Texas Republicans accused of intimidation after raiding homes over voter fraud claims

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-06T01:05:43+00:00

I want to keep the discussion here cerebral. Which is why I started the sub. If you make a reasoned argument, or provide a good source, your comment won't be moderated. I don't want cruft here.

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-06T00:43:15+00:00

Funny how that happens in a sub clled bully pulpit moderated by you only LMAO

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-05T11:38:55+00:00

I have removed this comment, because it's not sufficiently high on the pyramid of debate. Try responding with a reasoned argument.

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-04T03:36:43+00:00

It was erected to combat racism against Latinos: It was established on February 17, 1929, in Corpus Christi, Texas, largely by Hispanics returning from World War I who sought to end ethnic discrimination against Latinos in the United States.

Yes, what makes you think its a racist organization?

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-04T00:39:35+00:00

the organization erected to advance the interests of a single race, what makes me think it's racist?

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-03T03:48:26+00:00

What makes you think it's a racist organization?

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-02T16:20:31+00:00

LULAC is a racist organization. I defend crushing all such. That's the argument.

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-02T04:43:36+00:00

You think that people shouldn't stand up to race based voter suppression ... because standing up to it is racist?

That's a difficult position to understand. Can you word a compelling argument?

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-02T03:50:12+00:00

LULAC is a fundamentally racist organization. Being against LULAC is being anti-racist.

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-02T01:43:48+00:00

Texas republicans appear to be racist to the extent that they appear to be against LULAC.

Which is what you'd expect since they have a tendency to vote democrat.

But the idea of a democracy is that they move their policies to serve the people rather than shutting down charities that try to get people on the electoral role.

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-01T18:55:51+00:00

no it's legitimate and texas is just racist, duh

ActuallyNot · 2024-09-01T14:49:13+00:00

Okay.

The guardian mentions at the end of the article that Manuel Medina's house was also raided.

So you asked about the "almost 65 cell phones and 41 computers" that were seized there, because that raid is tasked to this one.

And by "most people usually have 40 computers and 70 cell phones at their house, right?" You mean that you think that someone running a canvassing operation must be doing something illegal if they have enough hardware for 60 volunteers?

iamonlyoneman · 2024-09-01T00:36:06+00:00

Oh sorry, I also pay attention to the news from various sources and was remembering

According to an affidavit used to seek the search warrant, an investigator obtained a recorded conversation in which Mr. Medina discussed collecting ballots, a practice known as vote harvesting, on behalf of Ms. Castellano. Court records show that agents with Mr. Paxton’s office spent seven hours at Mr. Medina’s house and seized numerous papers, documents, family and other photographs, as well as about 65 cellphones and 41 computers, digital and other storage devices.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/texas-latinos-democrats-raids-paxton.html

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-30T05:00:01+00:00

The problem is that he not only had no proof, but that his arguments were so frivolous that the Kraken lawyers were sanctioned.

HiddenFox · 2024-08-29T20:02:11+00:00

present the proof.

100% agree with that.

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-29T04:48:41+00:00

Through the courts. But unlike how he did it, present the proof.

HiddenFox · 2024-08-28T20:27:11+00:00

So my question is, if the president honestly believes the election was stolen and he thinks he has proof, how should he go about pursuing it?

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-28T07:08:16+00:00

Smith removed allegations in the original indictment that claimed Trump acted unlawfully by pressuring Justice Department officials to help him overturn the results, after the Supreme Court did rule those acts fell within the scope of Trump’s official duties.

It is legal for a president to pressure Justice Department officials to help him overturn election results.

The current SCOTUS urgently needs indicting.

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-28T02:28:08+00:00

Eventually, the officers left with her laptop, planner and cellphone.

It that the line you're referring to?

iamonlyoneman · 2024-08-28T00:19:03+00:00

most people usually have 40 computers and 70 cell phones at their house, right?

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-23T23:26:09+00:00

You didn't even read it lol.

That's right. I can spend the same time reading things that aren't Kremlin propaganda and everyone is better off.

Ben Schreckinger (born c. 1990) is an American journalist and and writer.

You're saying that that refutes his article about veterans today?

It doesn't.

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-23T22:40:14+00:00

So it is. This is the episode about the Cass Review:

https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts/episode-995

Oyveygoyim · 2024-08-23T19:14:16+00:00

You didn't even read it lol. The man who wrote that article

Ben Schreckinger (born c. 1990) is an American journalist and writer. He is a national political correspondent for Politico Magazine, author, and "long-form writer."[2] He is the author of The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power— a book on the life of U.S. President Joe Biden

I'm sure he has no agenda...

Pick one and start learning the truth

https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=jews+9%2F11&search_source=yacom_touch_common&lr=202&mda=0

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-23T04:04:31+00:00

You're aware of "Veterans Today" as one of the Kremlin's sources of misinformation?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247/

Oyveygoyim · 2024-08-23T03:44:13+00:00

This was put together in December 2010. It's a long read but worth it. It will definitely open up your eyes to what's been going on in Gaza.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2010/12/31/911-israels-grand-deception/

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-23T01:15:46+00:00

I want to keep the discussions here closely adhering to saidit values, so I have removed this post as it doesn't contain any evidence or reasoning.

Please feel free to re-comment with a source, or more detailed description of your evidence.

neolib · 2024-08-21T20:34:09+00:00

Previous discussion: https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/comments/crr7/new_911_evidence_points_to_deep_saudi_complicity/

Questionable · 2024-08-21T14:43:42+00:00

Bad link.

ActuallyNot · 2024-08-17T08:16:24+00:00

Spoiler: The Cass Review has some very serious flaws. It avoids commons sense standards and accepted medical standards, as well as ignoring evidence to reach its conclusions.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-26T11:19:34+00:00

An infant is live born and younger than 365 days of age. Between 8 weeks after conception until birth is a fetus.

Fetus deaths aren't infant deaths.

That entire premise is flawed.

What's the premise?

Optimus85 · 2024-06-26T03:05:25+00:00

I'm assuming the study doesn't count abortions as infant deaths. That entire premise is flawed.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-26T01:42:29+00:00

Abortion is a sin.

There seems to be an increase in people claiming that. "Abortion is not a sin" is probably easier to argue using the bible as a reference.

Exodus 21:22 is the clearest verse determining that a fetus is not a person:

22 “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-26T01:41:07+00:00

If you think abortion is murder, then this argument is absurd on the face of it.

The argument that infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies has increased?

If someone has a fatal condition, it's not murder to put them through the suffering of a short and meaningless life, while increasing the grief, suffering and cost to the parents.

Or some other argument?

xoenix · 2024-06-25T21:57:33+00:00

If you think abortion is murder, then this argument is absurd on the face of it.

Scratch that, it's ridiculous in every sense. I don't understand why people would even argue this. Should've posted this in s/TumblrInAction.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-25T21:41:35+00:00

Infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies increased 22.9 percent in Texas between 2021 and 2022 versus a decrease of 3.1 percent in the rest of the U.S. during the same period. Another divergent cause of death pattern in Texas was infant deaths from accidents, which increased by 21 percent in Texas versus a one percent increase in the rest of the U.S.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-20T23:09:54+00:00

Bullshit. That Russian collusion thing was all smoke and mirrors and the Mueller Report proved it.

I see you haven't read the Mueller Report.

Here's some of the key findings. Including:

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”
Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.
In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President. Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.” A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.
The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.

These trials, conveniently all hitting just before the election, is truly election interference.

Trumps delaying tactics are the only reason that they're not finished with.

To tell people that if they vote for the other candidate, they're a threat to democracy is election interference.

If it's true, it should be said.

Hiding that you paid some hush money to a hooker is practically presidential in the case of Democrats.

What are you basing that on?

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-20T06:51:23+00:00

From this unanswered comment in Science Uncensored.

UncleWillard56 · 2024-06-13T14:28:12+00:00

Bullshit. That Russian collusion thing was all smoke and mirrors and the Mueller Report proved it. These trials, conveniently all hitting just before the election, is truly election interference. To tell people that if they vote for the other candidate, they're a threat to democracy is election interference. Hiding that you paid some hush money to a hooker is practically presidential in the case of Democrats.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-13T00:24:42+00:00

Only Biden actually committed crimes.

Election interference is a crime. In this case the consequences are quite serious. We had to endure 4 years of a Trump presidency damaging geopolitical relations, and resulting in the capture and death of our Human Intelligence sources.

UncleWillard56 · 2024-06-12T18:10:09+00:00

Exactly! Only Biden actually committed crimes.

ActuallyNot · 2024-06-12T06:28:11+00:00

Hunter Biden's son matters less. But it does seem as if he's got a very raw deal because he's Joe's son. But if you're dad isn't someone to abuse the presidential power of pardon, sometimes you get a raw deal just by being his son.

Trump committed many crimes to interfere with elections. I hope that these convictions stand. The concern is that if he wins the presidency he will now be in a position to halt the other federal investigations against him about the espionage and his attempts to overturn the election with the January 6 Capitol attack and the various fake electors schemes.

He will try to stop the state proceedings against him for the fake elector's scheme in Georgia, and will try to move against the Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin investigations.

Drewski · 2024-06-11T21:32:36+00:00

They were both weaponized lawfare. Hopefully both make it to the Supreme Court and get overturned.

ActuallyNot · 2024-04-02T22:43:10+00:00

I presume Trump sorted the stock himself.

UncleWillard56 · 2024-03-13T18:26:48+00:00

That's it, let's interfere even more. That'll show the planet! Seriously, this is akin to BLM who uses racism to fight racism.

Questionable · 2024-02-14T03:11:43+00:00

Yep. Never now, always later. As it has been for the past 70 years.

Jiminy · 2024-02-12T17:04:44+00:00

Any day now

ActuallyNot · 2024-02-11T23:21:05+00:00

Paper up on arXive

BANG-BANG · 2024-02-11T23:20:16+00:00

🅳🅴🅻🆅🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅴🅽🆂🅸🆃🅸🆅🅸🆃🆈: 🅰 🅲🆁🅸🆃🅸🅲🅰🅻 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻🅼 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🅲🅴, 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅲🅰🆃🅴 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🅻🅰🆈 🅱🅴🆃🆆🅴🅴🅽 🅾🅲🅴🅰🅽 🅲🅸🆁🅲🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽, 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅴🅼🅿🅴🆁🅰🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆂🅷🅸🅵🆃🆂 🆁🅴🅼🅰🅸🅽🆂 🅰🅽 🅰🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴 🅰🆁🅴🅰 🅾🅵 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷, 🅾🅵🆃🅴🅽 🅲🅷🅰🆁🅰🅲🆃🅴🆁🅸🆉🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🆁🅴🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅳🅸🅵🅵🅴🆁🅸🅽🅶 🅿🅴🆁🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴🆂. 🅾🅽🅴 🆂🆄🅲🅷 🅸🅽🆂🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅸🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅲🅴🅽🆃 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅿🆄🅱🅻🅸🆂🅷🅴🅳 🅱🆈 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃', 🆆🅷🅸🅲🅷 🅷🅸🅶🅷🅻🅸🅶🅷🆃🆂 🅰 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅲🅾🅽🅳🆄🅲🆃🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🅰 🆃🅴🅰🅼 🅾🅵 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷🅴🆁🆂 🅻🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🆂🆄🆉🅰🅽🅽🅴 🆅🅰🅽 🆆🅴🆂🆃🅴🅽, 🅵🅾🅲🆄🆂🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅸🅼🅿🅰🅲🆃🆂 🅾🅵 🅸🅽🅲🆁🅴🅰🆂🅴🅳 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆃🅻🅰🅽🆃🅸🅲 🅼🅴🆁🅸🅳🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻 🅾🆅🅴🆁🆃🆄🆁🅽🅸🅽🅶 🅲🅸🆁🅲🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 (🅰🅼🅾🅲) 🅰🅽🅳 🅸🆃🆂 🅲🅾🅽🆂🅴🆀🆄🅴🅽🅲🅴🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🆁🅴🅶🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅿🅰🆃🆃🅴🆁🅽🆂. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅿🆁🅴🆂🅴🅽🆃🆂 🆂🅾🅼🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅶🆄🅸🅽🅶 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂, 🅰 🅲🅻🅾🆂🅴🆁 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 🆁🅴🆅🅴🅰🅻🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🅴🅴🅳 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅸🅼🅿🅻🅸🅲🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆂🅲🆁🆄🆃🅸🅽🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅰 🅲🆁🆄🅲🅸🅰🅻 🅰🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃 🅾🅵 🅴🆅🅰🅻🆄🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🅰🅽🆈 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅻🅸🅴🆂 🅸🅽 🆂🅲🆁🆄🆃🅸🅽🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🅻🆈🅸🅽🅶 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅴🅼🅿🅻🅾🆈🅴🅳. 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅲🅰🆂🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅸🅽 🆀🆄🅴🆂🆃🅸🅾🅽, 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆄🆃🅷🅾🆁🆂 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆄🅱🆂🆃🅰🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃 🆁🅴🆀🆄🅸🆁🅴🅳 🆃🅾 🆃🆁🅸🅶🅶🅴🆁 🅰 🅲🅾🅻🅻🅰🅿🆂🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🅼🅾🅲 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻, 🅰🅼🅾🆄🅽🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅾 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🆇🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴🅻🆈 80 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅲🆄🆁🆁🅴🅽🆃 🆁🅰🆃🅴 🅾🅵 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅵🅻🆄🆇 🅵🆁🅾🅼 🅶🆁🅴🅴🅽🅻🅰🅽🅳'🆂 🅼🅴🅻🆃🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅲🅴 🆂🅷🅴🅴🆃. 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🆂🅸🅶🅽🅸🅵🅸🅲🅰🅽🆃 🅳🅸🆂🅲🆁🅴🅿🅰🅽🅲🆈 🆁🅰🅸🆂🅴🆂 🅲🅾🅽🅲🅴🆁🅽🆂 🅰🅱🅾🆄🆃 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻🅸🆂🅼 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🅲🅴🅽🅰🆁🅸🅾 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻. 🅰🅳🅳🆁🅴🆂🆂🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🆂🆂🆄🅴 🅾🅵 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🅰🅽🅾🆃🅷🅴🆁 🅿🅾🅸🅽🆃 🅾🅵 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅾🅽 🅲🅴🅽🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅴🆇🅲🅴🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻🅻🆈 🅻🅾🅽🅶 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴 🅾🅵 2500 🆈🅴🅰🆁🆂 🆄🆂🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆄🆃🅷🅾🆁🆂 🅹🆄🆂🆃🅸🅵🆈 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🅲🅷🅾🅸🅲🅴 🅰🆂 🅰 🅼🅴🅰🅽🆂 🆃🅾 🆃🆁🅰🅲🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🅰🅱🅸🅻🅸🆃🆈 🅳🅸🅰🅶🆁🅰🅼 🅽🅴🅰🆁 🅴🆀🆄🅸🅻🅸🅱🆁🅸🆄🅼 🅰🅽🅳 🅰🆅🅾🅸🅳 🆁🅰🅿🅸🅳 🅵🅾🆁🅲🅸🅽🅶 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴🆂, 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅴🆂🆂🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🆁🅴🅲🅾🅶🅽🅸🆉🅴 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🆂🆄🅲🅷 🅰 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴 🅼🅰🆈 🅽🅾🆃 🅰🅲🅲🆄🆁🅰🆃🅴🅻🆈 🆁🅴🅵🅻🅴🅲🆃 🆃🅷🅴 🅳🆈🅽🅰🅼🅸🅲 🅽🅰🆃🆄🆁🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🆈🆂🆃🅴🅼, 🆆🅷🅸🅲🅷 🅸🆂 🆂🆄🅱🅹🅴🅲🆃 🆃🅾 🆅🅰🆁🅸🅾🆄🆂 🅽🅰🆃🆄🆁🅰🅻 🅰🅽🅳 🅰🅽🆃🅷🆁🅾🅿🅾🅶🅴🅽🅸🅲 🅸🅽🅵🅻🆄🅴🅽🅲🅴🆂. 🅽🅰🆅🅸🅶🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻🆂 🅰🆁🅴 🅿🅾🆆🅴🆁🅵🆄🅻 🆃🅾🅾🅻🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🅴🆇🅿🅻🅾🆁🅸🅽🅶 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅵🆄🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆂🅲🅴🅽🅰🆁🅸🅾🆂, 🅱🆄🆃 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🅸🅽🅷🅴🆁🅴🅽🆃 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅼🆄🆂🆃 🅱🅴 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴🅳 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅰🅺🅴🅽 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🅰🅲🅲🅾🆄🅽🆃 🆆🅷🅴🅽 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🆁🅴🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🆁🅴🆂🆄🅻🆃🆂. 🅱🆈 🅲🅰🆁🅴🅵🆄🅻🅻🆈 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🅴🅼🅿🅻🅾🆈🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🅰 🅿🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🆄🅻🅰🆁 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻, 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃🆂 🅲🅰🅽 🅱🅴🆃🆃🅴🆁 🅰🆂🆂🅴🆂🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅻🅸🅰🅱🅸🅻🅸🆃🆈 🅰🅽🅳 🆁🅴🅻🅴🆅🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅸🆃🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅼🅿🅾🆁🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🆇🆃🆄🅰🅻🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅲🆁🆄🅲🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🆇🆃🆄🅰🅻🅸🆉🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂 🅾🅵 🅰🅽🆈 🆂🅸🅽🅶🅻🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🆆🅸🆃🅷🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅱🆁🅾🅰🅳🅴🆁 🅱🅾🅳🆈 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅵🅾🅲🆄🆂🅴🆂 🅾🅽 🅰 🆂🅿🅴🅲🅸🅵🅸🅲 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅾🅵 🅳🆁🅰🆂🆃🅸🅲 🅲🅾🅾🅻🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅽 🅴🆄🆁🅾🅿🅴, 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅴🆂🆂🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🅲🅾🅽🆂🅸🅳🅴🆁 🆃🅷🅴 🆆🅸🅳🅴🆁 🆁🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅾🅵 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆁🅴🆂🆄🅻🆃🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅴🆇🅿🅴🆁🆃 🅾🅿🅸🅽🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🆃🅾🅿🅸🅲. 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🅲🅾🅼🅿🆁🅴🅷🅴🅽🆂🅸🆅🅴 🅿🅴🆁🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴 🅰🅻🅻🅾🆆🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅼🅾🆁🅴 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅲🅾🅼🅿🅻🅴🆇🅸🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅰🆂🆂🅾🅲🅸🅰🆃🅴🅳 🆆🅸🆃🅷 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🅲🅾🅽🅲🅻🆄🆂🅸🅾🅽: 🅴🅼🅱🆁🅰🅲🅸🅽🅶 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🅰🅲🅷 🆃🅾 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🅲🅴 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅷🅸🅶🅷🅻🅸🅶🅷🆃🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅼🅿🅾🆁🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅾🅽🅶🅾🅸🅽🅶 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅲🅰🆃🅴 🅳🆈🅽🅰🅼🅸🅲🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🆈🆂🆃🅴🅼🆂. 🅷🅾🆆🅴🆅🅴🆁, 🅸🆃 🅰🅻🆂🅾 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🅲🅾🆁🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🅴🅴🅳 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🅰🅲🅷 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅸🅽🅷🅴🆁🅴🅽🆃 🅸🅽 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻🆂. 🅱🆈 🅲🅰🆁🅴🅵🆄🅻🅻🆈 🅴🆅🅰🅻🆄🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🆄🆂🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃🆂 🅲🅰🅽 🅶🅰🅸🅽 🅰 🅳🅴🅴🅿🅴🆁 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅸🅼🅿🅰🅲🆃🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅰🅽🅳 🅲🅾🅽🆃🆁🅸🅱🆄🆃🅴 🆃🅾 🅼🅾🆁🅴 🅸🅽🅵🅾🆁🅼🅴🅳 🅳🅴🅲🅸🆂🅸🅾🅽-🅼🅰🅺🅸🅽🅶.

ActuallyNot · 2024-02-11T23:17:51+00:00

Interesting discussion in the comments at realclimate

The New, Scientist is the only media outlet so far who gives a quotation by van Westen himself that says that the drastic cooling of Europe is not realistic. See here:

“Unlike in previous simulations, the team added fresh water gradually, rather than in one go. This produced a positive feedback that amplified the effect: as less water sank because of the reduced salinity, less salty water flowed north, reducing salinity still further. This eventually shut down the overturning circulation, causing temperatures to rise in the southern hemisphere, but plummet in Europe. For instance, in the model, London cools by 10°C (18°F) on average and Bergen in Norway by 15°C (27°F). Other consequences include local sea level rises in places such the US East Coast. What’s more, some of the changes seen in the model ahead of the collapse correspond with changes being seen in the real Atlantic in recent decades.”

Then, this:

“However, to produce this collapse, the researchers had to run the model for 2500 years. And they had to add a huge amount of freshwater – less than in previous simulations, but still around 80 times more than is currently entering the ocean as Greenland’s ice sheet melts. “So that is absurd and not very realistic,” says van Westen.”

I wonder why no other media have covered this.

[Response: That refers to my point 4 above: in this model, like in most models, you need to add an unrealistic amount of freshwater, because they are in the wrong part of the stability diagram compared to what observational data imply. And the sentence by the journalist that they “had to” run the model for 2500 years is a misunderstanding: running the experiment very slowly is a choice, it is to trace the stability diagram near equilibrium, so the model experiment avoids rapid forcing changes (like the current anthropogenic warming) in order to stay always near equlibrium. That is the quasi-equlibrium method I pioneered in my 1995 paper as mentioned above. -Stefan]

ActuallyNot · 2023-12-15T05:40:18+00:00

Yes. The blame is put on the humans, to inflict guilt and shame.

You don't think the increase in greenhouse gasses related to human combustion of fossil fuels, and we're merely scapegoats?

What do you think is burning the fossil fuels?

The humans are the carbon.

The carbon is fossil fuels. You know humans aren't fossil fuels, right? The carbon in the biosphere doesn't need fossil fuel carbon to supplement it in any way. It goes through the carbon cycle perfectly fine, and nothing dies from lack of carbon.

But You already knew that, which is why I'm inclined to assume that you are playing dumb.

One of us seems to be.

Life got along fine for well over 3 billion years without supplementing the carbon in the biosphere by burning fossil fuels. Neither the carbon in our bodies nor that of our domestic cows and plants will be extracted and eliminated if we stop burning fossil fuels.

But surely you do know that? Climate science denial arguments are so dumb.

Questionable · 2023-12-15T05:21:20+00:00

Yes. The blame is put on the humans, to inflict guilt and shame. The humans are the carbon. But You already knew that, which is why I'm inclined to assume that you are playing dumb. ^'

ActuallyNot · 2023-12-15T03:14:30+00:00

You're trying to argue that without fossil fuels, all the carbon in the biosphere would disappear and all life would therefore be removed from the earth?

And you think a link to a journalist's write up of a paper looking at the greenhouse gasses in human breath makes that point?

The paper discusses methane and nitrous oxide, not carbon dioxide.

I'm inclined to assume that you know you're wrong.

Or do you think that for the past 4 billion years life has only been able to exist because some civilisation has been combusting fossil fuels?

Questionable · 2023-12-15T02:18:09+00:00

We are the carbon you wish to eliminate.

ActuallyNot · 2023-12-13T04:59:15+00:00

Nobody on Saidit believes the grift that is climate change.

You're mistaken about that.

I do find it difficult to believe that anyone believes that all the scientists from every country, independently of how they are funded are all lying about climate change.

It's obviously impossible.

In fact, I doubt even you believe this. But you will claim to for the right price. ˑ

Oh the irony.

Above you make the claim that if we stop releasing fossil carbon, then the other carbon available for life will disappear.

I don't think that you believe that, but if you do, could you elaborate on the mechanism?

And how life has existed on the planet for over nearly 4 billion years without any use of fossil fuels?

I'm also interested in how you think a conspiracy of scientists can span countries, state and private research institutions, and impact fields from ecology, physics, computer modelling, planetary science, geology and palaeontology? As well as impacting economics, epidemiology, actuarial studies and development?

ActuallyNot · 2023-12-13T00:21:19+00:00

All life on Earth is carbon based.

True, but irrelevant to the discussion about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, the physics behind that, and how significant the increase in the concentration of CO2 is in the observed increase in global mean surface temperature.

to deny this, is to advocate for the death of the human race.

No one is denying that. And yet increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases the temperature, and that has many impacts on the biosphere and human infrastructure.

We are the carbon you wish to eliminate. ˑ

Not at all. Fossil fuels are the carbon we should eliminate for the most cost effective way to deal with global warming. The carbon already in the biosphere (or, at least, that was already in the biosphere prior to the industrial revolution) does not cause additional warming.

It's is additional warming that it is sensible and economic to limit.

Questionable · 2023-12-12T23:26:27+00:00

All life on Earth is carbon based. to deny this, is to advocate for the death of the human race. We are the carbon you wish to eliminate. ^ˑ

Questionable · 2023-12-12T23:20:26+00:00

Nobody on Saidit believes the grift that is climate change. In fact, I doubt even you believe this. But you will claim to for the right price. ^ˑ

ActuallyNot · 2023-12-09T08:28:44+00:00

Tom_Bombadil's key argument seems to be that CO2 absorption only occurs in band that are too narrow to cause global warming.

The third time I linked to the same graph of how significant the 600-750 waves per centimeter band is with respect to blocking the earth's radiative emissions, he noped out without addressing the comment.

Other arguments he tried:

CO2 is only 480 ppm, so it can't have a greenhouse effect.

I've heard this argument before. I pointed out that it was 3 trillion tonnes of the stuff, and he didn't go back to that argument.

CO2 gives off the same energy that it absorbs, for a zero-sum change.

I didn't pull him up for it being untrue, because I thought that it was mostly true at the time. It turns out that the excited CO2 molecule in the atmosphere will have interactions with several other molecules before emitting the photon, and so often passes the energy to the surrounding air. See Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation

But in any case it slows the rate of propagation of those frequencies to the upper atmosphere where they have to get to to get to space. Here's the old realclimate post on the topic

And he mentioned some irrelevancies.

It was important to him that clouds act as a greenhouse gas.

While this is wrong (The net effect of clouds is to cool Earth by 18 Wm⁻² in the global mean), I don't understand why this falsehood was important to him.

There have always been clouds, so it's not clear how global warming denial is supported by whatever their impact is on the climate.

One argument I have seen in the past is that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) seed cloud formation, and perhaps he was going to head for the (incorrect) claim that there has been a trend in GCRs, causing an increase in cloud cover. And if you believed that and the incorrect claim that clouds cause warming you would have an alternative cause of some of the warming.

He asked what % of the absorption bands for gaseous CO2 inside the total visible bandwidth.

This would have been quite the research project for some ranges of frequencies. But in the visible, it's close enough as makes not difference to 0, which I told him.

And he never brought it up again.

This post is to keep a record of denier arguments that I have interacted with here, so that I can find them quickly.

ActuallyNot · 2023-11-07T04:49:38+00:00

I see you didn't read the article.

Even the models from the 1970s were pretty good. Within 1°C for the temperature change until 2000.

So now that you know you're mistaken about the models failing, will you use that knowledge to adjust your beliefs about climate change, or will you continue to require reality match your misperceptions?

chadwickofwv · 2023-11-06T17:04:25+00:00

They have a perfect 100% failure rate on all predictions.

iamonlyoneman · 2023-10-31T01:02:36+00:00

Man sucks at finding ocean life, climate change obvs responsible

chadwickofwv · 2023-10-30T16:48:33+00:00

That's some extreme cope you've got there!

Try following some real science instead of queer science.

ActuallyNot · 2023-10-30T01:03:35+00:00

Figure 16 shows the impacts discussed.

ActuallyNot · 2023-10-27T00:45:07+00:00

The increasing trend is attributable to climate change:

Climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme fire weather conditions in Eastern Canada

BullyPulpit

MODERATORS