Climate change

"My source if from YouTube."

"you lack the underlying knowledge to discern whether what you are looking at is valid and reliable."

I rest my case...

"The government doesn't make or produce anything"

This nonsense again?

The vehicle you are using to communicate on this forum was made by the government.

Nuclear power, GPS, the number of things made by the government is incalcuable...

We had problems in our county with the solar panel people . Probably flat out crooks but where we live it is nicknamed the land of milk and honey . Bees and dairy cattle . A company came not a power company but they wanted to lease 310 acres for A solar farm . Now the trick you see out of lots of smaller farms say a guy with 310 acres he raises cattle , bees wildlife . He gets an AG exemption . This lowers his taxes to say 40.00 an acre . Now they put the solar farm there and they will not pay enough to take care of real estate taxes. They see your current at 40.00 an acre and offer 80.00 an acre . The land loses the AG exemption I warn you these guys putting the farms in are scammers . They told people you could still have your cattle naaa does not work . Texas has had our congressmen involved and the state AG.

Wayne, you never followed up on your "billions of lives will be destroyed" comment.

I'm curious how that's going to happen.

<p>"<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">I am not sure if there is enough space for GRU to have a solar/battery farm."</span></p>

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">They had plans of building a solar plant in Archer, but the people of Archer (a mostly black community) didn't like that idea and said that solar was racist, so that plan was canceled. </span></p>

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">I have no problem with solar at all! I just don't like the idea of putting solar panels on the roof on top os shingles. I like the idea of shingles that are also solar collectors. They look better and they would have the same or maybe even a better lifespan than regular shingles. I also read that they are working on clear panels that you could place in or over your house windows. I like that idea too. </span></p>

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">As far as my EV and CO2 comment. My source if from YouTube. Go there an put this in the search: </span></p>

<p>"The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles | Graham Conway | TEDx"</p>

It seems those on the side of green energy are some what militant, you will comply or else? You will do what is told. Notice they never want free choice, free will. Statements of liberty and freedom only apply to their beliefs. I don't deny science and all of the wonderful things it's given us viagra! I do question it, just as I question everything the government does. Afterall 30% incentives to go green sounds great but who pays for it really? The government doesn't make or produce anything, merely takes from those that create and produce. This earth will be here long after we are. Merely fleas on the back of it and to think anything else is lunacy in the grand scheme of things. Afterall the scientists said years ago the world was going to end by 2010. Nope always chicken little screaming the sky is falling

@RLAM

Again . . . I think you are taking things out of context. I could easily say something like this, "The republicans who are happy AF about restricting women's ability to make a decision about abortion are anti-women." Or I may have said something about how a bunch of old white men republicans are anti-women's choice." And the context probably had something in it regarding funding post birth or something about rape or something else.

Perhaps you are taking chunks of what I wrote and leaving out the rest? I dunno. My writing style is pretty consistent in that I generally put qualifiers around things. I rarely will say 'Every___,' 'All', etc. I try hard not to. I am not saying that I have not said that, I am saying that it is pretty rare because it is not my style.

@Wayne

Let's talk about the car situation. I understand. It makes perfect sense and you should have stopped at one point. If you are going through 2 tanks of gas a year that is it. Nothing else matters. Congrats, you are one of the ultra rare people. That means you are driving ~50 miles a month. I did that for 4 years. That is why I kept a car that had 130k miles on it and was over 20 years old. But because YOU are the rare one, doesn't mean everyone else is. The average miles driven by a Floridian is higher than that of a Californian! That shocked me knowing both states. But the more I think about it, in Florida you still measure Gainesville to Ocala in miles. In CA, almost nothing is measured in miles, it is measured in time. For me to go to the Staples Center in LA, it is 110 miles away. It can take me anywhere from 2.5 to 4 hours. A friend who worked 12 miles from her home had a 55 minute commute each way.

For those average drivers, an EV, especially if they can charge at home and BONUS if it is solar, an EV can help them a LOT. But again, it depends upon the comparison vehicle. Compare a Suburban to an EV and the savings is immense. Compare it to a Prius and not so much. Regardless, you and I will probably be alive with gas stations still around. However, I think we will also be around when finding a gas car to buy is near impossible.

The argument about CO2 is the conservative BS talking point. It is not real. Some schmuck chose the worst possible case to try and prove a point. It has been debunked by numerous people: epa. gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

Solar regardless if you want it or not may be the source of YOUR power. You can argue if you want it on YOUR roof or not. But FPL may be selling electricity to GRU. And GRU has stated that they will be net zero by 2045. That means the 17% of coal they have now will be GONE. Whether they go more biomass or solar, I dunno. Honestly, I am not sure if there is enough space for GRU to have a solar/battery farm.

And congrats, your power is $200 per month now. But you also forget that GRU is net meter. You can sell them excess power back. So you can get a CHECK from them.

gru. com/Solar.aspx

So you can choose - put it on your roof or buy it from GRU, but you will be on Solar.

EA. I promise dude, I truly am not trying to get you (or anybody for that matter) in a "got-ya moment." I just saw where you made the pro-life argument, and wanted to comment on it.

It is interesting, however, you feel free to confront almost everybody on here about their posts, but, when I respond to yours you appear to get quite butt-hurt.

As I've said before, I typically just read your posts and shake my head in disbelief. Sometimes I can't help myself and I reply. Haha

Lastly, I am 100% sure you have made posts about Republicans being women haters. I don't really care that you conveniently forgot the posts, but I will call you out for denying it.

@EA: sorry we have 4 seasons. Crap it's below 80, almost summer, summer and still summer. Bahaha. Not arguing about solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, or any sort of power. I am saying let each person make their own informed choices. Based upon what is best for them. Again individual rights and liberty. I made choices to live like no one else. Based upon what was best for my family. When the market deems green power to be cost efficient it will grow and put fossil fuels out of business.

Dav just gish-gallops.

Throws out a ton of weak, unconnected arguments, wastes your time answering them all, takes responsibility for none of their bullshit, and serves up a fresh helping.

<p>"<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">The reality is that once you look at your wallet and see that you can save money by going green, will you stick to your beliefs or will you toss them aside? You know . . . to save $500 a year."</span></p>

<p>I'm not opposed to new technology if it works and is affordable. I posted in a thread a while back that I have switched all my power and yard tools to battery operated. I did it because the costs were finally around the same as corded or gas tools and the technology has advanced to the point that they work almost equally as well and they are more convenient. </p>

<p>I'm not going to go out and buy a 50K all EV vehicle because right now, all EV vehicles emit more CO2 in their lifetime than a combustion engine car. Their batteries are expensive. I heard that replacing batteries in an EV vehicle can be around $3000. $3000 would buy me gasoline for 25 years, given my driving habits. I only fill up my car with gas 1-1.5 times a year.</p>

<p>My electricity cost for my house is max $200 a month. Solar panel installation can cost 30K or higher. If it reduced my electric cost to $0 per month, it would take 12+ years to pay off the installation. And what if something fails? The inverter is expensive and usually only has a 10 year warranty. It could fail before you see any savings. They have to drill many holes in your roof to install them. Every hole is a potential leak that has to be repaird. When you need a new roof, you have to pay someone to remove the panels so they can replace the roof and then pay them to reinstall the panels. </p>

"Hey TBR . . . notice Wayne pulling the legal/philosophical angle for the proving a negative?"

And your point is?

There are different standards everywhere.

The criminal legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. As it probably should be.

For civil trials, it is preponderance of evidence. As it probably should be.

But he is talking science, which is a different animal than the two above. The standard is preponderance of evidence.

He is wrong.

End of subject.

Take an epistemology class...

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma,verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:14px">"One of the concepts they talked about in depth was, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"." </span></p>

<p>Who are "they"?</p>

<p>The DA that was interviewing prospective jurors and the judge.</p>

@DAV

Dude. You are all over the place . . . again.

Now you are saying that you want a hydro power plant on your property? That some regulation in Alabama will not allow it? Let's think this through for a minute. I spent time living in Alabama. It was northern Alabama. One of the spots in Alabama that I think is awesome is Lake Guntersville. Could I own land that encompasses the whole lake? I don't think so. Could I own land that goes from the shore out 100 yards into the lake? I don't think so. So honestly, I don't think you can 'own' the river that goes through your land.

Now that I was not sure about that, I looked it up. The answer is NO. This was ruled on by SCOTUS.

Now when did this happen? I dunno. But let's go back to your mills concept and my shitting in the lower part of the river concept. Wanna bet that those were happening and someone down stream bitched about it? Wanna bet that is what caused that law to to go into place?

I think your are just a little off on this, "Most government mandates, regulations and laws are intended to change behavior based." I think you could say that most mandates and regulations establish punishments for behavior deemded bad and the IRS rules are used to change behavior by implementing fines for what they deem bad or credits for what they feel good.

I have no idea what your woood burning stove rant is about. Here in CA, the last two houses I have had have had numerous wood burning fireplaces. A friend of our kids had a very old house that had a wood burning stove in it. There were times that we were asked NOT to use it, but that was if we had shitty air and the government didn't want us to add to it. But there are no bans.

So the reason for no solar is the efficiency of the panel? That sounds like a reach. Do you want to know the efficiency of gasoline? HINT: It is about the same as solar. Nat gas is more efficient, but now you are arguing units. It will take more solar than nat gas to produce the same amount of energy. Uhh . . . who cares? Shouldn't it be it costs $100 in Solar to produce X energy and for Nat Gas it is $150. I think those are the units you should be looking at.

You can keep arguing against solar all you want. You can keep arguing against green energy. You have already lost the argument. You are akin to arguing that the earth is flat. Why? Because of economics. The cost to deploy solar is getting cheaper and cheaper each year. The technological advances of solar are getting better and better each year. In 5 years, we may have panels that produce 4x the amount of energy of the same panel today and it will probably cost the same as today. This is why there are LARGE solar array farms going up. This is why there is so much investment in batteries. This is not an IF game. This is a WHEN game.

And dude. Alabama does not have 4 seasons!

WTF are you ranting about RLAM?

You are trying so hard to find some point that you think you have me trapped in a box for a gotcha moment. Why the level of obsession, but . . . ok . . . let's dance.

First off . . .

Why are you quoting a GEORGIA law? One that was passed, then found unconstitutional, then suddenly found legal. Why was it found legal? Dobbs ruling. Dobbs punted the decision to the state to decide.

Secondly, read the law. You are so obsessed with trying to find that gotcha that you are ignoring the details.

Lastly . . .

Pull up the quote where you are getting the inference of hate women = pro life. Until then . . . it's just fiction in your head. Fiction that you are using to try, oh so hard, to find a gotcha moment. One that will help you feel justified. About what, I have no idea.

Per EA. You are damn right I want your individual liberty restrained from killing people.

Well, well EA. Sounds like you have changed positions and have become a member of the pro-life movement!!!!

The law, titled the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, defines an “unborn child” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.” It declares a fetus a person as soon as embryonic cardiac activity can be detected, usually around six weeks

Does this mean you now hate women (to use your label of pro-lifers)?????

The point of hydro power is the average person has the fundamental ability to harness the power, while allowing free flow of the water, however government regulations say otherwise. Afterall we did at one point in our country use water wheels to power mills, generating stations and such. Secondly our country is based upon individual rights and freedoms. Most government mandates, regulations and laws are intended to change behavior based, however they hurt the impoverished. Wood stoves being banned, yet California burns. People being asked to register their home gardens, yet farms are being made to go fallow through regulations. Solar is on average 25% efficient. The cost of an 11kwh setup is around 38000 based upon about 5 hours of sun per day. Remember in low income areas that's a crap load of money people don't have. I live a very simple life. Small home, debt free, don't buy unless I can't make it, grow it or pay cash. Use it up, wear it out, make do or do without. I don't espouse my beliefs or morality I just figure to each their own. Climate changes all the time afterall we have 4 seasons. We've made great strides in cleaning up our messes and getting better. Life is good, beer is great and people are crazy...

That is, genx and younger. I simply don't understand the denial.

I don't understand how any Gen X ers are so anti-science. It doesn't make sense. What happened to you people?

Exactly Wayne.. and Kudos for your jury service.. someone with a brain !

@Dav

"Individual liberties are to be restrained, for the benefit of whom? Governments are imposing their will based upon the many by the few."

Ok, both of those tie into something that I find hilarious. There is a thing . . . it's an interesting concept. One that makes us different from other animals.

We have a SOCIETY.

You are damn right I want your individual liberty to be restrained from killing people. I want your individual liberty to be restrained from taking others' property. You are damn right I want the government, the ones that were ELECTED by the majority, to implement these regulations.

Holy shit!

ROFL.

Hey TBR . . . notice Wayne pulling the legal/philosophical angle for the proving a negative?

@Davbec

Try narrowing the point. Going off on 30 different questions where you are trying to ask a couple is straying.

"Each individual must do what's best for them, their prosperity, their families and their individual happiness."

No. That is an absurd libertarian thought. You mentioned the creek running through your property. Ok, I live above you. The creek runs through MY property before it hits YOUR property. I decide that is in MY best interest for my family and my happiness to dump all the sewage at the end of my property, 10' from yours, in the creek of course.

The concept that we have to think just about ourselves is what got us in this prediciment in the first place. We all share the planet. The fires that happen here, 2000 miles from YOU, impact YOU. Weather does not know boundaries.

@Wayne

Billions of lives will be destroyed. Talk about puffery. Were billions of lives destroyed when the first industrial revolution occurred? Were billions of lives destroyed when we went from horse and buggy to cars? That line is worded so wrong. It should be worded, 'Billions of lives will change.' Your argument was the same damn argument made in CA when they went from leaded to unleaded gasoline and changed the formulation. But . . . Millions of lives were SAVED because the air was better to breathe.

But hey . . . scream and complain. The reality is that once you look at your wallet and see that you can save money by going green, will you stick to your beliefs or will you toss them aside? You know . . . to save $500 a year.

Individual liberties are to be restrained, for the benefit of whom? Governments are imposing their will based upon the many by the few. Did you notice that mine were merely questions. Involving the ethics, the financial obligations being forced upon one and the sarcasm of the whole climate debate over the years. Again, massive strides have been taken to clean up our messes. But for some that's not enough they want even more. Some absolutely want to control human behavior, choices and the ability to live. Some want mankind to be eradicated, except for them. Some just want everyone to use less, be kind and rewind, pickup after yourself and be nice.

You not liking the solutions doesn't mean there aren't solutions, ya dafty.

"Any yes, if we do what these climate change believers want us to do, billions of lives will be destroyed."

How will billions of lives be destroyed Wayne?