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.

 

[kenmbz]

Why melting glaciers affect us all

Alpine glaciers could disappear by the end of the century. The consequences will be felt not only in the Swiss Alps but throughout Europe.

www.swissinfo.ch

Again, they are not saying why and not trying to win anyone over, just plain matter of fact what is happening and how it could impact us.

quote from actual data, not opinion.
One is the low snowfall in winter and spring. Another is sand from the Sahara Desert that blew all the way to Switzerland between March and May and deposited on ice and snow. The contaminated snow absorbed more solar energy and melted faster. Finally, the exceptional summer heatwave resulted in record temperatures even at high altitudes.

Not talking Co2, people, cars. Even mention some Glaciers may be expanding.
Not everyone is evil , some people actually read and do research.

It's not bothering to listen at all that causes more issues.

I understand the Oil, Solar, Tobacco etc. people try to fund a lot of this and politicians try to use random facts and statistics to make money, buy votesetc.

But the locals in Europe have been tracking this for a long time, and they don't care what the gov or we think, they say what they see and measure.

 

[bvanek]

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.

The "scientific community " likes to identify with groups hence the words community/consensus etc. Most geologists, physicists, meteorologists don't interact in a group think tank to decide what gets surfaced to the public. They likely have been studing climate long before the hysteria hit the top of the fake news cycle. Soon dropping the "change" part to just "climate"? But this is just speculation, like you are doing.

True science is ongoing and climate science is no exception.....You can search online for information, it's convenient but generally a poor choice for unbiased accounts. (but maybe that's not what your looking for?) There have been several climate science reports to Congress over the past three decades. There was a historical accounting recorded in Congress and on YouTube with input from both sides.......the other side (which you say there is none) all now missing? YouTube is bias and it censors opinions and even factual science that doesn't follow the script.

Einstein had theories that the general public was beyond comprehending and most science wants proof way beyond whatever terminology is used to describe, promote, or prove it. There has never been a mathematical solution to gravity, yet we know it exists.

 

[bvanek]

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

This was not proven .......with SARS they were able to duplicate animal to man infection.....They have never been able to do that with the Wuhan virus. China could clear that up but they knew it came from their lab, so they covered it up and let it spread around the world.

 

[bvanek]

There. FIXED it.

you don't say much but the content and context of what you say gets to the point in a hurry.

 

[OzarkChris]

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.

Actually you are wrong about your 2nd sentence. There most definitely are two sides in the research community, thus, two sides in what us now called science. If you were even remotely associated with the research community you would understand this. If you are associated with research then all I can say is that you really have been indoctrinated and have your head in the sand or somewhere else.

BTW, ITS THE DATA THAT IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE! Show me a research paper that has "Data" associated with it and I could probably show you data that disputes those same findings! Hence, "most science has two sides"!

 

[Fixastuff]

"Probably"

 

[tshep]

I keep seeing this topic, and always think why? You could do a whole lot worse, at least this is very innocuous. No smells, no traffic after build, no noise, wonderful neighbor!

 

[KilroyJC]

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.

Who determines “supposed to”?

especially since we are overdue for another Ice Age, based upon historical cycles. And we seem to be heading into a solar minimum.

I say throw another log on the fire.

 

[OzarkChris]

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.

First sentence says it all! "No facts"!

 

[bnold]

My in laws just signed an initial contract for a solar installation.

Initial contract is just a 4yrs hold. They have 4yrs to start construction and the lease goes to 30years with 2 - 5yrs extensions written in. 2% increase in lease payment per year. Bond on property for rehabilitation at the end of term or should the project go under.

So far they have collected a nearly uninterrupted 2,500acres for this site. The company is after this area do to close proximity to ~300kV distribution lines from an old lignite/coal plant.

They wrapped up 25% of their land in the lease, may go more in time depending how this phase plays out.

Owners are an aging bunch 80+ that have built the property from nothing (1st generation really), next generation is working the property, but within 10yrs of wanting to retire. Next generation is limited on who wants to work the property (half don’t live in the area anymore). May be a saving grace to keep the property family.

Last years drought was pretty stressful on the finances, this will offer the business more stability if it all works as planned. Only time will tell.