Pictures: Look What a Few Punishing Minutes of Baseball-Sized Hail Did to Massive Nebraska Solar Farm

I'm also an engineer, one year out from retirement. I'm also a data guy. Same company for 31 years, 80k employees.

Your primary issue is that you haven't broken through the layer of global censorship yet. Once you do, you will find that the people pulling the strings have more control than you would like to believe. The WEF and their corporate members literally control every media and tech platform on the planet. This is why they can get away with their propaganda and "take down" of almost every dissenting voice, no matter their expertise. As Bret Weinstein would say, "zero is a special number". There was literally no avenue for opposing viewpoints to pervade the public awareness, giving the appearance that there was little dissent. It allows people like you to feel confident in your position, but that confidence is built on a preponderance of propaganda and lies from your trusted "experts". This is why you automatically default to using the word "conspiracy". Anything that challenges the "mainstream consensus" is labeled "right wing conspiracy".

Now that Twitter is allowing open debate and discussion, that number is greater than zero, so the information is getting through to people who are open to other narratives. Since you haven't been exposed to other experts speaking truth and providing supporting data and evidence, you believe there is no other valid position. Have you watched hours of testimony from Dr. McCullough in front of senate panel committees? Have your read his 200 page CV attached to various lawsuits against our health authorities? Do you even conceive of the possibility that the pharmaceutical industry can use their money and power to capture regulatory bodies and fund studies to make sure they get the result they want? Have you watched testimony of these officials and read their emails admitting their part in the corruption? I have. The information is out there if you decide you'd like to entertain data that may be antithetical to your core beliefs. Looking at this data and considering possible motivating factors like profit/greed doesn't make someone mentally ill.

I'll give you but one example of Dr. Tess Laurie referencing her exchange with Andrew Hill and his admission to altering study data related to early treatment of COVID and it's impact on the WHO decision making:


Always follow the money, and you will usually find the motive. Most systems we rely on have been corrupted by greed to some extent. To not even entertain this possibility means that you will remain ignorant to the pervasiveness of that corruption. It's not rocket science...it simply takes the will to step outside your box.

Browse said:

I'm also an engineer, one year out from retirement. I'm also a data guy. Same company for 31 years, 80k employees.

Your primary issue is that you haven't broken through the layer of global censorship yet. Once you do, you will find that the people pulling the strings have more control than you would like to believe. The WEF and their corporate members literally control every media and tech platform on the planet. This is why they can get away with their propaganda and "take down" of almost every dissenting voice, no matter their expertise. As Bret Weinstein would say, "zero is a special number". There was literally no avenue for opposing viewpoints to pervade the public awareness, giving the appearance that there was little dissent. It allows people like you to feel confident in your position, but that confidence is built on a preponderance of propaganda and lies from your trusted "experts". This is why you automatically default to using the word "conspiracy". Anything that challenges the "mainstream consensus" is labeled "right wing conspiracy".

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense considering you're right here on this forum doing exactly what you're claiming isn't allowed.

And there are tens of thousands of other similar forums across the internet..

Some countries do censor their citizens, the USA is not among them.

Basically what you're arguing is the following: "My unqualified opinion, and the opinions of others, are not allowed to be published on someone else's property."

That's really what this comes down to. You want to be free to push your opinions upon others and do it upon property owned by others. That's not how it works.

Social media platforms, main stream media (whatever crap that means), and other resources, are owned by different entities, and you have no right to publish whatever you want on those platforms. If you want to call it censorship, that's fine because that's exactly what it is. If you come to my home, I will kick you out if you start blabbering nonsense.. Its my property, my rules. If you don't like those rules, you are welcome to open up your own social media platform or purchase property and set your own rules.

Unfortunately for you, I think you will find that the only people who will come to your platform are the demographic proportion of our society that isn't quite rational and playing with a full deck of cards.... and there are a lot of them, so maybe that's enough? Good luck with that.

Browse said:

Now that Twitter is allowing open debate and discussion, that number is greater than zero, so the information is getting through to people who are open to other narratives.

Click to expand...

Twitter is not a source of information. Any forum or media resource that allows anyone to say anything they want, is not a source of information.

Browse said:

Since you haven't been exposed to other experts speaking truth and providing supporting data and evidence, you believe there is no other valid position.

Click to expand...

I am intelligent enough to know that I am not remotely qualified to speak, understand, or comprehend, the type of science information that is relevant to managing a pandemic. Thus, with that in mind, I am not capable of separating viral, immunological, or other similar scientific information into fact or bullshit.

And to think I could be, would be irrational. And that's the key word.. Irrational.

Browse said:

Have you watched hours of testimony from Dr. McCullough in front of senate panel committees? Have your read his 200 page CV attached to various lawsuits against our health authorities? Do you even conceive of the possibility that the pharmaceutical industry can use their money and power to capture regulatory bodies and fund studies to make sure they get the result they want? Have you watched testimony of these officials and read their emails admitting their part in the corruption? I have. The information is out there if you decide you'd like to entertain data that may be antithetical to your core beliefs. Looking at this data and considering possible motivating factors like profit/greed doesn't make someone mentally ill.

I'll give you but one example of Dr. Tess Laurie referencing her exchange with Andrew Hill and his admission to altering study data related to early treatment of COVID and it's impact on the WHO decision making:

Dear Andy (Short Film) | World Council for Health

Watch the new short film by Oracle Films, Dr. Tess Lawrie recites a letter to Dr. Andrew Hill and asks him what made him turn his back on a potential cure for

worldcouncilforhealth.org

Always follow the money, and you will usually find the motive. Most systems we rely on have been corrupted by greed to some extent. To not even entertain this possibility means that you will remain ignorant to the pervasiveness of that corruption. It's not rocket science...it simply takes the will to step outside your box.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is corruption.. we live in nation of capitalism and greed rules. Why is that a surprise to you?

Here's what I know.. Once again.. A pandemic hit, we scienced the shit out of it, the pandemic is over.

Once again, which of these do you subscribe to?
Christianity (or any religion)
911 Inside Job
Global Warming fake
Covid consipracy
Moon landings fake
Bigfoot real
Government covering up Aliens
Jewish Space Lasers
Election was Stolen

Conspiracy mentalities usually come in clusters... Please answer the question.

As an engineer, you should value data...wherever it leads. You remind me of the owner of the OceanGate submersible that just went down.
You simply won't listen to others. You'll fire them if they raise concerns that challenge your assumptions. You have blinders on and are comfortable with the lies you are living.

I tried. Good luck to you sir.

Browse said:

As an engineer, you should value data...wherever it leads. You remind me of the owner of the OceanGate submersible that just went down.
You simply won't listen to others. You'll fire them if they raise concerns that challenge your assumptions. You have blinders on and are comfortable with the lies you are living.

I tried. Good luck to you sir.

Click to expand...

I do value data very much, the problem is that, with the exception of the most basic things, I wouldn't understand the data related to the pandemic, virology, immunology, etc etc. And neither would you.

The difference here is that I recognize a show when I see it, and most things coming out of Texas these days are nothing but show. In fact, most things coming out of both the republican and democrat parties are nothing but political posturing and show.

Tell me, you and I are both engineers.. do you think you're qualified to both understand and comprehend medical data as it relates to the pandemic, virology, immunology, etc, and are capable of rationalizing that data with the proper perspective?

If either of us said yes to such a ridiculous assertion, we'd be considered idiots by anyone rational enough to recognize such idiocy...

Senate hearing you say? How many of those idiot politicians even have a science related education? One of those Texas politicians was so utterly f*ing stupid he proclaimed that "women can't get pregnant if they're raped because they have a way of shutting that down"... WTF? I'll find the link to that if you don't believe me, just ask.

When it comes to science, I generally go with the wider consensus because modern science is correct 95% of the time... actually, its more like 99.999% of the time, but that's another argument.

When it boils down to it, all modern science is "best guess".. but that best guess isn't based on picking some random door, its based on current knowledge, observations, computer modeling, math, and statistics. So when an emergency comes along and our science has to quickly come up with a solution, we can't expect perfection at every corner.. which is why these opportunist come out of the woodwork trying to capitalize on those imperfections in order to profit from them in either social networking or finance.

The pandemic came, we kicked its ass, now its gone. How the hell can you possibly argue with that? The answer is you can't.. You can't argue with results.

If you want to "follow the money".. find out who makes ivermectin and any other drug being pushed by the propaganda machine. I'll stick to the scientific consensus as it has always served me very well.

You suffer from projection. You create scenarios, make assumptions and then deliver your verdict. You must not actually be on Twitter since you believe experts cannot make their wisdom available there. You should know that actual experts reside there and they not only post their thoughts, but they also add videos you can watch and links to their studies and papers. Twitter has changed. There are many technical discussions with other experts. There are live Twitter "Spaces" where people can discuss issues live. But you wouldn't know this since you haven't been exposed to it. You likely believe it is just a forum of buffoons, tweeting insanities. You will find some of that of course, especially if you follow the wrong people.

By the way, ivermectin is off patent and there is no money to be made in it. It sells for .02 in India. It is literally one of the safest pharmaceutical products on the market, given to billions globally for 4 decades. You can buy it OTC from compounding pharmacies in Tennessee without a prescription. Their legislature held hearings, listened to the experts, and passed a bill to offer it to anyone who wants it for COVID. To people like you, it is simply "horse de-wormer" since that is what the "consensus" says. This is what they were paid to say. This is all exposed via e-mails and you can read about it in the Twitter Files I linked above. Your trusted "health authorities" admit it in writing, but the controlled "news" channels won't tell you about it. Many of the trials the media reference were fraudulently conducted, paid for by big pharma. They had a $200B "vaccine" product family to roll out. With an approved early treatment, the EUA would not have been possible. There was a lot of money at stake. This again is all in the internal memos, exposed for all to see. But many won't hear about it, similar to how they are covering up for the Biden family foreign illicit transactions. None of this is "conspiracy", except to the misinformed and ignorant. You are being played.

But it will all come out one day. The truth always comes out eventually. One day you might even awaken, but with your attitude I highly doubt it. Here is some "science" you can keep following:

MurphyGuy said:

Tell me, you and I are both engineers.. do you think you're qualified to both understand and comprehend medical data as it relates to the pandemic, virology, immunology, etc, and are capable of rationalizing that data with the proper perspective?

If either of us said yes to such a ridiculous assertion, we'd be considered idiots by anyone rational enough to recognize such idiocy...

Click to expand...

To some extent, I think so. Statistics is common to engineering and all science including medicine. If the claims are contradicted by statistics, we are quite capable of declaring BS.

e.g. Bells Palsy occurred in 7 out of 35,000 phase 3 Pfizer and Moderna recipients. That was not elevated, we were told; it was the baseline expected number.
Bells Palsy occurred in 1 out of 35,000 phase 3 placebo recipients. This would be a 2-sigma outlier.

From the other (denier) side, Pfizer shot during first and second trimester resulted in 80% miscarriage. 21 times higher than normal!
(That was 80% of pregnancies which ended within 2 months, the other 20% being premature, since the data was taken at least a month before due date.)
What they neglected was the 96% of pregnancies still being carried normally. The actual figure was 3% miscarriage, which is below the normal number expected during entire term.

We can also consider what immune response means. Does hepatitis vaccine make sense for a 1 hour old baby, if the mother isn't a carrier? Immune system isn't ready to respond and develop antibodies.

Does 3 weeks between primary and booster make sense? The body needs to develop antibodies before booster will have full effect. England did a split and got several times as much response with 12 weeks between. Yet a year later, 3 weeks was used for children's version. And for small children, the vaccine failed the "non negative" test, so they added a second booster.

"Non negative" - compare a new therapy to old one, see if new one is no worse.
But what did "non negative" mean when comparing Pfizer to placebo in small children? The effectiveness of the first + booster was negative, higher infection rate seen??

The original Wuhan component was used in Bivalent vaccine. When we knew original vaccine was only briefly effective against Omicron. Why?
This apparently muted effectiveness of the vaccine (and so director of CDC caught Covid despite receiving bivalent booster.)

Browse said:

You suffer from projection. You create scenarios, make assumptions and then deliver your verdict. You must not actually be on Twitter since you believe experts cannot make their wisdom available there. You should know that actual experts reside there and they not only post their thoughts, but they also add videos you can watch and links to their studies and papers. Twitter has changed.

Click to expand...

I understand the people who used to post medical research results on Twitter stopped doing it because with the hate directed at them, they receive harassment and death threats. There is a rabid mob with pitchforks listening to people who claim medical personnel are trying to harm the population. No different from the BLM riots where many people believe the lies and went out to cause destruction.

[

MurphyGuy said:

So you think its all a world wide conspiracy? Dude, there are almost 200 sovereign countries on this planet, if you took a random sample of any 5 of them, you couldn't get them to agree on what to have for lunch without 4 conferences to discuss the physical layout of the meeting room, then 4 more conferences to discuss the location, then 4 more for the date, another meeting to discuss the tableware, etc.

But somehow you think they magically all decided to agree on one of the most complex conspiracies in the world?

Let me guess.. Please check the boxes that apply to you:
Christianity
911 Inside Job
Global Warming fake
Covid consipracy
Moon landings fake
Bigfoot real
Government covering up Aliens
Jewish Space Lasers
Election was Stolen

Mental illness of this type almost always results in a cluster of irrational beliefs..

Click to expand...

climate Change is not fake. It is a natural process which can not be fixed. Pumping Trillions of dollars in for return of 1/2 degree is insanity.
Allowing rest 95% World to pollute while USA only~5% of World population to pay huge sums of money is insanity. Especially when China isall set to be the ultimate big winner.
China almost has 2x the billionaires as the USA. Think about that. Do you want to invest trillions of dollars in Global Climate change while they grow larger in greatest transfer of wealth and power known in history? Special kind of insanity.




“‘’

1. Introduction​

The global pandemic of the disease COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is an example of a “virgin soil” pandemic. Thus, a completely new virus has invaded a human population that totally lacks preexisting immunity. There are two possible outcomes of such a pandemic. If it sweeps unchallenged through susceptible populations, herd immunity will eventually develop in survivors and the severity of the outbreak will be reduced – but only after it has caused a huge number of deaths among the vulnerable. In addition, there may be waves of infection in different communities and countries depending upon the duration of protective immunity. The only long-term solution to this pandemic is therefore the development of an effective vaccine or vaccines. As a result, COVID-19 has triggered a worldwide effort to develop such vaccines for use in humans. Investigators have however, quite correctly, been reluctant to make definitive predictions regarding the efficacy of any such vaccines and there has been much speculation as to their potential effectiveness. Many commentators appear to be unaware that coronavirus vaccines have been widely employed in veterinary medicine for many years. They have been administered to both companion animals and to economically important livestock such as cattle, pigs and poultry. While it is important to emphasize that none of these animal vaccines will prevent COVID-19 in humans, the experience gained from the use of these vaccines and the problems associated with their use may be of benefit in developing and optimizing vaccines directed against SARS-CoV-2 in humans.”’’’



remember “ it came from a bat in a wet market in Wuhan “ Remember this always being stated: “we are what we eat” okay dokie pork chop.
The USA with only ~5% of World population lost ~2x the ppl vs covid deaths then any other country.


covid reported deaths notice age groups above for ppl now look at this chart



this is statistical data …. Anyone that has taken degree college in engineering has normally had statistics and used it in graphs and such
So please don’t be “stupid” (murphy’s favorite word) and say you can’t take the statistical numbers and look at it. Not my field not not not not can’t can’t can’t won’t won’t won’t GIVE ME A VACCINE NUMBER 5 SEE YOU NEXT MONTH FOR NUMBER 6.

BTW they even blamed covid-19 on climate change

Breaking News: Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media platforms in censorship case

The below ruling validates much of the information outlines in the Twitter Files reporting:

Missouri vs Biden Case & Conclusion:

V. CONCLUSION
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the
voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the
path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source
of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives
in fear.
- Harry S. Truman

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has
used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition
to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the
Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in
power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech
was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example
of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free
debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it
in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts
an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best
characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have
assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”

The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were
the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are
likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.
Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants.

Crowz said:

Love how the haters in that article are going off on how much it will cost to repair and tax payers might have to pay for it and how deadly the chemicals will be from disposing of the damaged panels.

Haters going to hate.

Click to expand...

How does labelling critics as haters offer a rebuttal of those talking points? Are you saying if people werent critical of solar then those panels wouldnt be broken?
Does calling them haters reduce the cost of the panels?

MurphyGuy said:

Even the climate change denying propaganda machine has shifted from "its not happening" to "okay, its happening but its not humans"

The propaganda machine followed the same routine with DDT, acid rain, tobacco, the ozone layer, etc. Each controversy follows the same playbook more or less..

A good book to read is "Merchants of Doubt" which details how it works.

Click to expand...

Some scientists have always said most of it was solar variation. NASAs graphs of sunspot activity tend to support that.
Incidentally two of those scientists were the ones blackballed in Climategate.
Just because youre ignorant of this doesnt make it false.

Browse said:

Breaking News: Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media platforms in censorship case

Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media platforms in censorship case • Missouri Independent

A federal judge on Tuesday prohibited Biden administration officials from communicating with social media platforms about “protected speech."

missouriindependent.com

The below ruling validates much of the information outlines in the Twitter Files reporting:

Missouri vs Biden Case & Conclusion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf

V. CONCLUSION
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the
voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the
path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source
of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives
in fear.
- Harry S. Truman

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has
used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition
to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the
Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in
power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech
was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example
of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free
debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it
in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts
an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best
characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have
assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”

The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were
the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are
likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.
Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants.

Click to expand...

Observations:
1) I think the courts are correct to curtail any and all government influence into free speech in this case.
2) Misinformation and propaganda is a problem, especially when those spreading it intend to do others harm.

I think the proper solution would (Might?) be to pass legislation making it easier for those who are harmed by these misinformation spreaders to bring them into civil court for damages.

Or maybe just remove the anonymity the internet provides so people can't hide behind fake profiles. The founding fathers of our nation never envisioned free speech to have the benefit of both anonymous publication and wide audience at the same time.

MurphyGuy said:

While I would agree that a carbon tax isn't going to fix the problem, throwing money at the problem will fix it.


An operational fusion reactor would fix all our global warming problems pretty much overnight. In the mean time, technological advancements in renewables and energy storage can push us in the right direction.


Methane, while 20x more potent as a greenhouse gas, isn't the problem. Methane degrades in the atmosphere, which is why we look for methane when we examine the atmospheres of exoplanets in other star systems. There are some non-organic sources of methane, but the amount they produce is small when compared to methane produced by living organisms. When an exoplanet passes in front of its star and we can see the star light filtering through the planet's atmosphere, we can use spectroscopy to record the light we see and that spectroscopy tells us which molecules are absorbing or emitting photons, which gives us the chemical makeup of the atmosphere the light is shining through.

Any planet with a high concentration of methane would get the full attention of every astronomer in the world.

Methane must be constantly replenished because sunlight destroys it in a chain of upper atmospheric chemical reactions. Release a methane molecule with a fart, and it has the life expectancy of a dog.. Well, for our atmosphere anyhow.

CO2 is a whole different animal. The bond's between carbon and oxygen are strong and they don't break down. CO2 will stay in the atmosphere and the only practical way to remove it is to let natural processes suck it up and store it, and those processes take a very long time.



The problem can be fixed if we act now, which is what we're doing.. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of ignorant morons running around in society that are easy to manipulate so that's exactly what anyone who profits from hydrocarbons (oil) does..

Click to expand...

Is china throwing money at the problem by building one coal fired power plant every week?
We dont doubt problems can be solved by throwing money at them but thats not exactly whats happening.
We are throwing money at poor countries that will continue to pollute at obscene levels while we cut back.
The issue isnt climate change its global socialism disguised as something else. To hell with that.

MurphyGuy said:

Observations:
1) I think the courts are correct to curtail any and all government influence into free speech in this case.
2) Misinformation and propaganda is a problem, especially when those spreading it intend to do others harm.

I think the proper solution would (Might?) be to pass legislation making it easier for those who are harmed by these misinformation spreaders to bring them into civil court for damages.

Or maybe just remove the anonymity the internet provides so people can't hide behind fake profiles. The founding fathers of our nation never envisioned free speech to have the benefit of both anonymous publication and wide audience at the same time.

Click to expand...

Who decides what is misinformation? Thats what they labelled any discussion of election fraud on social media. It prevented dissemination of actual evidence, of which some did exist.
Theres a problem when anything which opposes one sides agenda is called misinformation.

Batvette said:

Is china throwing money at the problem by building one coal fired power plant every week?

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on China, but it is my understanding that their phenomenal growth rate over the past twenty years has caused them some severe growing pains. as would be expected.. And as a governing body, I would imagine that having dirty coal power to keep the lights on and the clean water flowing is better than not having any power.
Its a lot better than them throwing together nuclear power plants in a big hurry only to have them become Chernobyl's later on.

Here's an interesting article..

Batvette said:

We dont doubt problems can be solved by throwing money at them but thats not exactly whats happening.
We are throwing money at poor countries that will continue to pollute at obscene levels while we cut back.
The issue isnt climate change its global socialism disguised as something else. To hell with that.

Click to expand...

Poor countries are not big polluters.. By their very definition of being poor, it means they don't produce much, which means that while their pollution on a per-capita basis might be high, the overall numbers are very low.

Imagine two neighbors. The Smith's drive 100 miles to work every day in a vehicle that gets 30 miles to the gallon.. The Jone's family drives 3 miles to work, but their vehicle only gets 10 miles to the gallon.

Which family is polluting more?

Batvette said:

Who decides what is misinformation?

Click to expand...

How about a jury?

Batvette said:

Thats what they labelled any discussion of election fraud on social media. It prevented dissemination of actual evidence, of which some did exist.
Theres a problem when anything which opposes one sides agenda is called misinformation.

Click to expand...

None existed.. it was a hoax in an attempt for Trump to hang on to power.

MurphyGuy said:

I'm not an expert on China, but it is my understanding that their phenomenal growth rate over the past twenty years has caused them some severe growing pains. as would be expected.. And as a governing body, I would imagine that having dirty coal power to keep the lights on and the clean water flowing is better than not having any power.
Its a lot better than them throwing together nuclear power plants in a big hurry only to have them become Chernobyl's later on.

Here's an interesting article..

Analysis: China's new coal plants set to become a costly second fiddle to renewables

China's plans for some 100 new coal-fired power plants to back up wind and solar capacity have sparked warnings that the world's second-biggest economy is likely to end up lumbered with even more loss-making power assets.

www.reuters.com

Poor countries are not big polluters.. By their very definition of being poor, it means they don't produce much, which means that while their pollution on a per-capita basis might be high, the overall numbers are very low.

Imagine two neighbors. The Smith's drive 100 miles to work every day in a vehicle that gets 30 miles to the gallon.. The Jone's family drives 3 miles to work, but their vehicle only gets 10 miles to the gallon.

Which family is polluting more?

Click to expand...

Most of the wealth transfer to poor
countries involve
industrializing them.
How does lowering the Smiths car gas mileage to 10 or less mpg fight climate change?

MurphyGuy said:

How about a jury?


None existed.. it was a hoax in an attempt for Trump to hang on to power.

Click to expand...

Yes we know youd like to pretend Zuckerbucks didnt rig the election. It did, its documented, and it was wrong. Legislation was passed in many states to prevent it in the future. I suppose that legislation was against something that didnt happen right?





Youve been shown links like this several times in the past. Why are you continuing to lie that none of this happened?

Topic: panels made of polycarbonite. Problem solved.

Batvette said:

Yes we know youd like to pretend Zuckerbucks didnt rig the election. It did, its documented, and it was wrong. Legislation was passed in many states to prevent it in the future. I suppose that legislation was against something that didnt happen right?

Zuckerbucks

State and local governments should be prohibited from accepting funding from private individuals and third parties, as occurred in 2020.

thefga.org

“Zuckerbucks” and the 2020 Election

Zuckerberg’s help to Democrats is well known when it comes to censoring their political opponents in the name of preventing “misinformation.” Less well known is the fact that he directly funded liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations. In fact, he helped those groups...

imprimis.hillsdale.edu

How Zuckerberg Took Over 2020 And Why States Must Clean Up Their Act

No conversation about election integrity is complete without understanding how Zuckerberg strategically bankrolled and staffed government election offices.

thefederalist.com

Mark Zuckerberg gave $419.5MILLION to 2020 election nonprofits

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife gave $419million into nonprofits that aided in the administration of the 2020 election - and heavily favored Democrat counties, according to a new report.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Click to expand...

I agree that Zuckerberg did influence the election.. What's your problem with that exactly? He owns facebook, he can make facebook do whatever he wants.
Both Zuckerberg and Facebook have 1st amendment rights and can control, influence, delete, censor, audit, or even edit, anything on their website because THEY OWN IT.

So, beyond the obvious that you prefer to vote differently, what exactly is your problem with his actions? Are you suggesting we strip people of their right to free speech?

If someone planted a BIDEN sign on your front lawn, would you want the right to remove it?

Batvette said:

Youve been shown links like this several times in the past. Why are you continuing to lie that none of this happened?

Click to expand...

You seem to be confused.. I have never once denied that Facebook influenced the election.. You seem to think that what they did was somehow illegal, which is kind of cute.. a show of ignorance, but cute..

You might want to brush up on how our 1st amendment works.

Batvette said:

Most of the wealth transfer to poor
countries involve
industrializing them.
How does lowering the Smiths car gas mileage to 10 or less mpg fight climate change?

Click to expand...

LOL.. are you confused or did you fail the grade school mathematics where they gave you short story problems to solve? You seriously missed the point with that one..

MurphyGuy said:

Or maybe just remove the anonymity the internet provides so people can't hide behind fake profiles. The founding fathers of our nation never envisioned free speech to have the benefit of both anonymous publication and wide audience at the same time.

Click to expand...

Thomas Paine was able to stay anonymous for the first three months after Common Sense was published, a 47-page pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–1776 advocating independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies.


You cannot read many biographies of men who engaged the American separation from Britain, declaration of an independent nation, and shaping and winning ratification of the Constitution without encountering—repeatedly—references to pamphlets. The pamphleteer’s goal was to write eloquent, fiery prose on controversial ideas that would “go viral,” reprinted without end by people who today might share blog—to spread views they endorsed. This new and potent dissemination of ideas outside “official channels” became so threatening that governments kept banning pamphleteering.

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Most can't seem to grasp that :

Freedom of the press

and

Freedom of speech

Are not Freedom of APPROVED press

nor

Freedom of APPROVED speech

So "protecting democracy from words" or any other "protecting" us from words or ideas is NOT something the federal government should do or is even allowed constitutionally to do.

MurphyGuy said:

Imagine two neighbors. The Smith's drive 100 miles to work every day in a vehicle that gets 30 miles to the gallon.. The Jone's family drives 3 miles to work, but their vehicle only gets 10 miles to the gallon.

Which family is polluting more?

Click to expand...

Jones, of course.

A modern car driving to LA emits less pollution than a 60's car sitting parked at the curb.

MurphyGuy said:

How about a jury?

Click to expand...

Majority determines what is truth?

No new (and correct) idea could ever be allowed.