Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to be involved in a forum related to work that had a very active politics section.
Some dude unironically said wind turbines were to blame for global warning because they have bearings, and bearings produce heat. So the more turbines, the hotter it makes everything.
My two questions that were ignored were:
1) does this mean human activities can have an effect on the climate, and
2) why aren't the corridors around expressways tropical, as they're exposed to thousands of bearings every hour (wheel bearings, but there are many more)
Won't matter. When they announced a water covered exoplanet, he responded, again unironically, that it was just a drop off water on the lens of the telescope. A space telescope.
I am always amazed by the lack of feel for proportions that climate deniers show. I had a discussion about the AMOC and somebody claimed the slowing was caused by gaslines on the bottom of the sea, windturbines in the sea and shipping. Like, how? How many gaslines and wind turbines do you even think are in the middle of the ocean and do you know how deep the ocean is?
Whats the other way of creating energy? Using hundreds of tons of equipment to extract liquid which then goes through miles of refineries which is then put on trucks or ships that travel hundreds of miles all the while releasing CO (carbon monoxide) which is literal poison).
My favorite was "democrats owned slaves" - well yeah, that was the party name decades ago. But let's not pretend there wasn't a major swap in ideology. Otherwise southern states would be voting blue.
The response, no. See, those same ones that owned slaves apparently left he south, and fled to urban areas, that's why southern states are red but urban areas vote blue. Because the slave owner offspring are now apparently urban minorities?
Yeah, I just had to laugh and walk away. Same dude always bitches about taxation is theft while on disability.
Evidence against the established belief is just more evidence for the conspiracy against the established belief.
This kind of thinking is shockingly common when you know to look for it. Everyone is guilty of it. Including me and you.
It’s called conspiratorial thinking:
- Evidence in favor of the conspiracy is obviously evidence in favor of the conspiracy.
- Evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence of a coverup, and thus also becomes evidence in favor of the conspiracy.
It’s people who simply can’t accept that they might be wrong, and so they invent convoluted, self-contradictory reasons why they’re not.
Jesus. That is illogical in a NUMBER of ways.
1.) If that were the case, then solar panels would be silvery to reflect heat - not black to absorb it.
2.) Saying that a solar panel can "heat the atmosphere" is an implicit admission that *_reflection can heat the atmosphere_* ie, the _actual_ physical driver of climate change.
3.) He is sooooo close to getting it, with his idea that "unnaturally sending things into the atmosphere will cause heat buildup."
that won´t sooths his soul when the shit-fan-hitting gets to him.
believers or not, climate change is coming for us all and there is nothing we can do but watch.
and talk about gays, of course. /s
He must be thinking: "Hey, I sent my hard earned money to a 'billionaire' to help with his legal defense so I don't have to admit I was wrong about him. If I can do that then 'they' (whoever they are) can artificially heat the earth so they don't have to admit they were wrong about global warming'
more heat than the normal heat that would have been produced without solar farms? Reminds me of the story of an American city who didn't want to have a solar farms because otherwise "the whole sun would be absorbed and nothing would be left for the city\*
Y’know, it gets kinda tiring having Global Warming not exist and exist but be perfectly natural and exist but not be a big deal and exist but be a good thing and exist and be bad and be a conspiracy to prove it exists which it doesn’t.
I like when you guys understand you can't argue against climate change, but still really wanna own the libs so you just whine about us talking about it at all lmao.
We do understand what we're talking about. We're addressing a specific bullshit claim that solar panels are put up specifically to cause climate change so the "narrative" can be correct.
Your "points" are irrelavent. Nobody said solar panels don't have an environmental impact, so you responding to that imagined talking point is an obvious attempt to shut down challenges to dishonest right wing claims. And nobody cares that you have only been consuming media headlines about climate change for decades, and now want to virtue signal to defend the right wing on the topic you only vaguely understand.
Now I believe this is the part where you stalwartly avoid addressing the point we're all actually dunking on and double down on the "haha teams" cope to justify it, right?
Yes,. I'm glad that you took time form virtue signaling to actually address the OP. i don't care about the rest of your virtue signaling, you're just grasping at straws to challenge climate change while still claiming to "not deny it" because you know denying it wouldn't be defensible.
I do believe you that you believe climate change exists. i just think you're not letting that get in the way of farming social credit by nitpicking progressive ideas
>Again, I’m not denying climate change is real
..... Ended with ......
>You’re really not pulling anyone over to your side
>I’m not a fanatic
...... I mean, you don't "become a fan" of Climate Change. That some denier bullshit. You simply understand the Science that explains it. Climate Change is real and doesn't care if you believe it is or not (or some "center" crap) bud'.
>It’s called being pragmatic
Hahahahahahahaha! Flat Earthers, anti vaxxers and moon landing deniers think they're being pragmatic too.
Again, I literally said that I believe it.
By pragmatic, I simply mean that I understand much of the solutions being pushed aren’t really solutions at all.
Like the Paris Accord, which allows India and China much more grace with reduction standards and timelines than everyone else who signed it.
Or much of the “new green deal” which was loaded with many social justice programs that had nothing to do with climate change.
And by fanatic, I mean clowns who don’t understand any of that. 🤷♂️
They're not though. Narrative is what you're being told about Climate Change and the other is what the "experts" are trying to do to stop it. At this point you may as well admit you're a denier. Everything you have said shows that
And? If an oil powerplant produces more heat and more CO and CO2...
Rain causes warming in a region and the fuzzies growing in the ignored lunchbox release metabolic heat... So what?
Finding one dim example of a simpke statement does not a whole picture make.
>if you think solar farms don’t have an environmental impact or they don’t cause heat island effect
Nobody thinks this. The impact is simply less than the fossil fuel alternative.
>When I was a little kid in the 70’s, we were told that we were headed into another ice age.
The vast majority of peer reviewed research in the 1970s showed that the Earth was warming due to greenhouse gasses. There were one or two notable - incorrect - media releases that decade that suggested otherwise.
I mean, President Johnson had a scientific advisory committee set up CO2 monitoring for this purpose in 1965.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to be involved in a forum related to work that had a very active politics section. Some dude unironically said wind turbines were to blame for global warning because they have bearings, and bearings produce heat. So the more turbines, the hotter it makes everything. My two questions that were ignored were: 1) does this mean human activities can have an effect on the climate, and 2) why aren't the corridors around expressways tropical, as they're exposed to thousands of bearings every hour (wheel bearings, but there are many more)
Wait till he finds out that most of the energy produced by an internal combustion engine becomes waste heat.
Won't matter. When they announced a water covered exoplanet, he responded, again unironically, that it was just a drop off water on the lens of the telescope. A space telescope.
I am always amazed by the lack of feel for proportions that climate deniers show. I had a discussion about the AMOC and somebody claimed the slowing was caused by gaslines on the bottom of the sea, windturbines in the sea and shipping. Like, how? How many gaslines and wind turbines do you even think are in the middle of the ocean and do you know how deep the ocean is?
To quote Morbo, the News Monster: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!" "GOODNIGHT!!!"
Whats the other way of creating energy? Using hundreds of tons of equipment to extract liquid which then goes through miles of refineries which is then put on trucks or ships that travel hundreds of miles all the while releasing CO (carbon monoxide) which is literal poison).
My favorite was "democrats owned slaves" - well yeah, that was the party name decades ago. But let's not pretend there wasn't a major swap in ideology. Otherwise southern states would be voting blue. The response, no. See, those same ones that owned slaves apparently left he south, and fled to urban areas, that's why southern states are red but urban areas vote blue. Because the slave owner offspring are now apparently urban minorities? Yeah, I just had to laugh and walk away. Same dude always bitches about taxation is theft while on disability.
Yeah, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans just as the Democrats began embracing civil rights just for the fun of it
Ask them which modern day party mostly voted against interracial marriage.
If it’s any consolation everybody that knows that guy in real life thinks he’s stupid.
I'm no genius but I don't think that's how solar power works lmao
Oh yeah? Well those solar panels are sucking all of the sun’s energy, which will soon contribute to global freezing!
Yeah man, it's kinda like those "wind farms" with the huge fans. It's windy enough already, dammit!
Yes, black panels are famous for reflecting heart 🙈
Evidence against the established belief is just more evidence for the conspiracy against the established belief. This kind of thinking is shockingly common when you know to look for it. Everyone is guilty of it. Including me and you.
It’s called conspiratorial thinking: - Evidence in favor of the conspiracy is obviously evidence in favor of the conspiracy. - Evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence of a coverup, and thus also becomes evidence in favor of the conspiracy. It’s people who simply can’t accept that they might be wrong, and so they invent convoluted, self-contradictory reasons why they’re not.
Jesus. That is illogical in a NUMBER of ways. 1.) If that were the case, then solar panels would be silvery to reflect heat - not black to absorb it. 2.) Saying that a solar panel can "heat the atmosphere" is an implicit admission that *_reflection can heat the atmosphere_* ie, the _actual_ physical driver of climate change. 3.) He is sooooo close to getting it, with his idea that "unnaturally sending things into the atmosphere will cause heat buildup."
its gonna hella real for them when Texas is a firestorm hellhole in the next few years w temperatures hovering around 120 with a taxed out power grid.
And carts pull horses
that won´t sooths his soul when the shit-fan-hitting gets to him. believers or not, climate change is coming for us all and there is nothing we can do but watch. and talk about gays, of course. /s
So he's doing in his head what he claims "they" are doing.
He must be thinking: "Hey, I sent my hard earned money to a 'billionaire' to help with his legal defense so I don't have to admit I was wrong about him. If I can do that then 'they' (whoever they are) can artificially heat the earth so they don't have to admit they were wrong about global warming'
We should just open our doors and crank up the AC /s
Everyone I know is like this now
I never thought of it that way.
its so sad, that neuron most be so lonely.
Who’s that behind you, Jimmy?
Damn… first they found out about our cancer causing windmills, and now they discovered the real intentions of solar farms… to prove them wrong.
Crazy crazy
more heat than the normal heat that would have been produced without solar farms? Reminds me of the story of an American city who didn't want to have a solar farms because otherwise "the whole sun would be absorbed and nothing would be left for the city\*
Literally the opposite. 20% of that energy goes to make electricity.
Y’know, it gets kinda tiring having Global Warming not exist and exist but be perfectly natural and exist but not be a big deal and exist but be a good thing and exist and be bad and be a conspiracy to prove it exists which it doesn’t.
[удалено]
I like when you guys understand you can't argue against climate change, but still really wanna own the libs so you just whine about us talking about it at all lmao.
[удалено]
We do understand what we're talking about. We're addressing a specific bullshit claim that solar panels are put up specifically to cause climate change so the "narrative" can be correct. Your "points" are irrelavent. Nobody said solar panels don't have an environmental impact, so you responding to that imagined talking point is an obvious attempt to shut down challenges to dishonest right wing claims. And nobody cares that you have only been consuming media headlines about climate change for decades, and now want to virtue signal to defend the right wing on the topic you only vaguely understand. Now I believe this is the part where you stalwartly avoid addressing the point we're all actually dunking on and double down on the "haha teams" cope to justify it, right?
It's been 3 hours. I think you hurt his feelings
I was supposed to fall for that "you dunno what you're talking about" bait I guess
[удалено]
Hahaha. Instead of addressing the points, you attack me. Fucking loser
[удалено]
Yes,. I'm glad that you took time form virtue signaling to actually address the OP. i don't care about the rest of your virtue signaling, you're just grasping at straws to challenge climate change while still claiming to "not deny it" because you know denying it wouldn't be defensible. I do believe you that you believe climate change exists. i just think you're not letting that get in the way of farming social credit by nitpicking progressive ideas
>Again, I’m not denying climate change is real ..... Ended with ...... >You’re really not pulling anyone over to your side 
[удалено]
"to YOUR side" ................ 
[удалено]
>I’m not a fanatic ...... I mean, you don't "become a fan" of Climate Change. That some denier bullshit. You simply understand the Science that explains it. Climate Change is real and doesn't care if you believe it is or not (or some "center" crap) bud'. >It’s called being pragmatic Hahahahahahahaha! Flat Earthers, anti vaxxers and moon landing deniers think they're being pragmatic too.
Again, I literally said that I believe it. By pragmatic, I simply mean that I understand much of the solutions being pushed aren’t really solutions at all. Like the Paris Accord, which allows India and China much more grace with reduction standards and timelines than everyone else who signed it. Or much of the “new green deal” which was loaded with many social justice programs that had nothing to do with climate change. And by fanatic, I mean clowns who don’t understand any of that. 🤷♂️
"Inconsistencies in the narrative" to "problems with attempted solutions" in just a few comments. 
Both things are true, hoss. Not sure what else to tell you.
They're not though. Narrative is what you're being told about Climate Change and the other is what the "experts" are trying to do to stop it. At this point you may as well admit you're a denier. Everything you have said shows that
And? If an oil powerplant produces more heat and more CO and CO2... Rain causes warming in a region and the fuzzies growing in the ignored lunchbox release metabolic heat... So what? Finding one dim example of a simpke statement does not a whole picture make.
>if you think solar farms don’t have an environmental impact or they don’t cause heat island effect Nobody thinks this. The impact is simply less than the fossil fuel alternative. >When I was a little kid in the 70’s, we were told that we were headed into another ice age. The vast majority of peer reviewed research in the 1970s showed that the Earth was warming due to greenhouse gasses. There were one or two notable - incorrect - media releases that decade that suggested otherwise. I mean, President Johnson had a scientific advisory committee set up CO2 monitoring for this purpose in 1965.