Infidel Dog

Seems like something to consider all right. One also might consider something like this one from last year: Big Pharma Backs Joe Biden, But People Don't Think He'll Fix Drug Pricing

More problems for the man with a plan: ‘It’s a mess’: Biden’s first 10 days dominated by vaccine mysteries

From your link: The power of pushback. At least there's a delay. Now there should be more pushback on Biden's cockamamie plan to get the Chi-comms involved in the American power grid. That one's dangerous.

That's a question there's no real hard science answer for using the scientific method. There are estimates (guesses.) This one from Scafetta et al., 2017 shows how estimates (guesses) have been declining. Or wait...did you mean if CO2 continues rising at the current rate that appeared to cause a 1 degree per doubling? You'd have to consider the complexities discussed here: An estimate of Climate Sensitivity He comes to the conclusion: Nevertheless if the Socialist mayor of New York wants to build dykes like your link says it wouldn't bother me, personally. He's proposed stupider wastes of money.

Speaking of terrorists under Biden: 'It's absurd': Fury from FDNY vets as Biden administration okays COVID vaccine for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 40 other 'Gitmo' terror detainees - months before most Americans

You were saying you wanted to bring issues from another message board over here. I'm against that but if you pushed me I would have to remember how you were kind of famous for getting people riled by misinterpreting them and telling them what they meant by this or that and for that matter what they thought. You were always wrong of course. But why would a lying troll care about that? The evidence for you being just that is that you started this and won't leave it alone.

Yes, cliimate changes. Yes, man can have some effect on that. CO2 almost doubled. The scientific method tells us temperature can rise about a degree in a closed system from that. Temperatures rose about a degree from the 50s. Tell me why you think that's a problem we can't adapt to.

And feel free to place this graph at the end of NASA's CO2 increase one Boges.

But let's say NASA's estimates on their web page mean something. Let's say there are risks. Earlier we were discussing Adaptation versus Mitigation. A new one came out on that. Press release: adaptation much more profitable than mitigation

"Denier" is a hysterical, slur of nonsense. It's like all these new Warmiac labels. It doesn't specify what it's defining. Denying what specifically? Consensus on what specifically? Somebody said "problems." What problems and what specific evidence do you have on what specific problems. I've seen good arguments on what the politically driven web designers at NASA are calling evidence above. I'll give you an example. The graph they lead with doesn't tell you a lot of things. For example it forgets to tell you the earth is a lot older than 800,000 years. The graph also forgets to tell you the earth was going through a period of Carbon dioxide deprivation during the period of that graph. Levels have been as much 4 to 5 times high as recent as the era of the dinosaurs. CO2 is necessary for the existence of life on earth. If you fall below 180 you start to head towards an extinction event never seen before. You'll notice the earth was briefly heading there according to NASA's graph. The pic is meant to scare you but maybe you're being scared for the wrong reasons. There's nothing scary about the 440 ppm they're requiring you to freak out about. And speaking of warped terms with adaptable definitions depending who you're trying to scare. What precisely is meant by the term "Climate Change" anyway. It isn't just that climate changes. That's the big lie.

Do what you do. Liars gotta lie and trolls gotta troll, I guess.

Wait, are you ready admit now that you can't do this? Fine then. My job is done. Oh wait...are you also ready to admit that Warmiacs like Extinction Rebellion, Greta, and Gore and for that matter the EU, The United Nations and Biden can't either and that matters.

How much human-created temperature change. How unchallenged is that. and why do you seem confident you can predict climate catastrophe out of what you think you've seen. That's what I'm asking for. Feel free to produce these graphs you say you have on that anytime you're ready.

No. That opinion is not what I was challenging. I quoted this from an article about START: But you claimed Trump wouldn't sign this current deal with Russia because he "wanted China and fire breathing dragons included". There's no evidence of that other than opinion derived from the opinion of an anonymous source and it doesn't sound reasonable to expect Russia to sign something for China. What's more likely is the other claim that came out in the negotiations concerning START that Russia had been violating the agreement "with impunity."

2. Not sure why you want to disagree with the IPCC on that (the most they say they can find is 50% since the 50s) then claim there's no debate. 3. Would you prefer "claimed?" Either way we still haven't seen any of this data you claimed you had before I challenged you to see it.

Not sure where you got that China misinformation from or why you think Trump would ask Russia to sign an agreement for China. I do remember when Trump withdrew from a previous nuclear agreement there was this though: There was some talk of China regarding that but it was more like: But now Progressive Socialists celebrate because: Russia says U.S. agreed to renew nuclear weapons pact "on our terms"

So let's get this straight. Who's Putin's complacent puppet again? Isn't there a theory that Reagan's refusal to compromise on advanced weaponry - the Star Wars program and such - was one of the main things that brought down the Soviet Union?

Even what I would call the politically charged IPCC can only dare to claim 50% of the change in climate as man-made and that's only since the 1950s. If you'd watched the video I gave you that showed the rational arguments against the hysteria you'd know that. This one...

So wait...are you thinking I'm this "physicist" you say you "critiqued" then "refuted?" Thanks for the complement but I have to deny both the idea I'm a physicist and the joke that you refuted anything. I remember I came in about page 9 where you suggested man alone bears responsibility for the change in climate. Then you boasted about all this data you said you had that showed it but we've yet to see any. At least that's the way I remember it.

Have you seen Biden's Transgender Health secretary, yet? His whole team seems to be wokesters and Wall street. And Jen Psaki seems only equipped to handle those softball questions the main media corps keep lobbing to her like what color will the president's plane be. As soon as the question get tough she's like...

There's trouble with Biden's new Treasure Secretary and her Wall Street connections too. https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/29/treasury-secretary-janet-yellen-wont-recuse-on-gamestop-despite-getting-almost-a-million-from-citadel/

Not sure what you're talking about, but I would like to see the argument you had with the physicist. Give me the page number.

Troll me and I'll counter-troll you, noob. If you want to impress me with your virtue come in at the troll not the counter.

That you're a lying troll? Yes. I'm absolutely sure.

Boy, you're really desperate for a little anti-right outrage over there on the alt-left, aren't you? Know what you sound like?