Silliness of Solar farms

[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?

[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.

[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.

[sikofit]

@Jezcoe

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

Smart

[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.

[Samm]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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

[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.

[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.

[Samm]

@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]

@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.

[Samm]

No … it’s childish. You can’t articulate your argument so you attempt to diminish your opponents … like a ten-year-old might do.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

No … it’s childish. You can’t articulate your argument so you attempt to diminish your opponents … like a ten-year-old might do.

There is literally nothing to argue about.

No one is going to change your mind

For whatever reason, there is a group of people who are invested in knowing the “truth” about climate change in that it is a big hoax and that the people who “believe” in it are cultists.

I don’t know what sort of comfort that brings… but the world is moving on. The evidence is such that those who make the same tired arguments over and over might as well be saying that the earth is flat or that evolution isn’t real or that vaccines cause autism or whatever counterfactual one wants to tell themselves so they feel smarter than the rest of the world.

So go on… believing in nonsense.

We will be fine

[Samm]

You could start by backing up your assertion that not considering the environmental cost of burning carbon is a subsidy to those industries. Just throwing that into the conversation and then immediately resorting to demeaning insults because … in your words: “No one is going to change your mind.” … when your notion is challenged is hardly a mature way to have a discussion.

[TheRedComet]

Actually it would be combination of nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro and wind. All five are far superior to coal when it comes to environmental friendliness. We should be using every technology we can for power generation to replace coal. Which is already happening on its own.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

You could start by backing up your assertion that not considering the environmental cost of burning carbon is a subsidy to those industries. Just throwing that into the conversation and then immediately resorting to demeaning insults because … in your words: “No one is going to change your mind.” … when your notion is challenged is hardly a mature way to have a discussion.

Alright… lets give it a try.

Here is the EPA’s social cost of carbon.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html

This cost has been diffused into the commons and not paid for at time of use. Even knowing it now and knowing that the cost is going to increase over time literally nothing is happening to address this.

It is a subsidy to the petrol companies that they get to continue to sell their product at an artificial discount.