The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_DoubtingThomas]

That said, his point isn't even accurate. If you look at polling on what people think about various issues, there's a ton of ideological heterodoxy in the public. People really don't line up in these boxes. You know who does? Ideologues. Ideologues like Harris. Those are the people Harris is most familiar interacting with and he significantly overrrepresents them in his assessment of how people think about political topics. The people who fall in those neat boxes are actually a relatively small % of the population, though. If you look at polls where people are asked their views on 10 different political topics, the amount of people who come out as orthodox mainstream liberal (or conservative) on every last one is relatively small.

But most Americans don't really care much about politics. There are about 253,768,092 adults in the US, but only about 132 million participated in the 2016 elections and I suspect that most voters are not really into politics.

Evolution Explains Why Politics Is So Tribal
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... cs-tribal/

[_EAllusion]

That said, his point isn't even accurate. If you look at polling on what people think about various issues, there's a ton of ideological heterodoxy in the public. People really don't line up in these boxes. You know who does? Ideologues. Ideologues like Harris. Those are the people Harris is most familiar interacting with and he significantly overrrepresents them in his assessment of how people think about political topics. The people who fall in those neat boxes are actually a relatively small % of the population, though. If you look at polls where people are asked their views on 10 different political topics, the amount of people who come out as orthodox mainstream liberal (or conservative) on every last one is relatively small.

But most Americans don't really care much about politics. There are about 253,768,092 adults in the US, but only about 132 million participated in the 2016 elections and I suspect that most voters are not really into politics.

Evolution Explains Why Politics Is So Tribal
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... cs-tribal/

Most people are not into politics. And it turns out that even among the people who are, most people don't have views that are orthodox liberal or orthodox conservative. You can divide them up into smaller categories that start to get more ideological homogeneity, but that runs against the idea of if you know a person's views on X, then you know their views on Y with a high degree of reliability.

[Guest]

Hi Res,

Man, this issue seems like a gish gallup real quick. I can't keep up when every issue requires lengthy response and Gunnar makes quippy comments that I must be chicken or something.

I wonder if catastrophic global warming was in fact not accurate would you be open minded? Kind of like asking us when we were Mormon if we wanted to know if it was false?

The following paper by the the Connolly's seems promising. So what do you do with something like it, just say they are paid shills and move on? Or do you look at the data they provide and make a judgment consistent with that data?

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... th_century

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#our_papers

mikwut

[Guest]

UPDATE: The "certificate" only isn't entirely "fake", due to it actually coming from the IPCC, not actually coming from the Nobel Institute.
Though, the court document claim by Mann that he was Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is still 100% false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKbDfP5DitA

Michael Mann is one of the primary favorites of Climate Change claimants, and is where a large majority of the climate change/global warming fraud originates.

This video shows how Michael Mann has no problem "faking" his own Nobel Prize, when it was only issued to the agency he worked for, not him, and no personal certificate was issued to any individual as the below information shows from the Director of the Nobel Institute.

Thus, it's not a stretch that he's willing to lie about the "science" which I also show below, how he removes the Medieval Warm Period, and downgrades the Little Ice Age in order to create his fake "Hockey Stick" showing extreme last 100 years warming, which is actually considerably LESS Warm than the Medieval Warm Period.
Further, one other thing the video shows is that climate scientists were actually working together and trying to get the Medieval Warm Period removed in order to make their Global Warming claims, which as the below shows, Michael Mann was all to willing to do.

So, these are two examples of clear and intentional FRAUD in life and in science that one of the biggest global warming proponents are willing to engage in.
And YOU all willfully believe it, doing ZERO study to know what's actually the truth or not on this subject. You just appeal to authority because it fits your ideology.

Nobel Institute Director's response to Michael Manns FAKE Nobel Prize Certificate.



The IPCC's chart indicating the basic Temperature record for the last 1,000 years.



Michael Mann's manipulation of the data of the same period, contradicting the IPCC chart above. Mann's chart is the one most global warming Activists and even most leftist scientists use today, ignoring their actual peer-reviewed temperature data that the above chart shows.

Comparing these two charts, you see how Michael Mann eliminated the Medieval Warm Period in order to make the claim that modern C02 levels are causing extreme warming. This is clear and unequivocal FRAUD of the temperature record for political purposes... Mann is a radical Leftist.


And by the way, going further back in the Temperature record for 1,000's and 1,000's of years, you see even more clearly that today's warmth is not even close to "dangerous" or serious. We are actually at the tail end of the last Ice Age... We've been gradually getting COOLER for 1,000's of years.
This is another manipulation Leftists "scientists" and activists engage in, by cherry-picking small timelines to make their claims.

[_ldsfaqs]

I've shown on the first page of this thread the Raw Temperature Data from the best data sets in the world, the U.S. and Canada.

Just look at it with your OWN EYES. No "interpretation" is required.

[Guest]

Fraud From The Union Of Concerned Scientists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk

This video shows among other things how the above group is claiming the Midwest is "hotter than ever", and we MUST switch to alternative energy sources or we will burn to death.
This video shows with the actual DATA from Temperature stations that that claim is absolutely false. That the "opposite" is in fact occurring.

by the way, NONE of you have "debunked" ANYTHING I've posted.
All you have done is:

1. Engaged in personal attacks of me and Heller
2. Posted some claimed debunking that has occurred in the past with Heller, as if that debunks EVERYTHING he has done. And it's further not even true, you just BELIEVE it's a debunking, you spend no effort to actually study his responses on it etc.. Sure, not that he's never "not" made a mistake, he has a couple of times, but your sources are false almost 100% of the time.
3. Only ONCE did you debunk anything I posted, and that was once I posted a bunch of Images I found on the internet related to Global Cooling, and ONE of them was fake.

Try again...

Sorry, dude, we don't believe you.

Why? Not just because we understand the science better. It's because you've lied so many times and so fanatically. That's your legacy. For YEARS. Own it.

Now show us some fancy name-callin'.

I have NEVER "lied" or misrepresented once on this forum or elsewhere...
You confuse your fantasy's of me and reality as being lies, when it's YOU who lies.

I have like two or three times made a mistake, and when it was pointed it out I accepted it and corrected it, like I pointed out already that one of several images from Magazines about Global Cooling, one of them was FAKE. I accepted it. Can't remember what the once or two other times I made a mistake were about, but I've accepted and corrected myself every time...

Name a single time you've corrected yourself of some falsehood? NEVER

And FYI, you don't have to "believe me".... Just use your OWN fingers, eyes and ears and study for yourself the information and compare.

[_ldsfaqs]

And to the others here...

First address the information I've posted, debunking it, and I'll address anything you post that you think debunks it.

Further, I've done this some already to various links you all post, but they end up being either personal attacks on Heller, weak claims that have nothing to do with what I posted, etc.

Deal with the points I and the videos address first, and then we can move onto other things.
The first rule of debate is to address what's being discussed, not tangents, and not strawmen and personal attacks.
That is ALL that occurs here when it comes to all the facts I post on a subject condemning Leftism and their lies, anti-mormonism etc.

[_Res Ipsa]

And to the others here...

First address the information I've posted, debunking it, and I'll address anything you post that you think debunks it.

Further, I've done this some already to various links you all post, but they end up being either personal attacks on Heller, weak claims that have nothing to do with what I posted, etc.

Deal with the points I and the videos address first, and then we can move onto other things.
The first rule of debate is to address what's being discussed, not tangents, and not strawmen and personal attacks.
That is ALL that occurs here when it comes to all the facts I post on a subject condemning Leftism and their lies, anti-mormonism etc.

CFR on your claim that you’ve acknowledged when you’ve been shown to be wrong. And you’ve ducked my question twice now. I’m not going to waste my time responding unless you promise to stick around and discuss the evidence.

[_Res Ipsa]

Faqs, here’s the last time you cut and ran. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51969

[_Res Ipsa]

I've shown on the first page of this thread the Raw Temperature Data from the best data sets in the world, the U.S. and Canada.

Just look at it with your OWN EYES. No "interpretation" is required.

Tell me, faqs. I have a friend who sets his watch five minutes ahead of the actual time so he won’t be late to meetings. When his watch says 12:00, what time is it?

Is it noon, based on the raw data? Or is it 11:55, based on adjusted data?