Silliness of Solar farms

Cratic3947 · 2019-08-21T18:19:14.521Z

If you think CO2 is causing heating, then be happy, the earth is usually in an Ice age.
And cold periods over the last 2000 years have caused disease like the great plague, also poverty and starvation from crop failure.

CO2 is a natural gas we all exhale, and plants used for food.

Jezcoe · 2019-08-21T18:20:06.441Z

Cratic3947:

If you think CO2 is causing heating, then be happy, the earth is usually in an Ice age.
And cold periods over the last 2000 years have caused disease like the great plague, also poverty and starvation from crop failure.

CO2 is a natural gas we all exhale, and plants used for food.

I am never interested in arguing whether the earth is flat or not with people on the internet.

Samm · 2019-08-21T21:26:06.877Z

Only a liberal would call giving a company a break on their taxes if they create/produce something the government desires, a subsidy. By that standard, every tax payer in America who itemizes is subsidized because they can take various deductions from their tax burden.

Samm · 2019-08-21T21:29:26.267Z

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

Samm · 2019-08-21T21:58:24.116Z

Jezcoe:

Cratic3947:

And since we know solar panels cause a lot of harm, why continue supporting govt subsidy of solar even if you believe “subsidy” to Nat gas companies are wrong. That’s just supporting two wrongs from your perspective… Seems to me anyway!

Solar panels cause less harm over their lifetime than burning extracted carbon.

The technology is also improving.

This country could have been the leader in the revolution of switching away from carbon based energy… but we didn’t and we effectively ceded the manufacturing and development to China.

Yay us?

Yay everyone.

nytimes.com – 7 Dec 18

The World Still Isn’t Meeting Its Climate Goals (Published 2018)

Three years after countries signed a landmark climate agreement in Paris, they are still far off-track from preventing severe global warming in the decades ahead, new data shows.

The US … Trump specifically … gets all the blame, but the truth of the matter is, none of the major Paris Accord signatories are meeting their obligations.

Samm · 2019-08-21T22:01:04.080Z

Jezcoe:

Cratic3947:

If you think CO2 is causing heating, then be happy, the earth is usually in an Ice age.
And cold periods over the last 2000 years have caused disease like the great plague, also poverty and starvation from crop failure.

CO2 is a natural gas we all exhale, and plants used for food.

I am never interested in arguing whether the earth is flat or not with people on the internet.

Are you denying that ice ages are not good for carbon life forms on Earth?

Jezcoe · 2019-08-21T22:11:45.184Z

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

That is quite silly.

Car manufacturers are required to have safety features on cars to reduce death and injury. Drivers are required to carry insurance to mitigate liability.

The effects of burning carbon are not offset in the up front cost but are socialized.

Jezcoe · 2019-08-21T22:12:13.760Z

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Cratic3947:

If you think CO2 is causing heating, then be happy, the earth is usually in an Ice age.
And cold periods over the last 2000 years have caused disease like the great plague, also poverty and starvation from crop failure.

CO2 is a natural gas we all exhale, and plants used for food.

I am never interested in arguing whether the earth is flat or not with people on the internet.

Are you denying that ice ages are not good for carbon life forms on Earth?

Once again… I don’t argue with flat earthers.

sikofit · 2019-08-21T22:14:44.906Z

Jezcoe:

Once again… I don’t argue with flat earthers.

Smart

Samm · 2019-08-22T02:23:24.784Z

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

That is quite silly.

Car manufacturers are required to have safety features on cars to reduce death and injury. Drivers are required to carry insurance to mitigate liability.

The effects of burning carbon are not offset in the up front cost but are socialized.

Yes, but the cost of burning carbon is both speculative and subjective. In other words, it is made up rather than being scientifically verifiable.

Samm · 2019-08-22T02:23:56.643Z

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Cratic3947:

If you think CO2 is causing heating, then be happy, the earth is usually in an Ice age.
And cold periods over the last 2000 years have caused disease like the great plague, also poverty and starvation from crop failure.

CO2 is a natural gas we all exhale, and plants used for food.

I am never interested in arguing whether the earth is flat or not with people on the internet.

Are you denying that ice ages are not good for carbon life forms on Earth?

Once again… I don’t argue with flat earthers.

Are you denying science?

adroit · 2019-08-22T02:26:48.906Z

Cratic3947:

“Capacity” means nothing, except there was lots of subsidy… How much was used by consumers?

Please don’t make comments about subjects you don’t understand. Capacity is everything.

Jezcoe · 2019-08-22T03:09:09.173Z

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

That is quite silly.

Car manufacturers are required to have safety features on cars to reduce death and injury. Drivers are required to carry insurance to mitigate liability.

The effects of burning carbon are not offset in the up front cost but are socialized.

Yes, but the cost of burning carbon is both speculative and subjective. In other words, it is made up rather than being scientifically verifiable.

Yeah man… flat eartherism… don’t do it… not even once.

Samm · 2019-08-22T06:02:26.499Z

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

That is quite silly.

Car manufacturers are required to have safety features on cars to reduce death and injury. Drivers are required to carry insurance to mitigate liability.

The effects of burning carbon are not offset in the up front cost but are socialized.

Yes, but the cost of burning carbon is both speculative and subjective. In other words, it is made up rather than being scientifically verifiable.

Yeah man… flat eartherism … don’t do it… not even once.

That was a stupid euphemism the first time you used it and it’s not getting any better the third time around. The fact is, the whole concept of pricing the impact of carbon burning and calling it a subsidy if it’s not included on the balance sheet, is voodo economics at best and outright crap at worst.

Jezcoe · 2019-08-22T09:04:21.214Z

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Samm:

Jezcoe:

Another enormous subsidy is not having priced in the full cost of environmental impact of it’s use.

Are automobile companies subsidized because the cost the lives lost in car wreaks are not priced?

That is quite silly.

Car manufacturers are required to have safety features on cars to reduce death and injury. Drivers are required to carry insurance to mitigate liability.

The effects of burning carbon are not offset in the up front cost but are socialized.

Yes, but the cost of burning carbon is both speculative and subjective. In other words, it is made up rather than being scientifically verifiable.

Yeah man… flat eartherism … don’t do it… not even once.

That was a stupid euphemism the first time you used it and it’s not getting any better the third time around. The fact is, the whole concept of pricing the impact of carbon burning and calling it a subsidy if it’s not included on the balance sheet, is voodo economics at best and outright crap at worst.

You may find that it is stupid to compare climate change denialism to flat eartherism… I find that it is right on mark.

Denial of reality is denial of reality.

SixFoot · 2019-08-22T10:12:18.177Z

Fusion energy, graphene cables/storage. Oh, what a dream come true it will be.

sikofit · 2019-08-22T14:49:51.544Z

Jezcoe:

You may find that it is stupid to compare climate change denialism to flat eartherism… I find that it is right on mark.

Denial of reality is denial of reality.

Agreed.

Samm · 2019-08-22T20:55:00.693Z

Jezcoe:

You may find that it is stupid to compare climate change denialism to flat eartherism… I find that it is right on mark.

Denial of reality is denial of reality.

That you think that resorting to childish ridicule is “right on the mark,” says everything about your lack of a substantive argument.

Samm · 2019-08-22T20:56:00.506Z

sikofit:

Jezcoe:

You may find that it is stupid to compare climate change denialism to flat eartherism… I find that it is right on mark.

Denial of reality is denial of reality.

Agreed.

Peas in a pod.

Jezcoe · 2019-08-22T21:04:24.038Z

Samm:

Jezcoe:

You may find that it is stupid to compare climate change denialism to flat eartherism… I find that it is right on mark.

Denial of reality is denial of reality.

That you think that resorting to childish ridicule is “right on the mark,” says everything about your lack of a substantive argument.

It isn’t childish. It is a recognition of an argument that is counter to reality.