Liberal Forum

JohnnyYou » 09 Aug 2025, 5:03 am » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 5:03 am

Your physics sucks.  Ask Venus

Cannonpointer » 09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm

His sources are seconded by the vast majority of nobel laureates in physics - people whose credibility is sufficient that they don't fear e-ssassination. 

You are being "informed" by people who openly politicize science by defending the classic authority fallacy, "I am X because I SAY I am X" as "science."

This, by definition, makes you a science-illiterate, utterly unqualified to judge what is a valid source. 

A GENUINE inquiry on your part would look like this: When provided a claim that the world USED to be that hot, and now it is THIS hot, your first question would be, "What are these claims' margins of error?"

You would find your "source" has no answer - meaning there is no science around their claim. Likely, the narrative they provided you was put on a chart which violated the rules of statistics to make the numbers look alarming. Like this one:

https://images.climatecentral.org/2021C ... tle_lg.jpg

That chart will look very menacing to you. You will not see the problem with that chart. So I must explain it to you. 

The problem with the chart - very common to the climate grift - is that the numbers on the Y axis arbitrarily make an alleged 4% temperature swing (almost certainly salubrious to every life form on the planet if true) appear to be a 1,000% rise. The temperature of the earth was not -1 degree C in 1800 and is not 1 degree C today. The chart does not comport to the rules of statistics, which call for any chart to include every number the chart references. As the chart refers to the claimed temperature of the earth in 1880 and the claimed temperature of the earth in 2020, THOSE are the numbers which must appear on a valid chart refering to THOSE numbers. But if those numbers had been used, the climb would be virtually imperceptible. That makes poor propaganda.

Also, there are no margins of error. When measuring a system as complex as the planet, the odds against getting it spot-on are enormous - ESPECIALLY when your starting point relies on relatively unreliable proxies. Even today, any serious claim to having measured the earth's temperature would be accompanied by margins of error - much less any claims about temperature in the 1880s. The 1880 error-margins would perforce be larger than the claim about today's average temperature. But your "sources" invariably make no mention of the margins of error for either claim. 

The climate narrative you've been peddled is propaganda dressed in sciency lingo - not science. And again, precisely the same people purveying this claptrap are insisting that science recognizes a declaration of gender to equate to actual, observable gender. Never mind the penis: "science" says a claim supercedes objectively measurable criteria. And in every case, your "sources" breeze by their duty to include margins of error, and they exclude themselves from the duty to abide by the rules in making their ubiquitous ersatz "charts." 

Al Gore did the same in "An Inconvenient Truth." When I saw that film, I was a liberal. I wanted to "believe the science." But I knew he was breaking the rules of statistical presentation - quite egregiously. And that made me very suspicious of his motives. And of his claims that were less easy to falsify. I taught myself to find, to read - and to grade the quality of - peer reviewed climate science. And what I found is that there isn't any which sustains the climate grift. The claims being made about climate and trotted out as science are only very rarely linked to any actual peer reviewed papers. And when they are so-linked, the articles never say what the "science reporters" claim. 

We can lead an idiot to water, but we cannot make a man of him. 

JohnnyYou » 09 Aug 2025, 11:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 11:17 pm

youtube /watch?v=b_Q99Pq97BY

JohnnyYou » 09 Aug 2025, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 3:19 pm

Your guy has tens of thousands of false or misleading statements on the record.

how many false or misleading statements has Donald Trump made?
Organizations dedicated to fact-checking public statements have cataloged and analyzed a significant number of false or misleading statements made by Donald Trump
. 
For instance:

• During his presidency (2017-2021), The Washington Post Fact Checker recorded 30,573 false or misleading claims, averaging about 21 claims per day.
• A more recent assessment in July 2025 by The Washington Post Fact Checker noted that while they ceased to meticulously track every false or misleading claim by Trump since his presidency ended, their existing database contained over 30,500 such claims.  no spam  rose in an era of false claims. Falsehoods ... 

It's important to note that these figures primarily cover his first term in office, and he has continued to make false or misleading claims since leaving office and during his current term as president.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Cannonpointer » 09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm

His sources are seconded by the vast majority of nobel laureates in physics - people whose credibility is sufficient that they don't fear e-ssassination. 

You are being "informed" by people who openly politicize science by defending the classic authority fallacy, "I am X because I SAY I am X" as "science."

A GENUINE inquiry on your part would look like this: When provided a claim that the world USED to be that hot, and now it is THIS hot, your first question would be, "What are these claims' margins of error?"

You would find your "source" has no answer - meaning there is no science around their claim. Likely, the narrative they provided you was put on a chart which violated the rules of statistics to make the numbers look alarming. Like this one:

https://images.climatecentral.org/2021C ... tle_lg.jpg

That chart will look very menacing to you. You will not see the problem with that chart. So I must explain it to you. 

The problem with the chart - very common to the climate grift - is that the numbers on the Y axis arbitrarily make an alleged 4% temperature swing (almost certainly salubrious to every life form on the planet if true) appear to be a 1,000% rise. The temperature of the earth was not -1 degree C in 1800 and is not 1 degree C today. The chart does not comport to the rules of statistics, which call for any chart to include every number the chart references. As the chart refers to the claimed temperature of the earth in 1880 and the claimed temperature of the earth in 2020, THOSE are the numbers which must appear on a valid chart refering to THOSE numbers. But if those numbers had been used, the climb would be virtually imperceptible. That makes poor propaganda.

Also, there are no margins of error. When measuring a system as complex as the planet, the odds against getting it spot-on are enormous - ESPECIALLY when your starting point relies on relatively unreliable proxies. Even today, any serious claim to having measured the earth's temperature would be accompanied by margins of error - much less any claims about temperature in the 1880s. The 1880 error-margins would perforce be larger than the claim about today's average temperature. But your "sources" invariably make no mention of the margins of error for either claim. 

The climate narrative you've been peddled is propaganda dressed in sciency lingo - not science. And again, precisely the same people purveying this claptrap are insisting that science recognizes a declaration of gender to equate to actual, observable gender. Never mind the penis: "science" says a claim supercedes objectively measurable criteria. And in every case, your "sources" breeze by their duty to include margins of error, and they exclude themselves from the duty to abide by the rules in making their ubiquitous ersatz "charts." 

Al Gore did the same in "An Inconvenient Truth." When I saw that film, I was a liberal. I wanted to "believe the science." But I knew he was breaking the rules of statistical presentation - quite egregiously. And that made me very suspicious of his motives. And of his claims that were less easy to falsify. I taught myself to find, to read - and to grade the quality of - peer reviewed climate science. And what I found is that there isn't any which sustains the climate grift. The claims being made about climate and trotted out as science are only very rarely linked to any actual peer reviewed papers. And when they are so-linked, the articles never say what the "science reporters" claim. 

We can lead an idiot to water, but we cannot make a man of him.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

ROG62 » 10 Aug 2025, 1:15 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 1:15 am

which is why it's broken down to tenths of a degree....it makes for ominous fearporn...

ROG62 » 10 Aug 2025, 1:11 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 1:11 am

  FOCUS!  

Cannonpointer » 09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 11:14 pm

His sources are seconded by the vast majority of nobel laureates in physics - people whose credibility is sufficient that they don't fear e-ssassination. 

You are being "informed" by people who openly politicize science by defending the classic authority fallacy, "I am X because I SAY I am X" as "science."

This, by definition, makes you a science-illiterate, utterly unqualified to judge what is a valid source. 

A GENUINE inquiry on your part would look like this: When provided a claim that the world USED to be that hot, and now it is THIS hot, your first question would be, "What are these claims' margins of error?"

You would find your "source" has no answer - meaning there is no science around their claim. Likely, the narrative they provided you was put on a chart which violated the rules of statistics to make the numbers look alarming. Like this one:

images.climatecentral /2021CO2Peak/2021CO2Peak_Temps_en_title_lg.jpg

That chart will look very menacing to you. You will not see the problem with that chart. So I must explain it to you. 

The problem with the chart - very common to the climate grift - is that the numbers on the Y axis arbitrarily make an alleged 4% temperature swing (almost certainly salubrious to every life form on the planet if true) appear to be a 1,000% rise. The temperature of the earth was not -1 degree C in 1800 and is not 1 degree C today. The chart does not comport to the rules of statistics, which call for any chart to include every number the chart references. As the chart refers to the claimed temperature of the earth in 1880 and the claimed temperature of the earth in 2020, THOSE are the numbers which must appear on a valid chart refering to THOSE numbers. But if those numbers had been used, the climb would be virtually imperceptible. That makes poor propaganda.

Also, there are no margins of error. When measuring a system as complex as the planet, the odds against getting it spot-on are enormous - ESPECIALLY when your starting point relies on relatively unreliable proxies. Even today, any serious claim to having measured the earth's temperature would be accompanied by margins of error - much less any claims about temperature in the 1880s. The 1880 error-margins would perforce be larger than the claim about today's average temperature. But your "sources" invariably make no mention of the margins of error for either claim. 

The climate narrative you've been peddled is propaganda dressed in sciency lingo - not science. And again, precisely the same people purveying this claptrap are insisting that science recognizes a declaration of gender to equate to actual, observable gender. Never mind the penis: "science" says a claim supercedes objectively measurable criteria. And in every case, your "sources" breeze by their duty to include margins of error, and they exclude themselves from the duty to abide by the rules in making their ubiquitous ersatz "charts." 

Al Gore did the same in "An Inconvenient Truth." When I saw that film, I was a liberal. I wanted to "believe the science." But I knew he was breaking the rules of statistical presentation - quite egregiously. And that made me very suspicious of his motives. And of his claims that were less easy to falsify. I taught myself to find, to read - and to grade the quality of - peer reviewed climate science. And what I found is that there \

Cannonpointer » 10 Aug 2025, 2:57 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 2:57 am

Yes, and it violates the most basic rules of statistical presentation.

And breaking that rule in order to create fear porn demonstrates the level of integrity at play.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Jantje_Smit » 10 Aug 2025, 4:01 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 4:01 am

Ok, not really climate change but it's the same principle, they're full of ****..

 

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

JohnnyYou » 10 Aug 2025, 6:29 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 6:29 am

OK.. yeah, the thermometer is only about 300 years old so I get your point.

What  tree rings can tell us about climate is limited.  There was no George of the Jungle then..  

Ya broke the 4K character limit./  Had to redact some

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

JohnnyYou » 10 Aug 2025, 6:29 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 6:29 am

OK.. yeah, the thermometer is only about 300 years old so I get your point.

What  tree rings can tell us about climate is limited.  There was no George of the Jungle then..  

Ya broke the 4K character limit./  Had to redact some

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

roadkill » 09 Aug 2025, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 1:16 pm

ROG62 » 09 Aug 2025, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 11:16 am

yes it is...

It's all been a huge lie just like everything the left does.

 

*Huey » 10 Aug 2025, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 8:14 am

It's.....It'.......WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

*Huey » 10 Aug 2025, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 8:14 am

It's.....It'.......WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

ROG62 » 10 Aug 2025, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2025, 8:13 am

Apparently you don't...