WHY would the government trick us?

One thing to consider, is what benefit do they get. So if they benefit a lot, they are more likely to have tricked us.
The other thing to consider is number of people involved. If 2 people are in on a conspiracy, it's easier to hide that their lying because the chance that one person would give it away is small. But if 1 million people are in on it, surely one person will give the whole thing away and it might as well not have happened.

One million people can only be in on a scam if less than 1,000 people find 999,000 dupes. That's how a big scam works. A small minority of knowledgeable scientists, media, and teachers teaches a generation of useful idiots, who in turn do not know the reason why they believe this (because the reason was with the original fraud teachers). But they fully believe the rhetoric, so they pass it on.


"Five monkeys are shown a banana on a ladder..."

It is very easy to perpetuate a scam. It is very difficult to unravel it because the five monkeys will beat you up if you try. What it takes is one money, who will grab the banana regardless of the sprinklers and regardless of the beatings. Because the point is, the banana is to be eaten and shared with the other monkeys, regardless of social scientists who get sick pleasure out of controlling others. That's right, it isn't really about the money. Money is simply a tool to exchange for what you want.

A small minority of knowledgeable scientists, media, and teachers teaches a generation of useful idiots, who in turn do not know the reason why they believe this (because the reason was with the original fraud teachers). But they fully believe the rhetoric, so they pass it on.

Except in this case you are the useful idiot that has believed pure BS, even though you don't know why, and you look for whatever excuse you can to justify it even going back and forth contradicting yourself.
Conversely, we do understand why we believe these things so can trivially see through your BS.

A few simple question destroy your BS, and get right to the heart of why we believe this:
Why down?
Why that rate/that force?
How does this cause a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't that pressure gradient push things up?

These simple questions you cannot answer and instead continually flee from.

It is very easy to perpetuate a scam.

But what's the scam?  In this day and age of extensive world wide transportation, how does lying about the shape of the earth benefit anyone?

Very good point there.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2024, 08:17:00 PM

It is very easy to perpetuate a scam.

But what's the scam?  In this day and age of extensive world wide transportation, how does lying about the shape of the earth benefit anyone?

Because ots about him feeling special about knowing a secret intheknow.

It makes HIM special

I think the FBI is conspiring to prop up absurd theories like "illuminati" in order to discredit the ones that are true.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2024, 08:17:00 PM

A small minority of knowledgeable scientists, media, and teachers teaches a generation of useful idiots, who in turn do not know the reason why they believe this (because the reason was with the original fraud teachers). But they fully believe the rhetoric, so they pass it on.

Except in this case you are the useful idiot that has believed pure BS, even though you don't know why, and you look for whatever excuse you can to justify it even going back and forth contradicting yourself.
Conversely, we do understand why we believe these things so can trivially see through your BS.

A few simple question destroy your BS, and get right to the heart of why we believe this:
Why down?
Why that rate/that force?
How does this cause a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't that pressure gradient push things up?

These simple questions you cannot answer and instead continually flee from.

Why have gravity at all? If earth is flat, why down?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 09, 2024, 04:24:38 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2024, 08:17:00 PM

A small minority of knowledgeable scientists, media, and teachers teaches a generation of useful idiots, who in turn do not know the reason why they believe this (because the reason was with the original fraud teachers). But they fully believe the rhetoric, so they pass it on.

Except in this case you are the useful idiot that has believed pure BS, even though you don't know why, and you look for whatever excuse you can to justify it even going back and forth contradicting yourself.
Conversely, we do understand why we believe these things so can trivially see through your BS.

A few simple question destroy your BS, and get right to the heart of why we believe this:
Why down?
Why that rate/that force?
How does this cause a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't that pressure gradient push things up?

These simple questions you cannot answer and instead continually flee from.

Why have gravity at all? If earth is flat, why down?

Though your point about teachers is partially correct. It's called "indoctrination"

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2024, 08:17:00 PM

It is very easy to perpetuate a scam.

But what's the scam?  In this day and age of extensive world wide transportation, how does lying about the shape of the earth benefit anyone?

That is the $75.6 billion dollar question, is it not? To say nothing of the fact that the globalist Marxist model presupposes a globe. Without this model, there is no justification for climate change, open borders, eating insects, driving crappy cars that need to be recharged, and so on.





World wide transportation shuts down when this happens.

When this electric truck has to stop to recharge, goods are no longer fresh. They wind up being re-ordered, and you get surplus goods. This is what happened during COVID, and the broken supply meant that all of a sudden, goods were dirt cheap. We got like 9 packs of rice for like $0.99 each.

Why down?
Why that rate/that force?
How does this cause a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't that pressure gradient push things up?

Let's number these.
1. In a globe earth, up and down make no sense. Down is towards Earth's center so a person standing in Australia drilling a whole straight through to connect to Europe would be at a complete loss to explain whether they should start falling the other way at some point.
2. That rate and force in the gravity system is an arbitrarily decided constant that has nothing to do with anything. In the buoyancy system, an object's positive or negative buoyancy is (as I said before) directly based on the differences between the fluid//surface and the object. Displacement is also a thing, as are things like viscosity.
3. I suspect you don't even understand what that word means or you wouldn't keep using it. But let's show you a pretty picture.

These are not only rather perfect demonstrations of the science of buoyancy (and viscosity), but I imagine they are delicious.  The point being that matter settles into gradients based on how they compare to other matter. If I throw a pile of sand, a feather, a bucket of water, all at the same time, assuming they don't hit each other, within five minutes, all three will have fallen at different rates, and there will be a top, middle, and bottom.
4. Why doesn't it push things up? Well to get the sort of thing to happen, you need to narrow the volume. If you put a boat into a wide passage, the water level is low. If you close the gates, the water level rises since water bunches into a smaller area. Higher pressure does to some extent push things up.

That is the $75.6 billion dollar question, is it not?

A number you pulled from nowhere?

To say nothing of the fact that the globalist Marxist model presupposes a globe. Without this model, there is no justification for climate change, open borders, eating insects, driving crappy cars that need to be recharged, and so on.

No, all of those have NOTHING to do with the shape of Earth.

Climate change is based upon the large production of CO2, the known properties of CO2 showing how it acts as a greenhouse gas, and the historical record.
Open borders is based upon the idea that you should be kind to other people and that people should be free to settle in a country of their choosing.
Eating insects and driving electric cars is based upon the idea of being sustainable and related to climate change.

From your crappy image: Evolution is based upon a combination of observations, the fossil record, and thinking about what the possibilities are.
Atheism is based upon a lack of any reason to believe in a god.
And so on.

Literally the only things you have appealed to which rely upon Earth being round is the big bang, as you have a fundamentally different creation account, and aliens.
Everything else is just your delusional BS to try to vilify the globe.

Now compare that to your BS for the FE, but do it honestly.
Yes, it is described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it validates the Bible.
In fact, because it is scientifically disproven, it disproves the Bible.

So see why they are lying?
They are lying to try to pretend their religious BS (the Bible) is true.
Because if they were honest, they admit the Bible contradicts reality.

Let's number these.

1 - You have had that dishonest BS refuted countless times.
Up and down on a globe Earth make just as much sense as north and south in your delusional fantasy.
In your fantasy, north is towards the centre.
In reality, down is towards the centre.

You don't appear to be at a complete loss when it comes to compasses pointing in a different direction as you move around Earth, where in your fantasy, someone around the border of Europe and Asia has the compass pointing in the exact opposite direction to someone in north America.

But notice what your response entirely lacks?
Any reason for things to go down in your fantasy.
As usual, you cannot explain or justify your model at all, instead you are reduced to lying about the RE model to pretend the RE model doesn't work.

But the RE model can trivially explain why down (and why that direction varies). This is due to gravitational attraction to Earth, so you fall TO EARTH, specifically towards the centre of Earth.

That also means there isn't some point where it magically flips like you want to pretend, as if the RE model was 2 sides of a disc. Instead, it is a gradual change as you move around Earth.
e.g. if you start at the south pole and travel north to the north pole, every degree north you move moves the angle of down by 1 degree. There is no sudden change where it flips 180 degrees.

2 - Like all forces observed in nature, there is some constant of proportionality. For gravity that is G. For electrostatic interactions that is k.
It is not an arbitrarily decided constant, it is an empirically measured one.
But that, along with the mass and distance, tells us the force.

We also know that it is NOT the difference in densities, as if it was steel should fall roughly 3 times as fast as aluminium.
Instead, reality acts as if there is a force which acts to accelerate all objects downwards at the same rate, and there is a force opposing that based upon volume.

Importantly, this also explains why this rate varies around Earth.
That is something your nonsense can't do at all.

3 - I do understand what it means, and how it entirely destroys your fantasy.
Notice how your entire response is a just a pathetic insult and deflection, and has absolutely no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient.

Perhaps I should ask if YOU understand what it means?
Because I am talking about a PRESSURE gradient, not a density gradient.
I am NOT talking about fluids of different densities separating out into layers based upon their density as expected from gravity and the pressure gradient.
I am talking about a single homogenous fluid having a pressure gradient across it so the pressure is greater at the bottom than at the top.

So forget your different objects, you pour some water, pure water, with nothing else present, into a long tube. Why does this create a pressure gradient?
Can you explain it at all?


Clearly the answer is no, as it would destroy your fantasy.

4 - Again, no attempt to honestly address the issue.
Again, there is an observable, measurable pressure gradient.
This shows us the pressure below an object in a fluid is greater than the pressure above.
So why isn't this pressure pushing the object up?
If you take a neutrally buoyant object and place it in the fluid, then your buoyancy BS is doing nothing because the density is the same.
That means what is left to act on the object is the force due to the pressure gradient.
The force below pushing up is greater than the force above pushing down. So why doesn't it go up?

Yet again, you can't explain this at all.

But conventional science with gravity as a downwards force and buoyancy as an upwards force based upon that pressure gradient addresses it directly.
That pressure gradient does push up and counters the downwards force from gravity making it neutrally buoyant.

So you have entirely failed to answer each of those questions.
You didn't even attempt to answer them. Instead you just deflected.

So again:
Why down?
Why that rate/that force?
How does this cause a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't that pressure gradient push things up?

Quote from: markjo on November 09, 2024, 07:46:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2024, 08:17:00 PM

It is very easy to perpetuate a scam.

But what's the scam?  In this day and age of extensive world wide transportation, how does lying about the shape of the earth benefit anyone?

That is the $75.6 billion dollar question, is it not? To say nothing of the fact that the globalist Marxist model presupposes a globe. Without this model, there is no justification for climate change, open borders, eating insects, driving crappy cars that need to be recharged, and so on.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of that has to do with the shape of the earth.

Quote

That is the $75.6 billion dollar question, is it not?

A number you pulled from nowhere?

Not exactly...

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of that has to do with the shape of the earth.

But that's not the topic. Look again.


I think I have provided an answer, right?

The shape of the Earth is only relevant in regards to people who want money and power. 

Both Elon Musk and the woke globalists accept a "global" concept and look, the left is just as oppressed by anti-transgender ideas implemented globally. But if you don't have a global agenda, what is left? Localism. Nationalism. The distinct mindset that what I want in this world has nothing to do with you, because you don't have to do it.

Money and power. I like Elon Musk okay for a conservative type, I guess, but we wouldn't have such agendas if there wasn't a mindset that we have the entire world connected by satellite. What if I told you that long stretches of ocean are basically dead zones. There are no satellites, and there is no obligation that we all follow a lockstep.

This world is flat. It's God's world.

And God was the original libertarian, opposing Israel choosing a king.

---

Eating insects and driving electric cars is based upon the idea of being sustainable and related to climate change.

No. Eating insects is based on a desire to degrade other humans. Human beings can eat anything they want. I have tried silkworms and grubs before. But the key word is want. If I want a goat curry or a burger, and you instead tell me that I only deserve to eat bugs because the "planet" is in danger, you are trying to socially abuse me, by treating me like a fifth-class citizen. Likewise to not being able to heat my house because it's gonna destroy the "planet". Yet it always seems like "the planet" is not in danger of being destroyed by third-world countries like Argentina or South Africa, nor second-world countries like Russia or China. Only first-world Western countries are horrible climate criminals and need to live a net zero lifestyle when none of these other countries care. You know what actually isn't sustainable?

The amount of energy to power electric cars. Especially with sources other than coal or oil.

43 kg is difficult to visualize, so lemme help. You know how a train weighs tons and tons of freight, and goes for miles and miles? Well...

A 500 ton freight train burns only about 20 kg per mile. And we need to divide by 250 (electric cars don't weigh 500 tons) to get a sense of how inefficient that is.
 

"But," you say, "we could switch to solar power." No. Fuck no! Look, solar plants use up a very important resource. Land. And to host such plants either requires that every building in America use solar roofing to supply a sort of communist power grid, or you wind up clearing massive amounts of forests and farms. Plants are important to our survival, as they turn our exhaled air into fresh air. This isn't sustainable.

Neither is eating bugs. Bugs and birds pollinate plants, and bugs help bacteria break down plant matter into soil. Also, human beings are meant to have about 2,000 calories or so per day.  But insects per cup, are not particularly high in calories. They are basically a diet food. You need to pair them with sides. For one person to live on a Diet of Worms would require a devastating amount of insect eating, hardly sustainable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2017/04/30/why-eating-insects-may-not-be-as-sustainable-as-it-seems/
For billions to do so would quite disasterrific.

Quote

Quote

That is the $75.6 billion dollar question, is it not?

A number you pulled from nowhere?

Not exactly...

So a number pulled from the internet with no understanding.
That is NASA generated that much in economic output. Not that they got that money.

I think I have provided an answer, right?

No, you haven't.
Instead you spout a bunch of delusional crap to pretend to have an answer, which you can never justify.

Both Elon Musk and the woke globalists accept a "global" concept and look

Which has nothing to do with the shape of Earth.
It is only called that because Earth is a globe.

What if I told you that long stretches of ocean are basically dead zones.

I would say you are spouting BS like you normally do.

This world is flat. It's God's world.

Then why does all the evidence that can tell one way or another clearly demonstrate the opposite.

No. Eating insects is based on a desire to degrade other humans.

Even if you want to claim that delusional BS, that is still not because Earth is round.
No one is saying because Earth is round we should eat insects.

Because you have no rational objection, you just spout pure BS with no semblance of rational thought or even sanity.

The amount of energy to power electric cars. Especially with sources other than coal or oil.

You mean with sustainable sources?
Do you know what isn't sustainable? Using coil and oil.

43 kg is difficult to visualize

So don't use coal.

And notice how you make no attempt to show how much the average person would use per day?

You know how a train

Operates with steel wheels on steel rails to have much greater efficiency than a car. They also typically have good control over the tracks so they don't need to repeatedly stop and start.

Do you know what is better than an electric car?
An electric train, or an electric bus.
But too many people (like yourself) are arrogant assholes that don't want public transport.

"But," you say, "we could switch to solar power." No. Fuck no! Look, solar plants use up a very important resource. Land.

That depends entirely upon how you do it.
For example, if you put it on the roofs of buildings, it isn't taking up extra land.

There is also the option for off shore, i.e. over water.

Plants are important to our survival, as they turn our exhaled air into fresh air. This isn't sustainable.

And as has been explained to you, burning fossil fuels does more damage, and clearing away forests for solar farms is a net reduction in CO2.

As for your BS about heat, I take it you have never heard of heat pumps, which can be more efficient than burning fossil fuels, even if you burn fossil fuels at a powerplant, transfer the energy and then use it.

Economic output is the goods and services produced. NASA made merch. So what?

Then why does all the evidence that can tell one way or another clearly demonstrate the opposite.

Here's an answer by way of a country song.



Whoever said that God makes this world without suffering?  Indeed, Jesus compares the world to a garden (Eden) leased to wicked tenants.

When the Pharisees says that the tenants should be punished, Jesus doesn't exactly give them a congratulations for their answer. Instead he tells them that tax collectors and sinners will enter the kingdom before them. This answer is twofold: they are basically the wicked tenants themselves, among those put in leadership over the world. And their answer is wrong. Only in really egregious cases do world leaders fall. Otherwise, they go on being sorta wicked tenants. Because the harvest is what matters. Hard times make good people who make good times.

Even if you want to claim that delusional BS, that is still not because Earth is round.
No one is saying because Earth is round we should eat insects.

Because the Earth is claimed to be round, we claim to be in space and to have seen satellite readings that show greenhouse gases on the ozone layer. We then compare it to the surface of Venus (which we have supposedly explored) which is filled with greenhouse gases, which we describe in hellish terms. Since we live in an age of cloud seeding, some of this rhetoric is easy to pull off. Just fly by with a few planes spewing chemtrails and voila, one area doesn't get rain for years. Then tell people it's because of "climate change" and not those planes they just saw. Then sooner or later, when people are woke enough, they tell them methane is bad and they should be vegans. Then when their brains are starved of nutrients, they tell them to go eat bugs.

It all goes down like this:


Does Simba seem happy? No, he's getting tricked out of eating fresh meat. In the Lion King, they show overhunting   creating a wasteful, but that doesn't exactly match up ecologically. What is true is that you might get too many trees and they can bind up the water. Or there might be forest fires with nothing to control herbaceous growth.

But if all of Pride Land came over and ate bugs, we would see a similar issue.

Do you know what isn't sustainable? Using coil and oil.

Coal and oil will simply run out. This is worlds different from clear-cutting forests to make room for solar panels. Did you know that trees lower the temp (it's called transpiation)? So what do you think happens when you turn the area into clear-cut zones?

That depends entirely upon how you do it.
For example, if you put it on the roofs of buildings, it isn't taking up extra land.

That's what I said. You are fine adding solar panels to buildings. It won't take up land, and the only drawback is cadmium leakage into your property. Clearing land however, is an inefficient (and therefore unsustainable) use of it.

There is also the option for off shore, i.e. over water.

Remember what I said about cadmium though. Even if we have newer (non-cadium) solar panels, as they break down, they leave other waste. We don't want large amounts of glass and metal in our waterways, even if the water will eventually break it down into sand and red water.

And as has been explained to you, burning fossil fuels does more damage, and clearing away forests for solar farms is a net reduction in CO2.

What I hear is you doing some kind of funny math where you think these trees aren't slashed and burned to make space (thus releasing their CO2 back into the air), and having less overall trees to turn CO2 into O2. Most fossil fuels are mined from ecologically dead areas like the UAE's shale deserts. Or marsh bogs with entirely too much peat moss.
This myth won't die that burning ANYTHING is somehow evil. Very well. I'll drive you to a forest, and you can sit outside with a blanket refusing to burn any firewood.

As for your BS about heat, I take it you have never heard of heat pumps, which can be more efficient than burning fossil fuels, even if you burn fossil fuels at a powerplant, transfer the energy and then use it.

You're a kid who has been told fairy tales about rainbows and unicorns. What do you suppose heats these heat pumps? Again either large stretches of land inefficiently set aside for solar farms (while can be used far better for real farms), or a bag or two of coal or oil every so often.  Again the energy from burning coal can push a locomotive. Wanna try making a solar-powered locomotive? You'll find that you can't. There simply isn't the same energy yield. Oil and coal has energy stored from centuries of dead plants. The only risk to it is that it will run out, and we'd be back to hunting whales (or nowadays, we could farm them for oil).

Meanwhile, having intact trees creates a cooling effect.
https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-reduce-heat-islands
https://trees-energy-conservation.extension.org/how-do-trees-cool-the-air/

This is not just about shade. They wick moisture into the air when they sweat.

Economic output is the goods and services produced. NASA made merch. So what?

So the number you are appealing to is not a motivation to lie.

Here's an answer by way of a country song.

You mean a non-answer, because you know you have no evidence to support your nonsense.

Whoever said that God makes this world without suffering?

That does nothing to support your claim Earth is flat.
It doesn't even support the claim it is "God's" world.
The best you are doing is appealing to your ignorance and saying we have no idea.

Because the Earth is claimed to be round, we claim to be in space and to have seen satellite readings that show greenhouse gases on the ozone layer.

Again, WE DON"T NEED SPACE. WE DON"T NEED EARTH TO BE ROUND!
There is plenty of evidence from Earth, on Earth.
That is not a reason to lie.
That is you looking for excuses to further reject reality, where you can pretend Earth is flat, to then try to pretend climate change isn't real.
It just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

Does Simba seem happy?

Initially, no. Because he hasn't tried it.
But once he has tried it, he is happy.

But it's a cartoon. Not real.

Coal and oil will simply run out.

i.e. it is not sustainable.

This is worlds different from clear-cutting forests to make room for solar panels.

Yes. It is vastly different.
One, using oil, is continually pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere until it just runs out.
The other, solar panels, is clearing away a portion of land, paying a one time cost, to then have sustainable power.

Did you know that trees lower the temp

Yes. Do you know all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere offsets and contribution from trees?
Again, you are better off if you clear those trees and use solar panels.

the only drawback is cadmium leakage into your property.

Only if you are using cadmium.

Clearing land however, is an inefficient (and therefore unsustainable) use of it.

And more delusional BS.

Something being inefficient doesn't mean it isn't sustainable. They are completely disconnected.
In fact, typically sustainable things are less efficient.

Consider woods. The efficient process is to just simply cut down all the trees and process them, clearing the path for vehicles as you go further into a forest, until that forest is gone.
It is less efficient to then have to plant new trees and take care of them, and plan your paths and routes so you leave those growing trees to grow, meaning the paths will typically not be a straight line to the trees to cut down.
But because you are replanting and allowing trees to regrow it is more sustainable.

The same for fishing. You could just have it be they go in, drop the nets, etc, and catch all the fish they want, nice and efficiently and then come back. But that wipes out the fish.
Instead, regulations are put in place, like minimum and maximum sizes. This is more inefficient, as now they need to sort through the fish and only keep the ones that are allowed, but that means the wild population is more stable.
An even less efficient process are fish farms, where the fish are grown, but that way their numbers are controlled so it is sustainable.

Remember what I said about cadmium though.

Yes. You continually repeating the same crap, because you have no real argument.

What I hear is you doing some kind of funny math where you think these trees aren't slashed and burned to make space (thus releasing their CO2 back into the air), and having less overall trees to turn CO2 into O2.

No. I'm not.
Instead, I am focusing on the one off cost of clearing those trees, which can literally be burning it all, and comparing that to the cost of continually burning oil or coal or gas to produce the power that would be produced by the solar panels there.

Again, solar panels you have a one off cost. Once that cost is paid, you get clean electricity for decades.
Fossil fuels have a continuing, ongoing cost, which over the life of a solar panel which has taken the place of a tree that was burnt to the ground, is more than that cost for the solar panel.

This myth won't die that burning ANYTHING is somehow evil.

You mean the strawman you continue to appeal to.
I have no objection to people burning wood, or biofuels, or hydrogen from splitting water from sustainable power sources.
What I object to is burning fossil fuels.

You're a kid who has been told fairy tales about rainbows and unicorns. What do you suppose heats these heat pumps?

No, I'm an adult that understand how reality works.

I understand how heat pumps can have an efficiency greater than 100%, because instead of just taking energy in from fuel or electricity and turning it to heat, it instead uses that energy to pump heat.

Again either large stretches of land inefficiently set aside for solar farms (while can be used far better for real farms), or a bag or two of coal or oil every so often.

i.e. you can have a sustainable system, with a one off cost to the environment, or you can have an unsustainable system reliant upon continually burning fossil fuels and pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere to make it so much worse.

Again the energy from burning coal can push a locomotive. Wanna try making a solar-powered locomotive?

And so can electricity/solar.
Again, trains are VASTLY more efficient than cars.
Which is why you pulled that dishonest BS comparison.

As for solar powered trains, someone already beat me too it:

The only risk to it is that it will run out

And all the CO2 that is pumped out that you keep on ignoring.

Meanwhile, having intact trees creates a cooling effect.

Again, which is more than offset by the impact of burning fossil fuels.

You accuse people of lying when they are simply sloppy with research. Meanwhile, you actually lie to people.

No, it's an answer. You think somehow the Earth is to be a rose garden, as the singer puts it, overlooking the whole "roses have thorns" part. Who told you that life on Earth was easy?

Earth is flat because it's flat. You can observably see that long stretched of horizon are flat, you can observe that water doesn't behave weirdly but acts like it is in a basin.

As for why Earth is God's world, think on this. Against mathematical probability, life exists. Against laws of entropy, life continues. And despite human evil, we haven't all killed ourselves. The existence of human evil is not disproof of God. That we haven't nuked ourselves to oblivion is proof thar God is in control.

WE DON"T NEED SPACE. WE DON'T NEED EARTH TO BE ROUND!
There is plenty of evidence from Earth, on Earth.

On the contrary. You need Earth to be round, or nobody would believe in your other crackpot theories.

As a part-tine subsistence farmer, I've seen droughts, flooding, hurricanes, snow storms and heat waves. We live near a coast so alot of yearrs, we get one or two good snow storms and thar is it. Climate change? No, I don't think so. What I see instead is sensational weather news.

Seriously, look at the background. As he "braces for the storm", two guy guys in the background didn't even bother wearing rain coats, are not visibly struggling against the wind, and don't appear troubled.

Simba is brainwashed. "Slimy, yet satisfting," he says, parroting his friends. He also is under a leonine ( heh!) contract of friendship, that is, a take or leave position.  Either he eats what they eat or he is quite literally on his own. Also notice, that he is taught this philosophy as a kid,  and is thus brainwashed from childhood.

i.e. it is not sustainable.

There is a profound difference between a resource simply running out, and a resource not being sustainable because of what it does to the Earth. Drilling for oil in the ocean is not sustainable. Oil spills are a mess and we can't keep doing them. Likewise, clearing a portion of land is not a one-time cost. The panels require upkeep. The fly-by-night solar panel merchants usually skip town after the one-time cost, leaving messes behind.

Yes. Do you know all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere offsets and contribution from trees?
Again, you are better off if you clear those trees and use solar panels.

No, solar panels don't photosynthesize, don't sweat, and don't provide shade. Trees are a part of cooling cities down. And you can't eat anything that comes from a solar panel.

If you aren't using cadmium, you still have a number of other minerals and materials thar shouldn't be there. The materials in a solar panel are not easily biodegradable, so you just have a pile of garbage there where once was a forest.
 "Let no one say, and say it to your shame, That all was beauty here, until you came."

They call this "6 most beautiful solar farms". I see forest torn up to make room for something that in twenty years will not only not work but will litter the forest with metal and glass.

More importantly, while coal and oil can actually meet the need for energy, solar farms use acres and acres of land and still can't nake it work. This is why it is unsustainable. Energy need will only go up, despite woke attempts like Paris Accords to police it. . More and more trees cut down. Again, you can't eat solar farms, they don't cool the air, and they don't give you oxygen. Keep your death wish to yourself.

You hate trees, as is painfully obvious from your "Wha t a nuisance to plant them" paragraph. You hate fish. And somehow you want to convince me that you're green and I'm not. No, I think I'll call you gray. Lifeless. Fishermen have spawning in place. There are fish hatcheries where they jerk off fish to get thousands of fertile eggs for replacing any lost. Likewise, forestry has replanting projects. Some of these are sloppy (like how Kara's house had trees cut down and alot of it was just left there). But even so, all of this is less fucked up than bulldozing forests to make something that isn't even good at making energy.

No, I'm an adult that understand how reality works.

Suuuure you are. Somehow though, you seem to not understand that a town has a choice on how to allocate land. They can grow a farm, and it not only provides food but also air. Or they can buy a solar farm, and afterwards one person sorta provides energy, then the thing tanks and you have trash that can't be recycled easily.

You accuse people of lying when they are simply sloppy with research.

No, I accuse people of lying when they repeat the same lies again and again, especially after their lies have been refuted.

Meanwhile, you actually lie to people.

Yet you can't provide a single example.

You think somehow the Earth is to be a rose garden

No, I don't.

Earth is flat because it's flat.

Then why does all the evidence which can tell one way or another clearly indicate beyond any sane doubt that it is round?
But this does sum up your mentality.
Your argument is entirely circular. You want Earth to be flat so you say it is flat.
I say Earth is round because the evidence shows it is.

You can observably see that long stretched of horizon are flat,

Something which would not exist for a flat Earth, and clearly demonstrates that Earth is round.
The only horizon expected of a flat surface is the edge.
A sphere will produce a horizon which is a circle centred on a point directly below you.
Note: A circle is flat.

We have been over this countless times, with you repeating the same lies.
That is why I call you a liar.
You keep repeating the same refuted BS.

What we observe for the horizon is exactly what we expect for a round Earth, and nothing like what is expected for a flat Earth.
So the horizon is clear evidence that Earth is round.
It does not support your insane claim that Earth is flat.

you can observe that water doesn't behave weirdly but acts like it is in a basin.

It acts like it is trying to get to the centre of Earth.
We know it adopts a smooth level surface.

We can then make long distance observations, were we have an observer and an object at an elevation above the water, yet the water blocks the view, clearly showing it is curved.

Again, the behaviour of water clearly demonstrates Earth is round.

As for why Earth is God's world, think on this.

I have.
God solves nothing.

Against mathematical probability, life exists.

You mean it is unlikely.
That doesn't mean it can't.
I would say the existence of a god is far less likely.
Especially as that god needs to just magically exist.

Against laws of entropy, life continues.

No, it isn't.
It is entirely consistent with the laws of entropy.
If you want to see entropy take its course, stop eating.
See how long you live then.

And despite human evil, we haven't all killed ourselves.

This doesn't help your case at all.
That in no way shows the existence of a god.
But what it does demonstrate is that an all powerful, all loving god CANNOT exist.

On the contrary. You need Earth to be round, or nobody would believe in your other crackpot theories.

Pure BS.

Regardless of if Earth is round or not, Earth receives energy from the sun, with the majority coming from the visible portion.
Regardless of if Earth is round or not, Earth absorbs that light from the sun and warms up and re-radiates energy, primarily in the IR region.
Regardless of if Earth is round or not, humans have been releasing loads of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Regardless of if Earth is round or not, CO2 will absorb light and re-radiate it, this in effects traps a portion of that IR energy.

If anything, having it round means more energy escapes into space.

So regardless of if Earth is round or not, anthropogenic climate change is real.

You are just lying to everyone, trying to use a round Earth as a scape goat, so you can pretend that all of reality relies upon a round Earth and reject any part you don't like based upon your wilful rejection of the round Earth.

As a part-tine subsistence farmer

You make no attempt to actually analyse what is happening in any honest, sane way and instead just appeal to anecdotal BS to dismiss reality. i.e. you are appealing to your wilful ignorance.

Simba is brainwashed.

Based on what?
Based upon it not fitting your delusional fantasy?

There is a profound difference between a resource simply running out, and a resource not being sustainable because of what it does to the Earth.

And fossil fuels fail on both accounts, while renewable energies, when done properly don't.

Likewise, clearing a portion of land is not a one-time cost. The panels require upkeep.

Clearing a portion of land IS a one time cost.
It is a one time cost of removing all the stored carbon there and doing something else with it, which could simply be burning it all.
This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where every little bit you burn is releasing more and more CO2. From carbon which had been trapped in Earth for so long it isn't funny.

The upkeep of solar panels is a separate issue.

No, solar panels don't photosynthesize, don't sweat, and don't provide shade.

Nor do fossil fuel based power plants.

Solar panels photosynthesise, instead they convert solar energy directly into electrical energy.
And they can provide shade.

Yet again, you ignore the key issue.
You want to compare solar to trees.
As if that is all there is in the equation.
IT IS NOT!
You need to consider solar, vs trees and a massive polluting fossil fuel based power plant.

You want to appeal to cooling, well guess what happens in your beloved fossil fuel based power plants? They BURN the fuel. While a large portion of that energy is captured to be used for electricity generation, a lot is also released into the environment, heating it up.
And it releases loads of CO2 which then traps heat in the atmosphere.

Stop ignoring that.

If you aren't using cadmium, you still have a number of other minerals and materials thar shouldn't be there.

Do you?
The most basic solar panels use silicon.
That degrades into silicon dioxide, aka sand.

Meanwhile, oil is laced with loads of heavy metals, which when burnt often just goes into the atmosphere.

They call this "6 most beautiful solar farms". I see

You see what you want to see, because you want to keep clinging to fossil fuels.

More importantly, while coal and oil can actually meet the need for energy

This is entirely due to those you love deciding what to make.
They have made loads of fossil fuel based plants, because they don't give a damn about anyone other than themselves.
If instead they had made solar or other renewable energy, then we would still be able to meet the need for energy.

Energy need will only go up

In part, because of people like you continuing to promote burning of fossil fuels, which damages the climate, and increases the energy demand for heating and cooling.

More and more trees cut down. Again, you can't eat solar farms

You can't eat trees either.

they don't cool the air, and they don't give you oxygen. Keep your death wish to yourself.

And fossil fuel based power plants consume that oxygen and release heat.
Yet again, you want to keep ignoring them.

You hate trees

No, I don't.

I just recognise what is overall better for the planet.

I recognise that

is painfully obvious from your "Wha t a nuisance to plant them" paragraph.

You mean my simple refutation of your delusional BS?
Where I clearly explained how sustainable systems are often less efficient because they are tyring to be sustainable rather than just taking and giving nothing back?

I didn't say it is a nuisance.
I simply pointed out that a system where you are sustainable requires replanting trees and taking care of them rather than just decimating entire forests for the sake of efficiency.
But like the lying POS you are, you try to twist that into saying I hate trees.
Likewise, the explanation of why sustainable fishing is less efficient you lie and turn into saying I hate fish.

Your dishonest knows no bounds.

somehow you want to convince me that you're green and I'm not.

I know that you are clearly too far gone to ever be convinced by anything.

Even if fossil fuels results in the complete environmental destruction of Earth, you will still say it is green.

Just look at how dishonest you are continually focusing on only solar panels vs trees, entirely ignoring the fossil fuel based power plants.
You appeal to superficial BS while ignoring everything that shows you are wrong, all while sucking the dick of big oil.

Fishermen have spawning in place. There are fish hatcheries where they jerk off fish to get thousands of fertile eggs for replacing any lost. Likewise, forestry has replanting projects.

And all of these make the processes less efficient than if you just continually without caring about replacing it, up until the point where the system has been depleted.

But even so, all of this is less fucked up than bulldozing forests to make something that isn't even good at making energy.

And yet again you make a completely invalid comparison.

Again, what you should be comparing solar panels to are fossil fuel based power plants and all the mining that is needed to fuel them.

Suuuure you are. Somehow though, you seem to not understand that a town has a choice on how to allocate land. They can grow a farm, and it not only provides food but also air. Or they can buy a solar farm, and afterwards one person sorta provides energy, then the thing tanks and you have trash that can't be recycled easily.

I do understand.
I also understand that yet again, you are ignoring the big picture.
Yet again, you want to compare just a farm producing food and air to a solar farm.
So I take it this town of yours does not use any electricity, nor any powered devices?
They have decided to live a more naturalistic lifestyle?

Otherwise, your comparison is yet again more dishonest BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2024, 07:29:53 AM

You accuse people of lying when they are simply sloppy with research.

No, I accuse people of lying when they repeat the same lies again and again, especially after their lies have been refuted.

Actually, you claim over and over again that you have refuted someone, while you proceed to ignore the answers they do give while claiming they "fled the conversation."

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2024, 07:29:53 AM

Meanwhile, you actually lie to people.

Yet you can't provide a single example.

An example? You're doing it now. You know the government has tricked us in the past, and actively tricks usnow. Pearl Harbor was known or suspected as a target. The government has the ability using digital editing to make war up whenever it suits their purposes. Hell, at this very moment, while pretending to deny the existence of UFOs, they are actually trying to get the public to believe it as an idea. I have pretty consistently "lied" and told you there are no UFOs because there is no space. There could be subterranean aliens, or underwater aliens, or extradimensional aliens (this one is likely due to how many times they make mini rifts with the Hadron Collider), but none from space. You know this, and you will immediately tell me that it doesn't happen

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2024, 07:29:53 AM

You think somehow the Earth is to be a rose garden

No, I don't.

Lemme rephrase. You think that because I say "This is God's world," that nothing should be wrong with it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2024, 07:29:53 AM

If you aren't using cadmium, you still have a number of other minerals and materials thar shouldn't be there.

Do you?
The most basic solar panels use silicon.
That degrades into silicon dioxide, aka sand.

And do you really want a factory to degrade into sand? Even you weren't perpetuating a lie, which I know you are, sand fucks with good clay soil, making it gritty and changes the drainage. Again, you also have metal and concrete shards when this breaks down. And more importantly, we had a solar farm in another county. A hail storm broke up the panels, and the county wanted to know if there were any toxic materials. But they refused to answer. You do that sorta thing if you want to hide that there are in fact toxins. They wanted a solar farm in our town. We said no. We have actual farms and forests.

Btw, you also told another lie. Silicon dioxide is not sand. Silixon dioxide is an agregate of quartz material, often contsining silicon dioxide. Pure silicon dioxide is a desiccant, and while we're on subject, due to the other materials, it should not break down into pure silicon dioxide anyway. This is because plain glass screen would not generate energy. You need wiring, and battery or something. Therein lies the problem. There is no simple solar cell that only uses silicon crystal.

Meanwhile, oil is laced with loads of heavy metals, which when burnt often just goes into the atmosphere.

Heavy metals like lead and zinc and iron have mass. This means they will condensate. And most fuel nowadays uses ethanol instead of lead.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2024, 07:29:53 AM

They call this "6 most beautiful solar farms". I see

You see what you want to see, because you want to keep clinging to fossil fuels.

I see what is real, a forest leveled so that woke assholes can say they are saving the planet.

Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

I have no investment in fossil fuels. Unlike you, however, I believe in using tested technology. The hype of urgent climate disaster is a way to rush produxtion of a shoddy and dangerous product. They mass-produced teflon, and everone got PFOA poisoning. They mass produced thalidomide, and babies were deformed. No thanks. You test it instead.

Actually, you claim over and over again that you have refuted someone, while you proceed to ignore the answers they do give while claiming they "fled the conversation."

What answers?
You have repeatedly just entirely ignored points raised, because you know they refute your BS.
You continually ignore questions, refusing to even attempt to answer them.

When you pretend to answer, you just deflect to other BS.

The rare times you get closer to trying to answer, you just provide pure BS and then ignore the refutations of it and simple questions showing it to be BS, often trying to run off onto other topic.
You have done it so many times it isn't funny.

So no, I do not ignore the answers given.

An example? You're doing it now. You know the government has tricked us in the past

So your example of me lying now, is appealing to the government tricking people in the past.

Try an example of me lying, and not just you speculating about what I would say.

Lemme rephrase. You think that because I say "This is God's world," that nothing should be wrong with it.

No, I correctly understand that this world is fundamentally incompatible with an all powerful, all loving god.

And do you really want a factory to degrade into sand?

Well it is non-toxic. Sounds pretty good.

sand fucks with good clay soil

Good thing that unlike toxic heavy metals, you need quite a large amount to cause problems.

Btw, you also told another lie. Silicon dioxide is not sand. Silixon dioxide is an agregate of quartz material, often contsining silicon dioxide.

And more delusional BS.

Silicon dioxide is the chemical. Quartz is composed of silicon dioxide.
The vast majority of sand is made up of small pieces of quartz, along with other crap.

But just look at the levels of stupditiy in your comment?
You are saying silicon dioxide is an aggregate of material often containing silicon dioxide (although could be something else, hard to tell with those typos).

Pure silicon dioxide is a desiccant

Which it would not be if it had degraded, because it would be absorbing moisture from the air as it did so.

This is because plain glass screen would not generate energy. You need wiring, and battery or something. Therein lies the problem. There is no simple solar cell that only uses silicon crystal.

Good thing I didn't say just plain glass.
And you apparently cant even recognise the difference between plain glass and a silicon crystal.

you need

Heavy metals like lead and zinc and iron have mass. This means they will condensate. And most fuel nowadays uses ethanol instead of lead.

You can include cadmium in that list.
Yes, it doesn't typically stay in the air forever, it falls to the ground, all over the place, contaminating the ground.
How come you don't seem to care about that at all for oil?
You only seem to care about the toxicity for

I see what is real

Because you are ignoring what you don't want to see.

I have no investment in fossil fuels.

Really?
Because you seem to defend it at all costs, and attack alternatives in every way possible, including with plentiful dishonest BS comparisons.

I also notice you have done NOTHING to defend those BS comparisons.
I wonder why?

Unlike you, however, I believe in using tested technology.

And the important part you seem to want to leave out is having it pass those tests.

Fossil fuels have failed.
Yet you still cling to them.

Meanwhile, solar and wind have been tested and found to work fine, at least with appropriate legislation.

Mr contradiction here is for regulartion against poisonous chem.
Hurray!
Regulate!
Regulate!
Regulate!

Well it is non-toxic. Sounds pretty good.

And if it's instead battery acid-covered sand that contaminates the soil? Even if there's no cadmium, something or other is used to store the energy.

Again, proof of you lying? You're doing it now! I have no idea what other materials might be in these silicon solar cells. Are the made of pure silicon? I can't see how. Glass does not seem conductive.

(does research)

https://siliconedepot.com/blog/is-silicone-sealant-an-electrical-insulator/

Silicone sealant can be conductive or insulating depending on whether it is cured or uncured.

So I guess the answer is yes, but even so, you're talking about batteries to store it unless you want that energy to be short term. And ultimately, you're talking about a con game, as solar is woefully bad at supplying power to entire cities.

Tell you what, if you want to plant solar farms along roads, there is nothing environmentally wrong with that. But there is plenty wrong with clearing forest or farm or putting these things by water. Lemme guess. There is some stupid reason why we can't place solar panels along terrain that is already inert.
I used to watch Captain Planet. You are quite literally the lesser known villain Sly Sludge. With claims that he could cleanly deal with trash, there always seemed to be some hidden pollution angle. You're talking energy, but even Captain Planet never delved into whether the solar plane they had was eco-friendly or not. If it was made by Gaia, probably yes. If the Planeteers built it, it's not as clear.

Like some ingredient in the "silicon" solar panels that isn't told. So let's dive into this.



We need the materials everything here. The junction box for instance, the encapsulation material, the backsheet, and the solar cells themselves. We simply don't know these offhand.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-cell-basics

SILICON
Silicon is, by far, the most common semiconductor material used in solar cells, representing approximately 95% of the modules sold today. It is also the second most abundant material on Earth (after oxygen) and the most common semiconductor used in computer chips. Crystalline silicon cells are made of silicon atoms connected to one another to form a crystal lattice. This lattice provides an organized structure that makes conversion of light into electricity more efficient.

Solar cells made out of silicon currently provide a combination of high efficiency, low cost, and long lifetime. Modules are expected to last for 25 years or more, still producing more than 80% of their original power after this time.

THIN-FILM PHOTOVOLTAICS
A thin-film solar cell is made by depositing one or more thin layers of PV material on a supporting material such as glass, plastic, or metal. There are two main types of thin-film PV semiconductors on the market today: cadmium telluride (CdTe) and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS). Both materials can be deposited directly onto either the front or back of the module surface.

CdTe is the second-most common PV material after silicon, and CdTe cells can be made using low-cost manufacturing processes. While this makes them a cost-effective alternative, their efficiencies still aren't quite as high as silicon. CIGS cells have optimal properties for a PV material and high efficiencies in the lab, but the complexity involved in combining four elements makes the transition from lab to manufacturing more challenging. Both CdTe and CIGS require more protection than silicon to enable long-lasting operation outdoors.

PEROVSKITE PHOTOVOLTAICS
Perovskite solar cells are a type of thin-film cell and are named after their characteristic crystal structure. Perovskite cells are built with layers of materials that are printed, coated, or vacuum-deposited onto an underlying support layer, known as the substrate. They are typically easy to assemble and can reach efficiencies similar to crystalline silicon. In the lab, perovskite solar cell efficiencies have improved faster than any other PV material, from 3% in 2009 to over 25% in 2020. To be commercially viable, perovskite PV cells have to become stable enough to survive 20 years outdoors, so researchers are working on making them more durable and developing large-scale, low-cost manufacturing techniques.

ORGANIC PHOTOVOLTAICS
Organic PV, or OPV, cells are composed of carbon-rich (organic) compounds and can be tailored to enhance a specific function of the PV cell, such as bandgap, transparency, or color. OPV cells are currently only about half as efficient as crystalline silicon cells and have shorter operating lifetimes, but could be less expensive to manufacture in high volumes. They can also be applied to a variety of supporting materials, such as flexible plastic, making OPV able to serve a wide variety of uses.PV

You'd then have to do the same for each.

The problem is that it's a guessing game! I have no idea whether the particular brand of solar panels built in my town are the silicon ones that apparently sooooo common and soooo safe, or one of the many other varieties.  And btw, the never explained what Perovskite solar cells are actually made of.

When you go to a coal plant, you get total transparency. The coal used is either anthracite, lignite, bituminous, or subbituminous. And you can literally tell the difference in the smoke. You can visit them, and they'll show you their factory is made of regular iron, not weird rare earths, and they might even show you their coal. They will not deny their plants do produce smoke it's obvious.
When you goto to solar "farm", like you they'll pitch about how green their power is, and tell you nothing abour the material used in its production, the forests cut down to place these devices, the exploited labor to gather the materials, and the factories to make all of this. Nor will they tell you that this is what a silicon mine looks like.

They tore up that land to strip it down. And I don't like the prospect of vreathing in large amounts of silica dust.
https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2019/03/24/residents-near-silica-sand-mines-wisconsin-and-iowa-worry-health-dangers/3261200002/
And mines like this are often impossible to fix.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-06-canada-spends-hundreds-of-millions-to-clean-up-abandoned-heavy-metal-mines-but-still-cant-reuse-the-land.html
The best they can do is try to plant on it, but after disturbing the soil layers, they basically have desert mounds. Good luck with that. Meanwhile the locals have to breathe in, sand particles all day and night.

Yes, you can tell me that silicon dioxide is non-toxic, and that it is just the same as sand. But it's used as a desiccant. Remember those packages? And their warning labels?

Stop lying to me. Not only do you insult me by doing it, but it's a waste of time.

Do you know what oil mine land looks like?


How about oil sea?


How about oil pipe?



Moron

Here's an oil barrel.



Gasp! So scary! 



Here's a Texas oil mine. It used to be that oil mines looked as ravaged as the silicon mine, but the state of Texas adopted some regulations (I saw a movie about this). It is actually possible to mine ethically according to decent environmental protocols.

See, this is the thing. Solar and wind power pats itself on the back, declares itself perfect before God and man, and never bothers to apologize or adjust its behavior. And so, we get aesthetic eyesores where they just bulldoze and leave a mess.

But the public knows that oil and coal are imperfect sources of power. They also know that they provide more power per gallon than acres of solar cells.

Now, let's talk oil pipelines.


This is the trash left behind by "environmentalists" claiming that their native lands were being polluted.

And these are idiots lying down and making a scene in protest.


And this the job that was done by the pipeline company. Clean, contained, and professional. Did it look great when they started out? Decidedly not. But they cleaned it up. Pretty sure that those Native Americans could move back into those lands, and not mind at all.

mmm




last time you threw a fit about trees being cut down.
look at that path...
how inconsistent you are in your outrage...

most pipe are buried and have been known to leak into water ways...
more inconsistent faux rage.

and the standingrock people were rounded up and arrested and hit with water canons (you know what happens to water when it freezes don't you?  i hope so...but then agin, it's you, and gotta ask the dumb question)






i don't disagree all of your photos -
the IG tiktok presentation protestors are jackasses.









oh look
an oil barrel's birth place







who wants to go swimming?






you're such an obvious one sided baffooon
keep on bafooning

And if it's instead battery acid-covered sand that contaminates the soil?

And if it is flying monkeys that spontaneously explode and kill all life within 100 light years?

You are going to hypotheticals which are pure BS.

Even if there's no cadmium, something or other is used to store the energy.

Not necessarily.
Solar panels primary function is to covert radiation from the sun into electrical energy. Not to store it.
In the simplest case, they just deliver power to the grid, no storage involved.

Again, proof of you lying? You're doing it now! I have no idea what other materials might be in these silicon solar cells. Are the made of pure silicon? I can't see how. Glass does not seem conductive.

So your "proof" that I am lying, is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Did I say they are made of pure silicon? No.
Do I understand that there is a difference between silicone, silicon and glass? Yes. Do you? It is unclear.

(does research)

You mean looks for whatever crap you can find to support your BS without really researching anything.

So I guess the answer is yes

To the question of "Do you think glass, silicon and silicone are the same thing".
Clearly showing a complete lack of understanding.

you're talking about batteries to store it unless you want that energy to be short term.

No, I'm not.

I'm talking about solar power generation. And if you want storage, there are plenty of options.

And ultimately, you're talking about a con game, as solar is woefully bad at supplying power to entire cities.

You keep saying that, but you can't explain why.

But there is plenty wrong with clearing forest or farm or putting these things by water.

No, there isn't.
Again, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows you are wrong.

There is some stupid reason why we can't place solar panels along terrain that is already inert.

No, there isn't. And I already indicated a wide variety of options.

I used to watch Captain Planet. You are quite literally the lesser known villain Sly Sludge.

Says the one doing whatever they can to suck the dick of big oil, pretending oil is magical and environmentally friendly, ignoring all the issues with oil, and doing whatever you can to oppose any alternative.

The problem is that it's a guessing game!

No, the problem is you need to understand and do your research; something you have no interest in doing.

When you go to a coal plant, you get total transparency.

Pure BS.
The best you get is an idea of the coal you are buying, you do not get all the details of all the people that are suffering because of it. You also don't get the full chemical composition, so you don't get to know what heavy metals are inside.

But I guess you don't give a shit about them.

Nor will they tell you that this is what a silicon mine looks like.

And have you seen a coal mine?
Do the coal power plants tell you how many people have died of black lung from coal mining?

They tore up that land to strip it down. And I don't like the prospect of vreathing in large amounts of silica dust.

But you are perfectly fine with coal dust.

Yes, you can tell me that silicon dioxide is non-toxic, and that it is just the same as sand. But it's used as a desiccant. Remember those packages? And their warning labels?

That silica desiccant you are appealing to is specially prepared.
If you go to a silica mine, that is sand.

Stop lying to me. Not only do you insult me by doing it, but it's a waste of time.

The one lying here is you. You are yet to provide a single lie.

but the state of Texas adopted some regulations

You mean the thing you oppose at all costs, until it suits you?

See, this is the thing. Solar and wind power pats itself on the back, declares itself perfect before God and man, and never bothers to apologize or adjust its behavior.

Yet you make no indication at all of what this silica mine is for.

Have you done your research?
Because I decided to take a look into it.
I found this:


Here is a great part of the description:
"This mine is producing some of the most pure frac sand in the country and it is being shipped out to Appalachia and North Dakota as proppant int he fracking process."

Do you know what fracking is?
A process to enhance the extraction of oil and gas from the ground, which causes quite a lot of problems.

So the silica mine you appeal to to pretend solar is bad, is actually a demonstration of how bad your fossil fuels are.
Great job.
And great job yet again demonstrating your dishonesty knows no bounds.

But the public knows that oil and coal are imperfect sources of power. They also know that they provide more power per gallon than acres of solar cells.

Except you, who seems to think it is perfect, and who only wants to focus on the land used directly by the solar panels or power plant. You want to ignore all the land use that goes into getting the fuel, and the land use of the pipelines, and so on.

And this the job that was done by the pipeline company. Clean, contained, and professional. Did it look great when they started out? Decidedly not. But they cleaned it up. Pretty sure that those Native Americans could move back into those lands, and not mind at all.

And here you just show your double standard yet again.
Look at the massive clearing, going the entire length of the oil pipeline.
Why aren't you complaining about all those trees being removed.

Yet again, you demonstrate you see what you want to see.

You love sucking the dick of big oil, so you think it looks great. You hate solar, so you think it looks horrible.

Yes, and coal miners have been historically well paid for their efforts. $60,000 a year is pretty decent take home pay. Moreover, you don't have to have a closed mine. Black lung comes from poorly ventilated shaft filled with coal dust. Open mining can relieve some of that by mixing it in with regular air.

  More importantly, when we say coal, we also include peat.

https://www.motherearthnews.com/Homesteading-and-Livestock/renewable-fuel-burning-peat-zmaz75zwar/

Compare that to silicon. There is also a lung risk there, but no premium is going to be paid that nice rate. This falls under surface mining, which runs about $30,000 yearly. Meanwhile, at the production and sales end, they make a nice tidy profit. So again, you get silica dust in your lungs, but get paid HALF the amount. The people who sell solar don't get dust in their lungs, and probably make ten or twenty times that.

And how do you think they get the cadmium when they don't use that silicon based solar cell, but the less virtue-signalling variety?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9412790/
They exploit women and girls to dig under awful conditions in very cramped mines to collect these metals.

Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) takes place under extreme conditions with a lack of occupational health and safety. As the demand for metals is increasing due in part to their extensive use in ‘green technologies’ for climate change mitigation, the negative environmental and occupational consequences of mining practices are disproportionately felt in low- and middle-income countries.

So let's see. You mine for coal, risk black lung, and are paid decently, then retire early.
Or you mine for silica, are paid about like a school teacher, and still develop respiratory issues while other people make enormous amounts selling the end product.
Or you mine for cadmium, are not told that this is a rare and dangerous mineral, develop cancer and other issues, and are paid squalor wages.

So while you convince everyone that climate change is real, and we need to "limit carbon" (as carbon-based lifeforms, this is shorthand for "we need to kill a few poor people"), you have this blood on your hands.

Yes, and coal miners have been historically well paid for their efforts.

No they haven't.
Historically they were treated as disposable.

Moreover, you don't have to have a closed mine.

So after complaining about how the silica mine for fracking was so ugly, and how many trees were cleared for a few solar panels; you now suggest an open cut coal mine, which has massive amounts of land cleared and can end up in situations like Berkeley Pitt (although that was a copper mine)?
You sure love being inconsistent.

Black lung comes from poorly ventilated shaft filled with coal dust. Open mining can relieve some of that by mixing it in with regular air.

No, black lung comes from breathing in coal dust.
This can occur in shaft mining, or open cut mining.
You might reduce the likelihood or severity of it by having an open cut mine, but you still get it:
https://www.resourcesregulator.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/drcecilerose_presentation.pdf

Compare that to silicon.

Do you mean the silicon used for fracking, i.e. extraction of fossil fuels from underground?

And again, compare a one of cost, to a continuous cost.
The contiguous coal mining to fuel the power plants, vs a one of mining operation to get the silica for the solar panel.

Coal, and other fossil fuels have varying energy density, but around 20 for to 50 MJ/kg. depending on the type (even lower for peat).

As a comparison, say you want to get that energy from a solar panel over a period of a year, even going all out and assuming the solar panel will only function at 50% of its rated capacity, and only for 1/3 of the day.
That would be an average power of 1.6 W, and require a rated capacity of roughly 9.5 W.
If you instead wanted to get that back over a period of 10 years, that would be 0.95 W.

As a comparison, you can get a 100W solar panel which is 9 kg.
https://www.allnaturalenergy.com.au/online-shop/PDF/ID%20Symmetry%20Small%20Area%20Modules%20Specifications.pdf
Assuming that is just pure silicon (which it clearly isn't), that is 11 W/kg.
That would already beat the coal if it was just used for 1 year.

But why stop there. Lets say we want to compare this to silicon.
Well, silica is SiO2. By weight that is only 47% silicon.
And for the hell of it, lets just say it is only 50% pure.

That would lower it down to 2.6 W/kg.
No longer enough to beat that coal over 1 year, but better over 4 years.

And this is with lots of assumptions in your favour.

You need to dig up far more coal to continue to provide power than you do for silicon.

The people who sell solar don't get dust in their lungs, and probably make ten or twenty times that.

Just like the people who sell coal?

And how do you think they get the cadmium

Again, I'm not advocating for cadmium, or lead or other toxic heavy metals to be used.
You are setting up a strawman to attack.

So let's see. You mine for coal, risk black lung, and are paid decently, then retire early.

No. You mine for coal, risk black lung, get paid poorly and treated like shit and die early, while other people make enormous amounts selling the product.
Solar requires far less, and is far better for the environment, but you don't care, because you are too busy sucking the dick of big oil.

So while you convince everyone that climate change is real, and we need to "limit carbon" (as carbon-based lifeforms, this is shorthand for "we need to kill a few poor people"), you have this blood on your hands.

No, that is not shorthand for "we need to kill people".
It is shorthand for "stop burning fossil fuels you POS".
It isn't about ending carbon entirely. It is about stopping you digging it out of the ground and burning it.

It is about less blood on your hands, because you have plenty, and you are actively defending that blood, while trying to ignore it.

So if theyre paid fairly then youll stfu?
Or its a just a gish of badfatihed excuses?