy.

A little surprising that they're saying it out loud now. I thought they'd just continue to price it out of existence.

I want to buy any damn car I want to buy and if I can't I want a better reason than some guy who knows less about the subject than I do telling me he's the Science.

Speaking of ignorance...you might want to look up "mitigation versus adaptation". Realizing climate is changing but not wanting to run and tell the king because nothing is happening that hasn't happened before is not necessarily the same thing as just sitting on your ass. Wanna beef up the dyke in Richmond? Good idea. But if you want a carbon tax tell me why we need it and show me what it's been doing for us so far. Or try. We already know, not much, if anything.

Not sure who you mean by "majority of posters in this thread" but it doesn't matter. If it's who I think we're too busy taking a victory lap to care.

Man am I ever glad I went "anti-vax" after they sucked me into the first shot.

This comedian linked below does an SNL style "Do you remember" comedy routine on stuff "They" would like you to forget:

Oh and hey, I can't remember if it was you or the other half of R&R that was critiquing my use of the neologism "Clicky." Doesn't matter. It's the same thing. I know what cliquey means. That isn't what I meant, either by definition or pronunciation. I wasn't talking about any kind of cabal or group of people. I was talking about a term. "Clicky" to me is a relative of clickbait. It's a word or phrase that's facile and easy to click on digitally or mentally but when you stop to think about what is actually being said it doesn't really mean much or serve any kind of useful purpose. The prog tendency to constantly redefine terms to mean whatever they want at the moment is "clicky." Terms like "whataboutism" are "clicky." The claim that if you mention Nazism you've lost the argument is "clicky." A Nazi comparison is often valid. "Clicky" is my word with my definition. It's OK to do that by the Prog example. You guys do it all the time. BTW "Prog" is also "clicky" and I'm fine with it. If you want to know what that means feel free to ask. "Clicky" sounds like and means exactly what I want it to. If you were unsure about what I meant you should have asked rather than push your own idea that what you wanted to believe I was thinking was some sort of new truth.

You have no evidence supporting the contrary to what I claim. And if that's what you want to call "whataboutism" I'm fine with it. You can be forgiven though because one doesn't necessarily have to offer evidence to an opinion. We know you never do. It's purely voluntarily. Rational argument with examples the other party is expected to know about or if he doesn't should look it up are fine. That's all you ever use - if that. The contention of "rational argument" rarely applies with you. Also the first and most important part of my two claims was supported by the Washington Post quote I offered referencing a 7 hour deposition by Hannity. Neither you nor the OP have offered any better support for your contention that Hannity's disbelief in voter fraud is not limited to a contention by Sydney Powell of a crooked algorithm in the vote counting software.

Boy...these Rebel news reporters better be careful with these unfriendly vax attack interviews they've been doing in Davos. This current one with some Pfizer big wig might be the most brutal one yet. I worry Ezra and Avi might find themselves strapped to wooden chairs in some dark Swiss room and that's the last anybody will ever hear from them.

How do you convince yourself you're living in the real world when rational points are reworked in your land of Proggy make believe to become what you would like to believe instead of what was actually said to you. If you or yours aren't living up to the standards you'd like to hold others to people will notice. They won't be impressed. Thinking you've changed that because you know a clicky little term like 'whataboutism' is either desperate or nuts.

Well that's never actually happened and you know it. You've never disproven any claim of mine and I doubt you ever will. Generally what you do is you make some ridiculous claim of your own as you did above. Somehow in the twisted mind of prog that becomes an example of you producing superior evidence. Never actually happened. Not in this reality. My claims were as followed. As far as we know Hannity only claimed at one point in his 7 hour deposition he did not believe Sydney Powell's allegation an algorithm in the election software changed votes. That's true. Read the WaPo quote you were given. I also stated my opinion the OP would like you do believe Hannity's claim was he didn't believe there was any skullduggery anywhere in the 2020 election. If he is contending that it's false. And that contention of a falsehood is true.

I gave you evidence. It's stuff you should know. If you don't believe it, where's your evidence. I find that interesting that a guy who's always asking for evidence has never actually produced any.

You kind of made me laugh there in your last post though. Why would you expect somebody to prove some contention you make about them from your make believe, Proggy land of 'what you'd like to believe?' Seriously, has that ever worked for you?

Well if you do want to use clicky little rhetorical devices like "Whataboutism" to justify your hypocrisy ever heard this maxim? ~ People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ~

If noticing the obvious inequity of two tier justice or judgement is just 'whataboutism' then I'm fine with it as critique. But I get why you don't want to be judged by your own rules of what's acceptable. You don't look good. You look worse than what you're condemning.

Well I would expect a guy who brags about his superior knowledge of American politics to know about well known occurrences like the ethics complaints and investigations against Maxine Waters or Hank Johnson thinking the island of Guam would tip over if they sent too many soldiers over there. Apparently you need a Canadian to tell you about basic stuff you missed. So do yourself a favor. Stop looking so ignorant (I was going to say stupid. ) Look it up.

Then there's this: Did the dems do that? Like ever in their long history of sleazy (Maxine Waters) or just plain stupid (Hank Johnson) candidates? Nope.

That is interesting. They are lower tier committees of the sort new members are generally assigned to. Not really comparable to the plum assignments given to a crook, a traitor, and an incurable liar like what was given to Omar, Swalwell, and Schiff by Pelosi.

Let's get a little more specific here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/05/rupert-murdoch-deposed-dominion/ It doesn't appear possible to get the actual deposition for full context but let's take WaPo's word for what's there. Hannity said he didn't believe Sydney Powell's claim Dominion was using an algorithm to shave off votes. Nevetheless he asked her a question and she gave an answer as tends to happen in interview situations. Unless somebody can link us to the actual deposition we don't know what the follow up questions in the interview were. I was reading that this particular interview happened the evening following the day Powell had been dumped from Trump's legal staff. Contrary to what the OP would like you to believe Powell's contention of an algorithm scam in the voting machines was not the only allegation of dirty doggery in the 2020 election

I think it's kind of funny the way the Prog God has commanded its troops to beat their chests and feign outrage over this Santos thing. No Republican seems want the guy around. They'd dump him if they could and they might find a way yet. He's not on any committees that I know of. But that doesn't seem to matter to the same type that so easily ignore stuff like Ilhan Omar marrying her brother to scam him a green card then getting a seat on the House foreign affairs committee or Nancy continuing to seat Eric Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee even after they discovered he'd been banging the Chinese spy, Fang Fang. Democrat supporting types don't really care that this Santos weasel is a lying choad. If they did they'd get rid of the bug-eyed, Burbank, bolshevick, master of the bald faced lie, Adam Schiff. They don't actually care that Santos is a liar. They care he's a republican.