Infidel Dog

Wasn't necessary to post the whole thing. I told what was in the rest of the article. A bunch of double talk. If they didn't wan to cancel the order permanently, why do it at all? I heard your excuse. Mine remains they wanted to see if they could get away with it.

Again the mocking is directed more at the idiots who take a know-nothing kids fear based opinions as something they need to act on. But yeah, to do so you'd have to notice the poor kid is clueless. She knows less about climate science than you do and that's saying something.

As I understand it this remains true: However they didn't expect the kind of pushback they got so they're saying well we're just going to kind of kill this order then we'll come out with another that says pretty much the same thing but then it will be our policy. Something like that. I know what you're talking about though. This, right: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-insulin-epipen/ So if it's Prog-approved like rejoining WHO or recommitting to the Paris Accord that's pushed as true and permanent but if it's something nutty like making medicine more expensive for diabetics or making it harder to fight opiate addiction well, that's just temporary. Nothing to see here. We'll wait to see how much pushback there is then put a spin on it sometime in the future when you've forgotten about our election campaign obligations to the drug lobby.

I'm not sure hate is the right word. I think mocking would be more accurate. And it's more like mocking the kind of stupidity that is influenced by said little girls irrational, politically inspired fears. Nobody is "stealing Greta's childhood" by heating their houses, or driving their car or enjoying a fossil fueled lifestyle in general.

You mean like this?

I believe what started it was somebody (me actually) noticed Greta and Gore were full of said Bullshit. I believe this is what set you off on your jihad to stop anybody from bringing up the political element of the climate scare. I still consider the Greta and Gore observation factual and relevant BTW, if you'd still like to as you say "come back at me."

I think if Petros actually told the truth about something he'd have one of Sleazy Joe's choking, coughing fits.

By not helping it.

Speaking of Biden's real bosses have you heard about how Wall Street is whining because average investors have banded together to put the kibosh on their short-selling, hedge-fund schemes where they gamble in hopes of economic failure? Well this is interesting... https://thenationalpulse.com/news/yellen-made-millions-speaking-to-wall-street/

I think it's legitimate to wonder about Biden's connections to Communist China. Personally though, I think the guys who are actually pulling his strings are usually more Money Managers, Corporatists and Globalists but there are Progressive Socialist and even Marxist elements operating as stooges and even a thug arm (antifa, BLM) for the movement Bejing Biden figure heads. But, come to think of it Biden's real puppet masters don't mind dealing with China either. I'd think of that more as thread relevant complaint than diversion.

Well, I do know it's a troll when a leftist tries to hijack a thread about Biden (who's not doing too well so far) by diverting to McCarthy. Especially after ignoring the topic of McCarthyism and witch hunts when the Dems were Witch Hunting Trump and his supporters as what they called a fascist and a racist for 4 years. Come to think of it, you're still doing it.

I also said noticing McCarthy was right when he noticed Soviet Communists were operating hidden in DC was a counter-troll to a trolls remarks. And speaking of trolls, none of what you say is true. It's either flat out false or massively warped to take out of context. You're another troll who's just trolling again when you lie like that.

Let's stop pretending. Here's what we're really arguing about. The question in the title asks "Do you believe in Man-Made Climate Change?" The answer is, yes, of course, the climate changes. The sun rises in the east and sets the west, the sky is blue, and climate changes. Is that change man-made? Now the question is getting deceptive because what's really being asked is "Do you believe man is changing the climate by using fossil fuels for energy and will that ultimately lead to catastrophe. The answer to that is we don't actually know how much influence man has on the climate or how much or even if it will cause any damage that can't be dealt with by simply adapting to it as we always have. When politicians come at you suggesting you react like this demanding more money and control they're not to be trusted. And you telling people they're not to discuss that angle of the question should be immediately mocked and discounted. And yes you did say that, or I wouldn't be objecting to it.

Thanks for the link. I like the title. It's the [Climate Policy] Stupid! So are you beginning to figure out why Mitigation versus Adaptation belongs in a discussion about what they're calling "climate change?"

This one's pretty good. She wants to impeach specific Dems for the crime they're saying Trump's guilty of:

Here ya go, Petros. YouTuber Fleccas does what you were afraid to. He goes through the specifics of what the Biden puppet signed on to his first week in office. Feel free to point out specifically which policy you're most proud of:

Tell you what...I'll answer the question in the title specifically. Do I believe the climate changes? Yes. Do I believe man can have some influence on climate. Yes. However, do I believe that noticing and remarking on how political motivation has hyped exaggerated conclusions drawn from these accepted facts offering deceivers more money and control than they need or deserve is a troll. No. It's a pertinent and important issue that needs to be discussed. If you actually do have a link to Mitigation versus Adaptation, sure give it to me. Won't stop me from discussing it here when it fits though.

No. It is you who is trolling by trying to control what people can say on a thread about climate change. Climate Change has a distinct political element. In spite of knowing very little about the science of AGW yourself you seem to be locked into insisting everybody else can only center on that. If you don't want me to counter-troll you stop making nutty demands like I should open another thread if I want to discuss the thread pertinent issue of how a future risk might be dealt with from the current non-problem of what's called "Climate Change."

Yeah, the idea Biden has made some remarkable policy change to increase the number of vaccinations delivered is just plain BS. The only executive order showing a noticeable differentiation between Trump's Covid policy and Biden's is the one announced this morning where he banned the term "China Virus." Not sure why Petros would want to dance in the streets about that one though.

You know, Mike, the term Climate Change is politically charged. If you want to talk specifically about the science concerning AGW in particular perhaps it's you who needs another thread. Although I don't know why you'd want to talk about that topic specifically because you don't seem to know a lot about it. Unless you're looking for a learning experience.

I thought you said you knew all about the mitigation versus adaptation question. It's central to the climate change debate? Look up "Bjorn Lomborg climate change."

Glen Greenwald doesn't understand why it's necessary to turn DC into a police state. Reflecting the Authoritarian Climate, Washington Will Remain Militarized Until At Least March

Biden's press secretary is no Kayleigh Mcenany. She's running around in circles.

Judge Bars Biden From Enforcing 100-Day Deportation Ban

Still trying to find some specifics so I can understand what you're talking about. I'm assuming it's more than something Biden did or might do concerning the mail? Would this below be the kind of new policy you're wanting to celebrate? Biden Turns the War Machine Back on