Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[LouNY]

Nope

 

[walhondingMF]

And we know this is happening significantly faster, how? Because the dinosaurs kept really good written records of all these events. Oh, thats right, I tend to remember my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandfather telling us about the "Dino Sea Scrolls" found in the desert southwest 4.6 billion years ago?

I won't bore you with the science because I doubt you're open-minded enough to even consider it. Your mind is made up on it, but if you were interested in how "they" know, just simply research ice core sampling on youtube.

How do you think "they" know warming and cooling periods are normal if they didn't have the ability to study this.

 

[walhondingMF]

Nope

Good argument...

I say nope to your nope...

 

[OzarkChris]

I won't bore you with the science because I doubt you're open-minded enough to even consider it. Your mind is made up on it, but if you were interested in how "they" know, just simply research ice core sampling on youtube.

How do you think "they" know warming and cooling periods are normal if they didn't have the ability to study this.

Okay, and most "Science" has two sides. I won't bore you with unpopular science because I doubt you're open minded enough to even consider it either. But if you know anything about scientific papers (which I am somewhat doubtful), you would understand that colleges, think tanks, etc get paid for the publications they create (scientific adage- publish or parish). Unfortunately, unpopular science is Not published because it isn't profitable. I'm NOT talking about conspiracy theory science, I'm talking about true peer reviewed science. You speak of ice cores in the artic & antarctic showing wonderful science to support your beliefs, but like many others, you believe that what you are seeing is the "Full/Whole" picture. Unfortunately, however much of this "research" is funded by groups that would pull funding if they didn't get the "picture" they are paying for. This goes for both sides of the argument.

Pretty much, for any "Science" you find that supports your view, I could probably find "Science" that would negate it. Most of my "Non-Farm" life (before being retired) just happens to be many years in the research community (I started in the '70s). I have the personal experience and knowledge of how this community actually works, or doesn't work depending how you would care to phrase it! Statistics and Research have one thing that will hardly ever be faulted and that is "GIGO" - Garbage in = Garbage out. For just one example, the Sugar companies (back in the late '60s) had some research done on a little known sweetener called cyclomates (my spelling may be off), this substance looked and tasted just like sugar but was >10x sweeter (thereby needing <1/10 the amount). C&H was looking at losing profits because the big drink companies were considering changing over to this new substance. The research showed that cyclomates caused cancer so it was banned. What the research didn't show was the complete methodology. The researchers (being paid for by C&H) force fed mice with the equivalent of a human drinking in excess of 25 gallons of super sweetened drink per day for 150 years. The control mice had a normal "self water/feed" routine. Can't imagine why those mice showed cancerous cells mutating.

I could go on about worthless science, but as you already stated, "Your mind is made up on it".

 

[bvanek]

however much of this "research" is funded by groups that would pull funding if they didn't get the "picture" they are paying for. This goes for both sides of the argument.

this simple sentence says it all....thus the truth gets compromised, no matter what model you introduce. However the practical, reasonable, logical side doesn't get the headlines and therefore doesn't reach the general public.

The problem of course is that science gets hijacked in the process. So most agree that it is warming but it's climate and it's been changing for 4.5 billion years and at rates up and down far greater than the skewered hockey stick graph presented to the public today. (The argument they use to convince the population that people are the problem.) Are there positive aspects to a warming planet? Of course there is. More people die of conditions relating to cold than warm.....by quite a lot. Some areas of the northern hemisphere like Canada get longer growing seasons and can thus produce more food. We are actually better off with a warmer climate than a cold one.

I can remember back in the 70's when some were saying we were heading into another ice age. Go figure.

and I will add this; The rest of the story is not available to the general public. Try a search and see where that takes you. 99% social activism, corporate dominance, and ideological propaganda designed to support an ideology or product with a particular narrative/outcome at the forefront. Modern day used car salesmen online.

Omission is the same thing as telling a lie and they do it all the time. I have a library of books and the sources are referenced for validity and ultimately the "inconvenient facts" do come out. But you have to work beyond the headlines and I supposes most people don't do that?

Remember back at the turn of the century when they changed the "global warming" signature to "climate change." (the planet was actually both cooling and warming moderately) Of course the backdoor plan was to promote their hoax of man caused climate hysteria and they couldn't do that with the earth actually cooling. They will continue to move the goalposts because that is what they do.

Bottom line; So If the earth warms, what do they think mankind can do about it.....it's the climate and it is out of our control. nice try IPCC. Hopefully people are smarter than this global panel of elites?... however lots of entrenched indoctrination tells me our younger generation has been compromised with ideological nonsense long before their frontal lobe is fully developed. I suppose you could call it using artificial intelligence to promote natural stupidity? Keep them dumbed down for better control. We should all be alarmed about the quality of professionals coming out of Marxist run universities today..... including math and science professors. Yes we have some deeply rooted problems here that should be of concern. Something we do have control over. We don't have control over climate.

 

[walhondingMF]

Okay, and most "Science" has two sides. I won't bore you with unpopular science because I doubt you're open minded enough to even consider it either. But if you know anything about scientific papers (which I am somewhat doubtful), you would understand that colleges, think tanks, etc get paid for the publications they create (scientific adage- publish or parish). Unfortunately, unpopular science is Not published because it isn't profitable. I'm NOT talking about conspiracy theory science, I'm talking about true peer reviewed science. You speak of ice cores in the artic & antarctic showing wonderful science to support your beliefs, but like many others, you believe that what you are seeing is the "Full/Whole" picture. Unfortunately, however much of this "research" is funded by groups that would pull funding if they didn't get the "picture" they are paying for. This goes for both sides of the argument.

Pretty much, for any "Science" you find that supports your view, I could probably find "Science" that would negate it. Most of my "Non-Farm" life (before being retired) just happens to be many years in the research community (I started in the '70s). I have the personal experience and knowledge of how this community actually works, or doesn't work depending how you would care to phrase it! Statistics and Research have one thing that will hardly ever be faulted and that is "GIGO" - Garbage in = Garbage out. For just one example, the Sugar companies (back in the late '60s) had some research done on a little known sweetener called cyclomates (my spelling may be off), this substance looked and tasted just like sugar but was >10x sweeter (thereby needing <1/10 the amount). C&H was looking at losing profits because the big drink companies were considering changing over to this new substance. The research showed that cyclomates caused cancer so it was banned. What the research didn't show was the complete methodology. The researchers (being paid for by C&H) force fed mice with the equivalent of a human drinking in excess of 25 gallons of super sweetened drink per day for 150 years. The control mice had a normal "self water/feed" routine. Can't imagine why those mice showed cancerous cells mutating.

I could go on about worthless science, but as you already stated, "Your mind is made up on it".

No. Most science does not have 2 sides. It has what the data says and that's it. There is debatable science on the IMPACT of the temperature increase but there is no debate on the increase. You will not find science that states that the temperature is increasing at a rate beyond normal warming.

 

[walhondingMF]

Remember back at the turn of the century when they changed the "global warming" signature to "climate change." (the planet was actually both cooling and warming moderately) Of course the backdoor plan was to promote their hoax of man caused climate hysteria and they couldn't do that with the earth actually cooling. They will continue to move the goalposts because that is what they do.

Both terms are still used when discussing climate science among the scientific community. They changed how it was presented to the public because the idea that the average temperature of the GLOBE was WARMING and that then caused the CLIMATE systems to CHANGE (which can make some locations warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier) was to challenging to understand.

 

[Hay Dude]

No facts. It can be debated on what the actual impacts are because the systems that control our climate are extremely complex. But even people that disagree with the way the "greenies" want to over invest into cutting CO2 or push the "climate hystaria" do not disagree with the warming. It's an easily measured event.

Except when someone measures it and it doesn’t agree, then they are labeled “conspiracy theorist” or “racist”.
Like CDC Chief Dr Robert Redfield. He was labeled a “racist” when he said Covid was caused by a lab leak, not from a bat.

 

[kenmbz]

Except when someone measures it and it doesn’t agree, then they are labeled “conspiracy theorist” or “racist”.
Like CDC Chief Dr Robert Redfield. He was labeled a “racist” when he said Covid was caused by a lab leak, not from a bat.

He used unsubstantiated data to "prove" his theory.
I do believe it came from the lab, but he said it was bioengineered.
I think this was isolated and used in the lab, and got out with someone in their system.
But it was proven to not be bioengineered or weaponized. They "supposedly" had it in the lab to figure it out, will we ever really know??

Redfield's view that the virus could not have had natural origins is widely disputed by scientists. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has no known backbone, a critical molecular structure on which all engineered viruses are built, making it a bad candidate for bioengineering

And of course this above statement is not peer reviewed, but it is what got him in trouble, among other things.

I think we should have him and Fauci duke it out on stage.

 

[tradosaurus]

Because the warming is happening at a significantly faster rate than it's supposed to.

Cancer in our bodies is normal. You have new cancer cells every day. The normal functions of your immune system fights these cancer cells. But, if the cancer cells go beyond their normal levels and the immune system cannot fight them all, you get cancer.

And you know this how?

Climate disasters have been predicted since the early 1970's based on the current "science" at the time.