latest on the election
8 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - Dec. 12, 2020, 7:46 p.m.

now they want to throw 126 Republicans out of the House, because they supported Trump

Why? because Trump's legal complaint is considered by them to be an attempt to turn the US into a dictatorship.

By mcfarm - Dec. 12, 2020, 7:53 p.m.
Like Reply

very timely rule that applies to dems and they have been caught over and over using............whatever they accuse you of doing they are the ones doing it........ why hello there Mr Swalwell

By metmike - Dec. 12, 2020, 8:22 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much Gunter!

Absurd stuff.................except that these are people running our country and they are supposed to be making wise decisions that serve Americans best.

It's all just a real life  game of making up narratives  to get power and convince as many people as possible of whatever they think will help them get that power.

This is exactly what the climate crisis/emergency is. We are having a climate optimum by all authentic scientific standards. I am an atmospheric scientist that has analyzed global weather patterns much of the day for the  last 38 years. I've studied climate science for 20+ years.  Those false narratives don't work on me.

Last week, I  explained it better (links below) along with helping you to understand the actual greenhouse affect. The way to defeat attempts to capture your brain and steal your intelligence(which propaganda like this is intended to do) is to educate yourself on the authentic facts and don't just believe your favorite sources because they are likely trying to control your thought/opinions too. 

How do you do this, if most of the gatekeepers of our information are playing this game?

Use the scientific method. Here's how to do it:  Instead of just finding facts and sources to confirm what you think that you know(echo chambers).......Look at the facts from the other side and SINCERELY ask yourself if any of those facts could be right and any of your facts could be wrong.

Cognitive bias will likely sabotage your effort to do this initially but don't give up. Keep doing it until you are actually able to see where you are might be wrong at times. If you can't do this, then are we to believe that you are perfect?

Over time, this will assist you in seeing the big picture and tell who is bs-ing the most.............instead of being convinced that your side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

NEW: +Sea Level Rise: What the fake climate crisis is really about. Exposing the bogus Climate Accord. Educating with real science. December 2020

NEW: Sea Levels Increasing: Past predictions all badly busted.. Sea levels the last 140 years. Why the model projections are much too high/exaggerated. Put you money where your mouth is.  December 2020

More Climate Reality discussions on this here:

By wglassfo - Dec. 13, 2020, 10:49 a.m.
Like Reply

Should we apply the same theory to the climate crisis

Climate deniers just make stuff up

If the climate crisis has a majority of believers

Doesn't majority rule no matter what may be true or not

The majority of people in power said Biden won fair and square

Anybody who says other wise is involved in  a conspiracy 

Seems like it doesn't matter who is right or wrong

The majority rules

Are we not a nation of laws by majority rule

Supreme Court ruled by a majority

The Supreme Court set the bar very high

They choose  not to hear arguments

They ruled by a majority

Thus the climate crisis is real as a majority believe we have a climate crisis

The deniers are not given a chance to argue the merits of their beliefs

If the Supreme Court says we are a nation of laws by majority rule, with no argument or hearing, then we must accept the climate crisis as a real threat, with no argument or hearing

By mcfarm - Dec. 13, 2020, 12:01 p.m.
Like Reply

mind boggling ain't Wayne. If somebody has science and facts on their side they still cannot convince others that we are at climate optimal, which I believe we are...great climate, great greening of earth, healthier people and animals. Take this argument to the recent election and I believe there was more than enough fraud to turn it for Biden. We can show facts to substantiate much fraud but they say either too late or not quite enough fraud.

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 12:51 p.m.
Like Reply


I'm glad that you're here to make these great points. 

Each realm is different and there are levels of beliefs, with many on the extremes being completely wrong about some things and at least partially right on others but the extremes want you to believe the completely wrong things. 

Regarding the climate crisis for instance.

We actually do have some REAL climate change deniers that define one extreme. They deny the physics of the greenhouse warming of CO2. They deny warming and/or they deny that humans had anything to do with it. Their existence makes it bad for all of us.

What the extremes from the other side, that insist we have a climate crisis/emergency do, is take people like me, (who follow the authentic science and believe in warming/climate change and humans being responsible for a good portion) and lump us into the same "deniers" club/category as the real deniers. Anybody that disagrees with them is a denier.

The main reason I don't have discussions here about why the REAL climate change deniers are  wrong about climate change is that they are getting a ZERO  say in the discussion or movement. They get ZERO weighting in everything, except to be used by the other side as defining everybody that disagrees with them.

So that other extreme, which insists that we are having a climate crisis/emergency has the physics of CO2 partially correct........but are 50% off. This is not accidental.  They tell you that they represent authentic science but I can show you where they clearly amplify authentic science across the board by a great deal and tell us only bad, really bad things happening to the planet because of it..............never any good things. Climate change is killing the planet and its an emergency. 

How absurd. Cold still kills 200 times more life than heat on this planet. Life would prefer more of the very slow warming that has occurred. The planet is greening up because its benefiting so much from climate change and  the increase in CO2. CO2 is the building block for all life on earth. We rescued life from near CO2 starvation when levels were below 300 ppm. The CO2 level is now around  415 parts per million. Life would prefer much more, up around 900 ppm.

To call that a climate crisis/emergency is stratospheric absurdity because its the quintessential example of a climate OPTIMUM but that's the position of the side that has complete control of the narrative and why I fight them with the truth and reality of authentic science. 

They have labelled CO2 as pollution to use for their entirely political agenda. They have hijacked climate science and even rewrote climate history to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. 

Life has been enjoying the best climate/weather in the last 1,000 years. 

Yes, there have been slightly more heat waves because of the warming and the increase in  rains has led to an increase in high end flooding events. Also, some hurricanes will be slightly stronger. That is a small price to pay compared to the massive benefits(for life) that greatly outweigh those negatives.

You can tell that one side is not feeding you the real science and because they only tell you the bad things, then exaggerate them massively.

It would be like somebody taking control of the narrative about the SAFETY of automobiles to convince us that they are killing off the human race.

40,000 people a year are killed in the US they tell us!  1.35 million in the world! Then, they come out with models, using hand picked equations that simulate the killing will continue to accelerate and be 10 million/year in a century.

Children will lose their fathers and mothers. Children will die and never experience living their lives. People will be seriously injured and spend their lives in wheelchairs. 

So they come out and legally declare the automobile as a "killing device" (like they have declared the beneficial gas, CO2 as carbon pollution) and tell us nothing except bad things about cars.

They cost a ton of money to purchase and, maintanence, repairs from accidents and accidents happen all the time.

Cars kill all sorts of wildlife. Deer, racoons, fox, rabbits, birds. They even kill our beloved pets cats and dogs. They are  killing insects, note all of dead insects being slaughered, some of them including beneficial insects like honey bees,  on your windshield after any long distance trip in the Summer. 

Cars are 100% bad and there is nothing good about them. We must eliminate them entirely!!!

This is exactly the way that CO2 and climate change are being portrayed. 

But the difference is that we know cars. We have used them our entire lives. We understand the risks and experience the massive benefits and would laugh at entities that used the arguments above  because we know the benefits are 10 times greater than those negatives.

Exact same thing with climate change. The benefits are 10 times greater for life than the negatives but we are told only negatives(no positives) and those are exaggerated greatly. The difference is that people are not climate science experts like they are knowledgeable about cars. The average person has to rely on what the gatekeepers tell them about climate science for their understanding. That's why it was the perfect realm to hijack for the political agenda. 

They have obtained complete control of the narratives and  can tell you whatever they want with impunity and no accountability because you can't fact check them on their science...........which is why they do it.  Even to some very smart, science savy people. 

They have twisted the science like a pretzel to turn the current climate optimum into a climate crisis. Outside of my discussions here, what other sources do you have to tell you that's what has happened? To prove it with authentic data?

They have taken total control of the narratives and communication of them and censored sources that disagree........labelled them as all extreme science deniers who fit in the same category of completely denying any of the legit global warming from humans emitting CO2. 

They declared the science was settled 2 decades ago. The debate was over..........and now, we just have to get people and countries to take the actions needed in the Climate Accord (which actually, has nothing to do with the fake climate crisis). 

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 1:34 p.m.
Like Reply


Sorry to have to disagree with part of your statement that applies to the election.

As you noted, I have all the data, facts and authentic science to conclusively prove every element of my position on the fake climate crisis. Something like 40 comprehensive discussions/articles that show everything.

My science is not speculation, it's based on scientifically measured observations that can be 100% proven  with empirical data. 

Where is the same thing with this election fraud?

We have lots of speculation and suspicious sounding circumstances and accusations and convincing sounding narratives but where the rubber meets the road, there MUST be the empirical evidence to PROVE it.

Unlike climate science, that is totally controlled by gatekeepers that will not allow the other side to present a case or to show their side(being censored as deniers) the side which contends there was fraud in this election was given every single possible opportunity to present it. 

We heard what their case was, shouted from the rooftops and broadcast everywhere. We heard about all the fraud that they were going to show. But the empirical data never showed up. They never proved anything other than typical, expected fraud that could not have changed the results of the election

The rest, continues to be wild speculation with no substantive proof. Assertions that the machines were rigged...........but no prove.  Assertions that because poll watchers were not allowed to watch in some places there must have been nefarious actions taking place.............but no proof.

Opportunities to legally challenge everything for every reason. That failed, not because the Supreme Court was biased but because they were not legit. 

We can all be certain that the very corrupt Mueller investigation was designed to get Trump. The facts prove this clearly. We can all be certain that the corrupt impeachment was designed to get Trump. The facts prove this, clearly. 

The ironic thing about the impeachment, is that he got impeached for trying to investigate real crimes. The impeachment was also about protecting Joe Biden:

When crapola like the above happens, it causes Trump supporters to assume that everything is rigged to get Trump..........but we still need the facts to prove any corruption/fraud took place in every case.

Suspicious circumstances don't cut it without any evidence in this realm. Especially since there have been thousands of people scrutinizing every iota and a million plus in reward money offered to get the smoking gun evidence............and it's not been shown after over a month of every opportunity imaginable to show it.

I have given much more time to the side contending fraud here and looked for it myself much of the time. I am the opposite of censoring anything out there contending fraud.

If there really is enough fraud to flip the results of the election, where the heck is it?

If you ask me the same question "metmike, if this really is a climate optimum and not a climate crisis, where the heck is the evidence?

I will type non stop for the rest of the afternoon, with hundreds of links that have data and science to show it to you!!!

Actually, I already did most of that work here:

So show me the equivalence of just a fraction of that with this election fraud please?

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 2:01 p.m.
Like Reply

You may wonder why so many discussions here seem to revert to the fake climate crisis. I don't apologize for this because that is in the top 5 reasons for me to be here(maybe number 1), since its not for they pay.

The others are to promote positive messages, encourage respectful discourse and tolerance and views from those that disagree with us, provide fact checking and truths about current topics-especially political(one that I never expected when taking over) and because I trade commodities and this site provides us to share this common interest.

Also, acquiring some good friends and learning to apply positive principles professed here, like using the scientific method in my own life. Most of us go thru life without ever thinking about how to improve ourselves or how to make the world a better place....unless we make a daily habit of reminding ourselves.

There is also a rich history of events/people that most of us are often unaware of or don't think about.

There are very few places that people can go to in order to get authentic climate science because the mainstream climate science that we are fed is designed to scare us not to enlighten us.

The perfect example of how people like me are being shunned, smeared and vilified and our views censored can be found by looking up what they call me "a denier"

There is nobody on the planet that lives by the scientific method more than me(applied to my entire life) and few have observed and analyzed the atmosphere for a living longer than me(38 years). 

To call me a climate change denier, would be like calling the pope an atheist. It's that absurd.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[4][5][6] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics",[7][5] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.[8][9][10] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[11] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[12][13] pseudoscience,[14] or propaganda.[15]

By wglassfo - Dec. 13, 2020, 2:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi Mike

In defense of mcfarm I see his argument. You can tell us you don't see evidence of fraud until the cows come home. I don't believe you and Ted Cruz wants an opportunity to present his entire argument in a public forum, that being the Supreme Court. You don't believe the climate crisis, Ted believes his argument. But as I understand it, the Supreme Court said Texas had no standing. In other words Texas can't interfere with a decision made in another state. Perhaps that is the law but when the Supreme Court refused to hear evidence of fraud, which could be correct or not, Texas did not even have the opportunity. I listened to the PA inquiry, all 3 1/2 hrs plus one other inquiry which was even longer. Those hearings made a believer out of me. I am not a lawyer or expert in election fraud, but you are an expert in your field of climate science, so I am at a disadvantage, the same as mcfarm and millions of voters.

The problem with the Supreme Court decision is their refusal to hear evidence. Their reason does not satisfy the people. We feel as if we are second class citizens not even allowed a public hearing because of states rights.

 Well that isn't enough to convince mcfarm,  and millions of voters 

No different than the climate crisis that some question If you don't  have a chance to give arguments, in a public forum, as a climate scientist, you will never change your opinion. No matter what the official position

mcfarm and millions of voters wanted their time in court. The Supreme Court refused that opportunity