Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[tradosaurus]

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 hysteria" do not disagree with the warming. It's an easily measured event.

So I guess the "scientists" are smarter than the average citizen and know best.

The systems are complex but it is an easily measured event?

 

[walhondingMF]

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.

Nothing to do with climate change science.

 

[walhondingMF]

And you know this how?

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

The same way that "climate change deniers" can claim its normal for the Earth to go through warming and cooling periods. You cannot use evidence to support a claim and then say the way the evidence was collected doesn't exist.

 

[tradosaurus]

The same way that "climate change deniers" can claim its normal for the Earth to go through warming and cooling periods. You cannot use evidence to support a claim and then say the way the evidence was collected doesn't exist.

Sure I can. It's called common sense.

Temperatures have only been collected for 100 yrs or so. Not enough date to prove anything. And if the polar ice has been melting then sea levels would have risen which hasn't happen.
Not buying into your climate religion.

 

[walhondingMF]

So I guess the "scientists" are smarter than the average citizen and know best.

The systems are complex but it is an easily measured event?

In the context of climate science, they are smarter than the average citizen. They are people who have dedicated their lives to studying in this specific field. Is your doctor smarter than the average citizen in the context of the medical field? How about the engineer that designed the components of your truck?

 

[walhondingMF]

Sure I can. It's called common sense.

Temperatures have only been collected for 100 yrs or so. Not enough date to prove anything. And if the polar ice has been melting then sea levels would have risen which hasn't happen.
Not buying into your climate religion.

Or the religion of denial. How can anyone claim there are normal warming and cooling periods if there was not a method of collecting this data. It's called core sampling.

 

[tradosaurus]

In the context of climate science, they are smarter than the average citizen. They are people who have dedicated their lives to studying in this specific field. Is your doctor smarter than the average citizen in the context of the medical field? How about the engineer that designed the components of your truck?

You are comparing a climate "scientist" to a doctor and engineer?

That's like comparing a televangelist to a doctor. Still not buying into your religion.

 

[walhondingMF]

And you know this how?

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

Sea levels are rising. I am not sure where that information that they are not is being feed to you, but its very simple to measure. You do understand tides correct? The flooding of Miami and Manhattan is not a constant. At high tides, the subways are flooding on a regular basis and the city of Miami has had to spend millions of dollars to mitigate street flooding during high tides. You do understand that averages can be measured and compared.

 

[KilroyJC]

So I guess the "scientists" are smarter than the average citizen and know best.

The systems are complex but it is an easily measured event?

Sure I can. It's called common sense.

Temperatures have only been collected for 100 yrs or so. Not enough date to prove anything. And if the polar ice has been melting then sea levels would have risen which hasn't happen.
Not buying into your climate religion.

And there are documented examples of weather data collection devices being located next to rooftop HVAC units, on tarmac surfaces, and other places that skew the temperatures higher.

 

[walhondingMF]

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.

EXACLTY!!! So when the information does come to the public, its a consensus from the experts on the topic. The word change was never dropped, it was added. Climate and Climate Change/ Global Warming are 2 different things.

I would bet a years pay that I have done an extensively greater amount of research on climate change and science.

What doesn't follow the script are the facts and just trying to muddy the waters does not make facts false. The other side does not exist anymore because all the ongoing science makes their claims all wrong.

And actually, your understanding of modern science is inaccurate. It has become a regular practice for scientists of various backgrounds to interact. They share data and ideas from multiple perspectives. It is the new scientific norm.