Go back
How do know what’s true? Truth; debate

How do know what’s true? Truth; debate

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@wildgrass

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Michigan Judge Kevin Elsenheimer tried to prevent the public from seeing the report by Ramsland. I am sure they claimed they did it to prevent lies from being made public, but lies do not influence elections. Why not let the lies come out so Dominion can sue for defamation? Why the organized conspiracy to suppress it from the public?

Dominion sued Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Newsmax. They dropped their case against my pillow guy Mike Lindell eventually. There has to be a very good reason Dominion did not sue Ramsland.

I know you do not want to accept this, but Dominion did not dare sue Ramsland. His report must have enough truth in it to keep them from suing. After all, they sued a lot of people. But not Ramsland? He had to be right about something.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
@wildgrass

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Michigan Judge Kevin Elsenheimer tried to prevent the public from seeing the report by Ramsland. I am sure they claimed they did it to prevent lies from being made public, but lies do not influence elections. Why not let the lies come out so Dominion can sue for defamation ...[text shortened]... m suing. After all, they sued a lot of people. But not Ramsland? He had to be right about something.
Dominion sued those people for saying incorrectly that their software was used to steal an election, a point which you think is not relevant?

If the findings are based on real evidence and convincingly show a stolen election, then of course it should be known and election officials should make appropriate changes to their election procedures. But if the findings are ambiguous or based on bad data or flat-out wrong (as the other study said) then publishing the findings has the potential to mislead the public into incorrectly concluding that the election was stolen, which has problems for many reasons.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
There are more forest fires because there are more people on the planet. People start the vast majority of forest fires mostly because they are careless. Some are arsonists.

Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, neg ...[text shortened]... e you into wanting a carbon tax.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm
I guess you will never give up your self proclaimed job as just another cabal of Trump propagandists.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@wildgrass said
Dominion sued those people for saying incorrectly that their software was used to steal an election, a point which you think is not relevant?

If the findings are based on real evidence and convincingly show a stolen election, then of course it should be known and election officials should make appropriate changes to their election procedures. But if the findings are ambi ...[text shortened]... ublic into incorrectly concluding that the election was stolen, which has problems for many reasons.
That is exactly what Ramsland's forensics report said about Antrim county.
Why didn't Dominion sue Ramsland? They sued everyone else but him. You don't think that is extremely strange?

And you seem to be deliberately overlooking an obvious way out for all of those other people that were sued by Dominion. They all could have just said they relied on Ramsland's forensic report of Antrim county for their opinion on it. No defamation if that were the case, but not for Ramsland. If he is guilty of defamation he put it in writing. He wrote the report.

Dominion dropped their lawsuit against Mike Lindell. Is it because he brought up Ramsland's forensics report from Antrim county?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse said
I guess you will never give up your self proclaimed job as just another cabal of Trump propagandists.
You are the one clinging to propaganda. Now you want a carbon tax so they can take your money. And you still have not answered my question about the pliocene. Why was it so much warmer then than now?

I proved with science that CO2 did not cause the pliocene to be that much warmer than now. It was something else. Why don't you want to accept this obvious fact? It is heresy to your religion? Why are you rejecting the science and digressing into forest fires?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
That is exactly what Ramsland's forensics report said about Antrim county.
Why didn't Dominion sue Ramsland? They sued everyone else but him. You don't think that is extremely strange?

And you seem to be deliberately overlooking an obvious way out for all of those other people that were sued by Dominion. They all could have just said they relied on Ramsland's forensi ...[text shortened]... it against Mike Lindell. Is it because he brought up Ramsland's forensics report from Antrim county?
Post the relevant part.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
You are the one clinging to propaganda. Now you want a carbon tax so they can take your money. And you still have not answered my question about the pliocene. Why was it so much warmer then than now?

I proved with science that CO2 did not cause the pliocene to be that much warmer than now. It was something else. Why don't you want to accept this obvious fact? It is heresy to your religion? Why are you rejecting the science and digressing into forest fires?
You PROVED it. WOW, I want to see a link to a science journal, Nature would do, Scientific American, I want to see that paper, peer reviewed of course.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@wildgrass said
Post the relevant part.
I already did, just for you. Read the report. The report you said you read but did not. You did not even read the relevant part I posted just for you.

You are regressing. How do you know what the truth is? You will not even read anything that you don't want to believe. That is why you cannot find out what the truth is. You are a textbook example of how bias is an obstacle to the truth. Especially political bias.

Political parties are stupid. They should be abolished. People can tell you their views without being in any party. Political bias gets people to spread lies and misinformation. All to defend a political party.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse said
You PROVED it. WOW, I want to see a link to a science journal, Nature would do, Scientific American, I want to see that paper, peer reviewed of course.
You need a fancy article telling you what is common scientific knowledge?
Why don't you just admit you do not want to accept the science? All the glaciers melted during the Pliocene. Nobody disputes that. Nobody except you anyway.

You clearly do not want to accept ALL the glaciers melted during the Pliocene. If you accept it you will have to explain it. That explains your cognitive dissonance. You want to accept 2 contradictory things so badly you are willing to deny ALL the glaciers melted during the Pliocene to do it. In other words, you are willing to deny science.

Why did ALL the glaciers melt during the Pliocene? And do not digress into something else like you always do to avoid answering fair questions. Last time you digressed into forest fires. Stop running away from my question like a coward.

The Pliocene was even warmer than the Jurassic which had a very high amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This proves the same thing. It was not CO2 that caused the climate change.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Any unbiased mind can see CO2 did not cause the Pliocene to be so warm and that the Jurassic was cooler than the Pliocene with 5 times the CO2. The problem is that your mind is biased. You don't want to accept the truth. You will dispute the accuracy of the CO2 levels if you have to. Anything to avoid admitting something else caused the warming.

You either accept the science or you don't. Which is it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
You need a fancy article telling you what is common scientific knowledge?
Why don't you just admit you do not want to accept the science? All the glaciers melted during the Pliocene. Nobody disputes that. Nobody except you anyway.

You clearly do not want to accept ALL the glaciers melted during the Pliocene. If you accept it you will have to explain it. That explain ...[text shortened]... ting something else caused the warming.

You either accept the science or you don't. Which is it?
A 'fancy' article. Yeah, that science thing, must be totally worthless, those lying scientists, eh.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
I already did, just for you. Read the report. The report you said you read but did not. You did not even read the relevant part I posted just for you.

You are regressing. How do you know what the truth is? You will not even read anything that you don't want to believe. That is why you cannot find out what the truth is. You are a textbook example of how bias is an obst ...[text shortened]... arty. Political bias gets people to spread lies and misinformation. All to defend a political party.
The part you posted did not make the claim that dominion participated in a scheme to steal an election. Foxnews made that false claim, which is why they were sued.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
Stop claiming I said the election was stolen. That is an entirely different subject. I posted the report for you. You need to read the report. Here it is again:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report/

"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemi ...[text shortened]... ud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan."
Wild grass:
I gave you the report and the relevant excerpt just as I said. See?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse said
A 'fancy' article. Yeah, that science thing, must be totally worthless, those lying scientists, eh.
During the Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period (mPWP), global average temperature was 2–3 °C higher than today, while carbon dioxide levels were similar to year-2000 levels (approximately 400 ppm).

What caused the warming back then when CO2 levels are slightly higher now? It cannot be due to CO2 so explain the 2-3 C higher temps back then.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse

Notice the Eocene Optimum. CO2 levels were less than the Jurassic. Notice about 25 million years ago the Antarctic thawing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

This planet is actually quite cool relatively speaking. We have had a much warmer planet in the past. The examples are numerous.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
Wild grass:
I gave you the report and the relevant excerpt just as I said. See?
Yeah it didn't say Dominion was involved in stealing an election..that's what foxnews said, and they knew it was false, and that's why they were sued.