Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory)

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
In all of the solar system, we have very reliable information on surface temperatures of nearly a THOUSAND objects.

The highest temperature ever recorded on Mars was around 70F, at noon, in the hottest part of the year, near the equator, in an area full of black rocks, deep in a valley where the atmosphere is thick enough that a person could probably stick their head outside with just a deep breath for life support. It was brief, too, the daylong average was below freezing and overnight was colder than Antarctica. And that's Mars's equivalent to blacktop in Death Valley.

...but yet the only reliable data we have for the most relevant of all other planets, Mars; is from 1977 and 1999 respectively. As far as a record of 70F for Mars, your friendly neighborhood wikipedia editor disagrees...35C.

Screenshot (482).png
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I previously posted:
Inverse square law. If increased solar output is heating the entire solar system, particularly if the sun has increased output enough to cause outlying balls of ice to warm up then it would back inner planets to a crisp.
To that you responded-
Okay, so then how does Mars reach nearly 100 F when it is nearly 3 times the distance from the Sun than Earth?
So I asked: Are you arguing the same Mars receives similar irradiance to earth?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
if the sun is so insignificant to climate now, how was only a 1% lesser output enough to equal temperatures on par with the present
My suggestion would be that both albedo, atmospheric retention, internal geological processes, AND life processes were cycling back from a snowball era where the earth's albedo had been extremely high, causing CO2 buildup, atmospheric warming, a thaw, and a gradual refixing of atmospheric CO2. This long-term Earth cycle (I believe there have been several "snowballs") must also have affected the huge amount of heat stored in earth's oceans. So answering this question in particular isn't of much importance. Picking another point in time isn't important either.
Being able to fully account for this cycle IS important, though. And Ice Ages. And vulcanism. Or its modern upstart - us.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Have you noticed that wikipedia answers your question about how Mars reachs nearly 100F even though the inverse square law dictates that Mars gets a lot less light than Earth?

Your screen cap says that Mars is 1.52 X Earth-distance from the sun and therefore receives 43% of the amount of sun that Earth receives. Temps on Mars result from the thin atmosphere and the low thermal inertia of the soil.
 

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
Have you noticed that wikipedia answers your question about how Mars reachs nearly 100F even though the inverse square law dictates that Mars gets a lot less light than Earth?

Your screen cap says that Mars is 1.52 X Earth-distance from the sun and therefore receives 43% of the amount of sun that Earth receives. Temps on Mars result from the thin atmosphere and the low thermal inertia of the soil.

Pesky metric system (say 250 million...), that's plausible; but if it is, it is also a plausible explanation for Pluto's warming via solar radiation...an ice cube in sunlight will warm (or melt) at a much faster rate than a damp rock.

One thing 'believers' can never answer is; what was the cause of the current warming trend back in 1850 (and until ca. 1950)...extensive gold mining operations in California?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
but I think it pretty conclusively shows the 'experts' (at wikipedia) feel that overall solar output was about 1% less then

I'm fairly certain that every reference I've seen stated 4% to 4.5% less than today.

if the sun is so insignificant to climate now

That is a strawman. The sun is not insignificant to planetary climates, nor is it the only factor that influences planetary climates.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
D3FC0NZ3R0 said:
Right, so check Mercury off (no atmosphere); now as for the planets with massive atmospheres...imagine putting a blow dryer on a bowl of ice, it wouldn't take a rocket surgeon to recognize a thermal effect;

that's plausible; but if it is, it is also a plausible explanation for Pluto's warming via solar radiation...an ice cube in sunlight will warm

There’s a bonfire in the middle of a field in Siberia on a calm dry night. Venus is toasty in his blanket 10 feet from the fire. Pluto died and froze to death on a hillside a mile away overlooking the fire. If Mercury decides to thaw Pluto using the fire 10 feet from Venus then Venus is going to be burnt up before Pluto’s frozen corpse feels a thing.

If solar output increases enough to make every planet in the solar system measurably warmer then the inner planets aren’t going to fair well.

Pluto is approximately 547 X further from the sun than Venus. It receives about as much heat from the sun as we receive from Pluto. If Pluto warmed 1 degree due to solar output then Venus would be vaporized and so would we.
 
Last edited:

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
My suggestion would be that both albedo, atmospheric retention, internal geological processes, AND life processes were cycling back from a snowball era where the earth's albedo had been extremely high, causing CO2 buildup, atmospheric warming, a thaw, and a gradual refixing of atmospheric CO2. This long-term Earth cycle (I believe there have been several "snowballs") must also have affected the huge amount of heat stored in earth's oceans. So answering this question in particular isn't of much importance. Picking another point in time isn't important either.
Being able to fully account for this cycle IS important, though. And Ice Ages. And vulcanism. Or its modern upstart - us.

Well maybe if we would just put the kind of money into Thorium development that we have into the Obamacare website (...$5,000,000,000), we could get that off the ground and make irrelevant the climate change debate, overpopulation concerns, starvation, poverty, warfare, etc..

Did you want to clarify the "bicycle shed" statement?
 

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
I'm fairly certain that every reference I've seen stated 4% to 4.5% less than today.



That is a strawman. The sun is not insignificant to planetary climates, nor is it the only factor that influences planetary climates.

Perhaps, but 4-5% lesser solar input offsetting over %1000 higher CO2?...it just seems like it is the sun when it is convenient, and its CO2 when its convenient...as long as it leads to a global totalitarian state via a carbon tax (with all the bells and whistles).
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Okay, so then how does Mars reach nearly 100 F when it is nearly 3 times the distance from the Sun than Earth?
The wikipedia page you posted says that Mars is 1.5 X the earth distance from the sun and irradiance there is 43% of earth’s.
Put a planet as dry as Mars with an atmosphere as thins as Mars in Earth’s orbit and what would the max temp be there?
 

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
The wikipedia page you posted says that Mars is 1.5 X the earth distance from the sun and irradiance there is 43% of earth’s.
Put a planet as dry as Mars with an atmosphere as thins as Mars in Earth’s orbit and what would the max temp be there?

Yeah, we covered that...it was a metric 'conversion' error...not the first time such a miscalculation regarding Mars and metric system caused a catastrophe.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Well maybe if we would just put the kind of money into Thorium development that we have into the Obamacare website (...$5,000,000,000), we could get that off the ground and make irrelevant the climate change debate, overpopulation concerns, starvation, poverty, warfare, etc..
That will will only happen when the uranium runs out. Thorium development is for a world without desire for battle. Is that this one?

Did you want to clarify the "bicycle shed" statement?
It refers back to Parkinson's Law and the trouble over details. Throw it away. :)

PS. I dislike Obama hatespeak in all its variants.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
One thing 'believers' can never answer is; what was the cause of the current warming trend back in 1850 (and until ca. 1950)...extensive gold mining operations in California?
Great question! It appears that during that period, global temp did generally follow solar activity as the main forcing. But beginning in the 1980s, those trends diverged. No climate scientist says that solar variation doesn't affect climate, or hasn't in the past. But (again) it does not explain the recent warming trend.TempSun.jpg
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
...but yet the only reliable data we have for the most relevant of all other planets, Mars; is from 1977 and 1999 respectively.
No, we have data from 1977, and then from 1999 almost continuously to the present.

In 1999, right before a global dust storm, Mars was warmer than it was in 1977 right after a similar storm. But while or 1977 data ended in 1977, our 1999 data didn't end in 1999, we've had almost continuous active probes on or around the planet since then. Right after the 1999 storm, Mar was almost the exact same temperature it after the 1977 storm.

Since then, it's shown no global trends in either direction, and there hasn't been another global storm. It has, however, had periodic warming and cooling trends localized in various parts of the planet, with each trend peaking at a dust storm with a subsequent drop in temperature. Both the increase and the drop match predictions made based on the associated change in albedo.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Bouncing?...at night?...from where?...No radiating Solar energy received during the day, I'm saying if greenhouse effect was happening then, why was more being irradiated at night, instead of trapped under purported CO2 'blanket'?
"At night" refers to Lunar night., not Terrestrial night. See the difference when it comes to sunlight bouncing off the Earth and impinging upon the Moon?

I read an article many years ago that related a study that showed that during a full moon the reflected light from it was responsible for an increase of something like 0.1 degrees Celsius on terrestrial nighttime temperatures.
Now consider the reverse. First of all the Earth is much bigger than the moon so it, the Moon, would receive much more reflected light right off the bat.
However while Earth receives reflected light from a Moon with damn near invariable albedo, the Moon receives reflected light from an Earth with a wide fluctuation in albedo. A warmer Earth means more clouds, more clouds mean greater albedo, greater albedo means more reflected light and a slightly warmer night on the Moon.


So, now that its become apparent that moons of planets with significant atmospheres cannot reliably support the OP contention, how many planets are we left with to observe?
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Yeah, we covered that...it was a metric 'conversion' error...not the first time such a miscalculation regarding Mars and metric system caused a catastrophe.
Yeah, OT but when will the USA join modern societies around the world and dump the Farenboggle temperature scale and the Imperial systems of measurement? I thought you guys were all about throwing off the oppression of Royal dictates.

As for equatorial temps onnMars I note that this is the max temp reached. Even if a few spots do reach 35 C there, here on Earth we have equatorial regions that routinely and in widespread areas, reach and exceed that temperature. I was in Peurto Vallarta last February/March and it was 34 C most days that week. Of course I was still a few hundred miles north of the equator. I was also not in the Sahara desert where its not uncommon to have temps in the mid 40s C for months. ( the beach there is fantastic but its a looong way to the surf.) The yearly mean temperature for the Sahara is 30C , how's that compare to the Nars equatorial mean or even the mean temperature of the hottest region of that planet?

As far as comparing temperatures on planets with significant atmospheres goes, that's a nonstarter if one is looking to find anything concerning heating or cooling of the solar system. The contribution to planetary temperatures of an atmosphere depends in a very large part, on the constituents of that atmosphere. An atmosphere of identical thickness and density to Earth's but consisting of different concentrations of the gases will experience a very different climate.
So, Titan and Mars , Pluto, Venus, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn , which all have atmospheres that differ in their make up will have temperatures that are affected not only by the amount of solar radiation that they receive, but also by the particular response to that radiation of their atmospheres. Confounding this of course is that in geological active planets , that atmospheric make up can change.

So, once again if the contention is to be proved it should involve only rocky objects with unchanging albedos and no atmosphere.

Apples to apples, not apples to tailpipe emissions.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Pesky metric system (say 250 million...), that's plausible; but if it is, it is also a plausible explanation for Pluto's warming via solar radiation...an ice cube in sunlight will warm (or melt) at a much faster rate than a damp rock.
How can you claim Pluto is warming due to solar output when the people studying Pluto won't even commit to that. Pluto isn't fully understood yet, and was first discovered some 60yrs ago. We don't understand Pluto's seasons yet, and the "evidence" for Pluto's warming (climate change due to solar output) is based on just "2" observations made. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm says it best below, (highlighted my preferance), and there can be a number of reasons to contribute to Pluto's "warming" like its highly elliptical oribt.
Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climatechange consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
Content from External Source
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Yeah, OT but when will the USA join modern societies around the world and dump the Farenboggle temperature scale and the Imperial systems of measurement? I thought you guys were all about throwing off the oppression of Royal dictates.
NASA has officially changed over to metric for everything, now. They were already using metric for all unmanned missions, but still using imperial for manned missions.

That was just a mess for three reasons: First, some people end up working on both types of missions, and need to change systems between assignments, which is what killed a couple unmanned probes. Second, manned missions were increasingly international and nobody else used metric for anything. Third, a lot of their contractors just insist on giving them the middle finger on this and merrily bolt things together with standard hardware and then throw in a set of metric tools and hope none of the screws rattle loose in shipping, which happened with a mockup last year. This has also killed missions when contractors fail to convert the mass or strength of reaction wheels properly and render any maneuver calculations invalid.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
NASA has officially changed over to metric for everything, now. They were already using metric for all unmanned missions, but still using imperial for manned missions.

That was just a mess for three reasons: First, some people end up working on both types of missions, and need to change systems between assignments, which is what killed a couple unmanned probes. Second, manned missions were increasingly international and nobody else used metric for anything. Third, a lot of their contractors just insist on giving them the middle finger on this and merrily bolt things together with standard hardware and then throw in a set of metric tools and hope none of the screws rattle loose in shipping, which happened with a mockup last year. This has also killed missions when contractors fail to convert the mass or strength of reaction wheels properly and render any maneuver calculations invalid.
Which just re- begs my OT question.
 

D3FC0NZ3R0

Member
Yeah, OT but when will the USA join modern societies around the world and dump the Farenboggle temperature scale and the Imperial systems of measurement? I thought you guys were all about throwing off the oppression of Royal dictates.

As for equatorial temps onnMars I note that this is the max temp reached. Even if a few spots do reach 35 C there, here on Earth we have equatorial regions that routinely and in widespread areas, reach and exceed that temperature. I was in Peurto Vallarta last February/March and it was 34 C most days that week. Of course I was still a few hundred miles north of the equator. I was also not in the Sahara desert where its not uncommon to have temps in the mid 40s C for months. ( the beach there is fantastic but its a looong way to the surf.) The yearly mean temperature for the Sahara is 30C , how's that compare to the Nars equatorial mean or even the mean temperature of the hottest region of that planet?

As far as comparing temperatures on planets with significant atmospheres goes, that's a nonstarter if one is looking to find anything concerning heating or cooling of the solar system. The contribution to planetary temperatures of an atmosphere depends in a very large part, on the constituents of that atmosphere. An atmosphere of identical thickness and density to Earth's but consisting of different concentrations of the gases will experience a very different climate.
So, Titan and Mars , Pluto, Venus, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn , which all have atmospheres that differ in their make up will have temperatures that are affected not only by the amount of solar radiation that they receive, but also by the particular response to that radiation of their atmospheres. Confounding this of course is that in geological active planets , that atmospheric make up can change.

So, once again if the contention is to be proved it should involve only rocky objects with unchanging albedos and no atmosphere.

Apples to apples, not apples to tailpipe emissions.

I agree about the Rubbish (er, I mean British) system of measures...I certainly wasn't defending the idiocy of the American death grip on it (thanks for another thing, Reagan...he's like if Superman were elected president...NOT!) I don't agree that comparing any two celestial bodies in our system (or any) can be apples to apples, planets are too unique and distinctive...even if certain things like atmosphere, surface, and/or distance are comparable or apparently compensatable...there are simply too many factors, both known and unknown and we have very poor understandings of synergism and holism yet extreme arrogance about our perceived understanding of such things in most contexts. It could very well be that there is not observable warming on most Solar planets and moons, then again we might not might have as good of data as we are led to believe or worse, that data is being manipulated too (not unlike much local, Terran, climate data...Google: Climategate or "Censored Data" Folder).

...Wow, just look at this plethora of off topic posting...when I mention the medieval warm period in response to a similar chart I get posts deleted and blocked for 24 hours, but when jaydeehess and others go on a diatribe about the metric system...nothing, I guess "Senior Membership" has its perks!
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
I guess "Senior Membership" has its perks!
Yes. The training period, where we learn not to incorporate further error into our efforts. Somewhat (in my case).
You've just entered it. Metabunk's a circus ring. You're a lion. Mick's the lion-tamer...
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I don't agree that comparing any two celestial bodies in our system (or any) can be apples to apples, planets are too unique and distinctive...even if certain things like atmosphere, surface, and/or distance are comparable or apparently compensatable...there are simply too many factors, both known and unknown and we have very poor understandings of synergism and holism yet extreme arrogance about our perceived understanding of such things in most contexts. It could very well be that there is not observable warming on most Solar planets and moons, then again we might not might have as good of data as we are led to believe or worse,
So you agree. There is no evidence of a solar system wide warming trend.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Perhaps for a reason similar to the notion that a .01% change in CO2 concentrations can lead to a 20' change in sea level.
My house is constructed 99% out of wood and wood products. However the bulk of the remaining 1% consists of the fiberglass insulation between the wood studs. Guess which component is most responsible for me not freezing the cojones off of my brass monkey ornament in winter(-40C)
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
My house is constructed 99% out of wood and wood products. However the bulk of the remaining 1% consists of the fiberglass insulation between the wood studs. Guess which component is most responsible for me not freezing the cojones off of my brass monkey ornament in winter(-40C)
If you replace that fiberglass with aerogel, it would be a tiny fraction of that 1% and you could heat the whole thing with a candle (in fact, you might have to open a window occasionally to keep it from catching fire). Of course you'd spend the GDP of a midsized developing nation to do that, but it's just a hypothetical to illustrate that proportion of content does not mean proportion of influence.

Tiny things can have incredible influences, and large things almost none. There's a whole list of gasses we could replace the nitrogen in our atmosphere with and still be able to breathe, and another list of ones we'd still be able to breathe but might give us cancer or something. Some plants would have a hard time of it, but overall, the most common gas in Earth's atmosphere has the least impact on the surface environment of the planet.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If you replace that fiberglass with aerogel, it would be a tiny fraction of that 1% and you could heat the whole thing with a candle (in fact, you might have to open a window occasionally to keep it from catching fire). Of course you'd spend the GDP of a midsized developing nation to do that, but it's just a hypothetical to illustrate that proportion of content does not mean proportion of influence.

Tiny things can have incredible influences, and large things almost none. There's a whole list of gasses we could replace the nitrogen in our atmosphere with and still be able to breathe, and another list of ones we'd still be able to breathe but might give us cancer or something. Some plants would have a hard time of it, but overall, the most common gas in Earth's atmophere has the least impact on the surface environment of the planet.
Yes, which brings us to my point that looking at the atmospheric temps or even the change over time of the atmospheric temps, of gaseous atmosphere planets is irrelevant. Now Decon0 wishes to also toss the surface temps of the objects that don't have atmosphere as well.

Therefore, as was said on page one, mark the contention in the thread OP as debunked. Even to the satisfaction of DefcoETA: I'll come clean and admit I own no brass monkey. The daytime high here does however get to -40 degrees(scale irrelevant)
 

Potholer54

New Member
"I asked for links with supporting evidence I was told that I was a slacker for not doing wanting to do my own research."

I have a tip for anyone who asks for a source and gets told "go look it up." Simply pretend you've found it. Make something up. In this case, pretend you've found the website that claims the solar system is warming up, and point out that it uses data that is 50 years old. Of course, the website is ficticious, but he doesn't know that, and if he asks you for your source just tell him it's the same as his. How can he dispute that without telling you what his source is? I have tried this a couple of times, and it works a treat.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Graham2001 Debunked: Sagan: Why is it that it is only our planet in the solar system that is like paradise? Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail "Chembows" [Solar Halos] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Mick West Debunked: IPCC warns not to stop chemtrails, aka 'solar radiation management' Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Debunked: V3Solar's spinning solar panel cone spin cell "CoolSpin" Science and Pseudoscience 172
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top