US Town Rejects Solar Panels Fearing They 'Suck Up All The Energy From The Sun'

This reaches a whole new level of stupidity... :-s

Login to rate this video.

You can place this video on your website by inserting the (X)HTML code below:

Embed code:
<iframe src="" width="400" height="330" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You can email this video to your friends by entering their addresses below:

Your information:

add Add another recipient

Human verification:

People who liked this video also liked

AtmosFear freefall tower at Liseberg Gothenburg in Sweden
I Can't Taste Anything
1087 Days in Just 15 Minutes - Growing Plant Time Lapse COMPILATION
Colored balls elevator. Particle fluid. Music. Molecular Script. Video 4K
2019 Tasmanian Tiger Photo
Budgie Balancing Trick


55 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.

Expand all comments

Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+3 1. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

I question the source of this video..although there are stupid people who would argue that way about solar panels, I believe that most people here, even if not supporting solar energy, understand the concept...the video is probably depicting single incidents...not a representation of the population as a whole...let's see what others are thinking..
Picture of Natan_el_Tigre52 achievements

+13 2. Natan_el_Tigre commented 8 years ago

Picture of ungula35 achievements

+21 3. ungula commented 8 years ago

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-7 4. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

The title to this clip is very misleading, only one woman made that statement.
I think these North Carolina residents did the right thing by not wanting another ugly solar plant around their town...they already have three of them.
When people build or buy homes in areas zoned for residential/agriculture they don't expect their local government to later re-zone the area for industrial plants to be built that will decrease property values and become eyesores.
Many solar farms produce huge amounts of the "deadly" co2 by burning natural gas to make power on cloudy days and in the winter when the daylight is short.

There are many solar and wind farm sites across the US that lay abandoned and broken because they went out of business due to lack of profit and cost of maintenance.

Can any of the dimwits who disagree with this refute any of it?
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+2 5. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

Wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not totally surprised people are as stupid as in the article of #2's link.
Picture of dushan56 achievements

+2 6. dushan commented 8 years ago

well #4 while you tend to use "republican science" sources which are really fun to read (considering how serious people are in their ignorance), i do find "decreasing property values" as most probable reason for rejecting a solar plant :)
americans are not the smartest people on the planet, but i find it hard to believe that anyone can be that dumb ( "solar plant sucking up all the energy from sun" )
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+6 7. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

Misleading? Just like the description of the last video you submitted? :)

Originally from Sweden? She was just born there, but She is American, with american citizenship, from North Carolina, USA, just like these solar powered fruit cakes. I saw all this in the description of the original video you submitted and also I did a little research, and when I read the title, I instantly noticed you intentionally wrote "from sweden" in the description, for obvious reasons ;) even the doctor is not in the right mind... I mean just look at him how's he is talking about her like she's some sort of hero...

Still, I'm not here to bash you, but it's absolutely ridiculous to defend these freak shows just because they are American. Remember, every family has a black sheep, including America ;)
Picture of Necrom31 achievements

+6 8. Necrom commented 8 years ago

#4 Let's not forget that the solar farm in question is solar panel based, which can produce during its lifetime 20x, 30x, or even 40x less CO2 than coal power (even taking in account the CO2 produced to fabricate them) and not like that Ivanpah Solar farm, which uses mirrors.
I could also mention that that article is an editorial written by a clearly right-leaning person, judging by his other editorials, 90% of which seem to be only negative articles about Obamacare or Hillary Clinton.
But that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the article, right? I does get at least some of its facts right, for what I can see. But it forgets to tell you that even with that "outrageous" ammount of CO2 produced, it pales in comparison with the average coal power plant, which can produce over 3 million tons/year of CO2. (not to mention all the other side-effects on public and wildlife health)

Had more to say about the second link, but Snotr wont let me post the rest, makes my post too long :P
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

0 9. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

#8 You have good points....go ahead you can continue now :)
Picture of Necrom31 achievements

+3 10. Necrom commented 8 years ago

#9 Thx :D

As for the second link, I could also say it has a misleading title.
Of all the power plants showned in it, only the Tehachapi wind farms seem to fall into that statement "many solar and wind farm sites across the US that lay abandoned and broken because they went out of business due to lack of profit and cost of maintenance."
Solar One/Two: decommissioned, turned into a telescope.
Hydroelectric Plant in Enloe: decommissioned to improve salmon access to spawning grounds. NOT a solar or wind farm.
Carrizo Plain Solar Power Plant: dismantled, solar panels being sold around the world.
Edward Dean Adams Power Station: yes, abandoned, but built by Nicola Tesla in 1896 (!), NOT a solar or wind farm. Also, not sure how effective its 1800's technology would be today anyway.
White River Falls Hydroelectric: Decommissioned in the 1950's (!). NOT a solar or wind farm.
Kamaoa Wind Farm: abandoned, yes, but since replaced by newer, more efficient turbines.
Hydroelectric Canal and Plant: it does look abandoned, but it's looks more like a turist attraction than a complete abandoned and broken ruin. Again, NOT a solar or wind farm.
Abandoned Oil Rig Converted for Wind Turbine: NOT an abandoned wind farm, but an abandoned Oil Rig converted into a functioning wind turbine.

TL;DR If the title of the video is considered misleading, then your post seems to be quite misleading too.

Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-8 11. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#7 Your title puts forth the idea that the whole town believes that the solar farm would be sucking up all the energy from the sun when if you read the article @ #2 you would know only one ignorant woman said that
The whole reason I submitted the video was to show how ridiculous this woman is for trying to look like a cartoon and I sure don't defend her doing it. The mention of Sweden where she is from is to make you realize that she is from a country where gorgeous blonds seem to be the norm already.She looked much better before all the surgery.
#8 As far as complaining about right-leaning sites they the only place to show what the climate alarmists don't want you to know about. How would you like to live in a small town that is surrounded by acres and acres of solar farms that add nothing to the tax base of that town?
Since solar activity is the deciding factor that controls earth's climate all this "the sky is falling" crap is a joke. Getting all your climate info from scientists who only keep getting their huge government grants by parroting the government agenda is like asking a drug dealer if heroin is safe.
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

0 12. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

Let's make some things clear: everything that runs on gasoline or other flammable substance sucks. Personally for me I think it's silly that in 2015 we still have cars propelled by mini-repetitive explosions, when we have the mighty ELECTRICITY! electricity can simply replace ANYTHING that runs on flammable substances. You can heat a home with electricity, you can power cars by electricity, you can cook using electricity, you can use electricity to filter water, to lift up things, to communicate, you can even use electricity to melt metals for metallurgy. Electricity is the future, but someone still has to make money with oil... The planet? f%^k the planet, we need money, who needs our planet.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-7 13. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

Oh do you make all that electricity to run the world, cover the whole planet with wind and solar farms? Let me know when all the developing world's countries sign up for that. You and Al Gore have a lot in common and he has been wrong on all of his predictions about the harm co2 poses to the planet....after all it is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere that has always been there, it is not a poisonous gas, just ask any tree.
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+1 14. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

This newspaper article originated from an area of NC that I would consider fairly backwards, just reading it word for word made that clear, this is so great though, they are using the democratic process, placing any future solar farm requests on a referendum, so their "highly educated and informed and open minded" citizens can make their own decisions...scary! And poor Mary Hobbs has lived there for 50 years and watched it become a ghost town...hmmmm...I wonder why? I'm sure that has nothing to do with the solar panels or even the I95 that also goes through Jersey and hasn't "dryed" it up...that has everything to do with an economically depressed area with no opportunities and the promise of a backward, boring life for young couples. I'm sure even before the solar panels Roanoke-Cowan had nothing to offer besides a community constricted with religious values and surrounded by not much but corn fields, I know, harsh...but reality... :O :squirrel:
Picture of huldu34 achievements

+4 15. huldu commented 8 years ago

Solar panels are ugly? Try having a nuclear plant nearby, yes they still exist.
Picture of Hercules10 achievements

+1 16. Hercules commented 8 years ago

#(removed comment). So anyone who holds a different viewpoint to you is dumb eh?

FYI during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods the CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation. Perhaps the IPCC will come up with a modified computer model to explain that.
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

-2 17. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#13 I hope you were just joking with that comment, because otherwise it would have been a really, really, really dumb one.

And regarding to your statement about CO2 in atmosphere,you're right,it was always there.Just look here and see HOW it was always there :

Sorry, but I have to say I'm surprised by the increasing number of people that enters an argument without having any idea whats going on, just for the sake for it.If you're saying CO2 is not poisonous,go tell that to chinese people from Shanghai, that are literately killing themselves to provide Murrica companies with stuff, for a few dollars to make a living...and don't tell me that they do it for Europe too, because here in Europe most of the stuff is produced locally, we don't have our homes all labeled Made in China. We're not like the most typical American company crApple, that pays and enslaves the poor chinese people to do their dirty work. America is the biggest Chinese importer in the world.
#16 no, not at all, but that opinion is just plain dumb as a rock.And let's keep it to human"era" ;)I'm sure that before the dinosaurs the CO2 levels and other chemicals were so high that would kill a person in a matter of seconds. And still, what you just stated is a THEORY. Theory is something totally different from FACTS . Facts are proven scientifically , as where a theory ,it is yet to be confirmed or infirmed. And still, we're not talking here that CO2 is provoking global warming, we're talking about how high levels of it are not good for earth and us humans. Dinosaurs had a much greater tolerance to CO2 than us Humans, everything was much different back then.If you want to see how poisonous is CO2, put your car in the garage and close it, start its engine and leave for a few minutes, then enter the garage and see if you are going to last for more than 5 min. No,why? bcuz you are being poisoned with CO2.
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

-1 18. kirkelicious commented 8 years ago

Sorry, #17 i really emphathize with your stance on the issue, but your use of the word theory is not the way it is used in science. A scientific THEORY is a model that describes how something works and allows to make accurate predictions. A HYPOTHESIS is something that requires more evidence to be confirmed and when it is, it becomes a THEORY. The more evidence gets gathered the stronger a THEORY gets. When the body of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines all converge to support a THEORY (like the heliocentric model) it becomes so strong that parts of it can be considered FACTS. The THEORY of evolution for example has a lot of holes and many mechanisms are unknown or showed to work completely different than previously established. Its core, however - the origin of new species by natural selection - can be considered to be a fact since the 18th century. and then there is string theory ;)
The terminology is often misused deliberatetely to discredit scientific reality.

In climate-theory there are still many open questions and a tiny minority of experts disagrees on the anthropogenic impact on the climate. Arguably these experts are politically biased and the dissense is grossly exagerated by the right wing media, that thinks there is a huge conspiracy of climate-scientists that only want grant money. These conspiracy theorists, however ignore the fact that scientists with the credentials to publish in respected scientific jurnals like "nature" could earn a lot more money in the private sector and get filthy rich if they sold out to the fossil fuel industry...

The evidence for anthropogenic impact on climate change is pretty compelling and if I had to choose between the scientific concensus and the rants of a talk radio host, I would bet my money on the first.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-6 19. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#17 You are way off base in your knowledge of co2 thinking it is harmful and
poisonous to breath. Your car puts out carbon monoxide , not carbon dioxide.....big difference.
The Chinese aren't having health problems with co2 , it is industrial fumes and smog and carbon monoxide that is affecting them.
So dinosaurs had a higher tolerance to co2? Is that another one of your theories? Maybe the dinos grew so large because of all the oxygen produced by plant life that was using all that co2 to grow large and flourish.
The EU imports billions of dollars worth of Chinese products too.
For the year 2013 Germany imported 92.5 billion in goods , the UK 55.2 billion , 44.7 billion for the Netherlands , France 50.4 billion , Italy over 30 billion , and even Russia bought almost 49 billion in goods.Can we say Europe's homes are made in China?
#18 The release of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in 2009 showed climate scientists concerned with the lack of recent warming and how to “hide the decline.” The communications showed that whatever the emailers were engaged in, it was not the disinterested pursuit of science.
Another batch of 5,000 emails written by top climate scientists came out in 2011, discussing, among other public-relations matters, how to deal with skeptical editors and how to suppress unfavorable data.
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

+2 20. kirkelicious commented 8 years ago

#19 you're beating a dead horse here. The "hide the decline"-quote was taken completely out of context. See, if the global temperature falls for a few consecutive years, that does not mean that the climate is getting colder. Surface air temperature is not the only indicator for heat trapped in a system. Add natural cycles and statistical variance and it might appear from a limited data set that a climate is cooling. Climate describes the temperature trends over decades, not years. It is perfectly acceptable to account for that by using statistical algorithms. If two colleagues exchange ideas, how to best represent the data and use wording that isn't meant for release to the public, you hardly have a scandal. In this case the decline wasn't even in temperature but in tree ring size in high latitudes since the sixties.
Even if individual scientists are intellectual dishonest enough to tweak pieces of data to be able to publish results (which in this case didn't even happen), that does not discredit climate science anymore than the field of, say, epidemiology, where these things did happen in the past.
I wonder why you take such incidents seriously enough to dismiss a whole scientific field, and on the other hand swallow the grossly distorted representation of think tanks that are financed by the fossil fuel industry hook line and sinker.
We can argue over the appropriate measures and the expected magnitude and socio-economic impact of climate change. But believing in a conspiracy of "Big Climate" based on information you get fed by Big Oil borders on insanity...

Not that the toxicity of CO2 has anything to do with the issue, but it is not all that black and white:

edit: your car puts out large amounts of CO2 (15%) and very small amounts of CO(0.2%). Big difference ;)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-5 21. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#20 The liberal left is using climate change rhetoric to scare simple-minded people into letting government obtain more and more control over our lives , industry , and the economy. Climate change is a political battle,not a scientific one and it sure isn't settled as the big government hype says. Too many scientists disagree with it for it to be settled with nothing further to learn about our very complex weather systems.
Picture of oleHashow30 achievements

0 22. oleHashow commented 8 years ago

well clearly the person who stated that meant that grass wont grew in shadow of those panels.

Maybe solar farm should be placed on roofs and roads

Let me know when all the developing world's countries sign up for that

you are just a dumb troll

like they make cars and infrastructure that consumes fossil fuels
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-5 23. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#22 You are just an ignorant tool who adds nothing to the debate.
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

+2 24. kirkelicious commented 8 years ago

#21 Climate change as a political battleground is pretty much an U.S. american phenomenon. In the rest of the world there might be much political debate on how to react but not if the science is real.
Liberal representation of science and the alarmist rhetoric is horrible, no doubt. That is why you don't consult politicians if you want to learn about science. That's what scientific experts are for.
The american right does not want to give the government reasons to intervene in our lives and habits. But just because you don't like the implications, you cannot simply dismiss reality.
Addressing your point of many scientists that disagree: The appeal to authority is a very weak argument, especially if the people you refer to are a fringe group, who - generally speaking - didn't contribute anything to the science. I really wonder why you as a layman put your trust in these few people while dismissing the scientific consensus of people who actually know exactly what they are talking about.

I suppose there is no point arguing with you. Once someones mind is made up and he emotionally invested a lot in a topic, it is hard to change his mind. Trying to convince you is as futile as arguing with a young earth creationist.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-5 25. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#24 Slight global warming has occurred in the past hundred years. This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century, counter to the period when there was more co2. Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature. Why is that?
There are hundreds of mainstream scientists who disagree with anthropomorphic climate change and they sure aren't all from the US.
Picture of celestus8722 achievements

+2 26. celestus87 commented 8 years ago

#12 You are kinda using the wrong words... You are comparing burning fossil fuels to electricity... Why is that? Electricity is a derivative of fossil fuel burning just as much as it is like photo-voltaic electricity, wind/tidal-generated electricity, fusion electricity and plant/chlorophyll electricity. All of them are electricity.

There is no argument against electricity, electricity is power; energy moving from one point to another. The only argument that exists is where we should farm our electricity from.

The cleanest source is solar power because the areas that panels are placed at are typically arid and/or barren. Wind and tidal power is also clean but it requires terraforming thus it is invasive in some ecosystems. Fusion electricity is more cost-effective than fossil fuel electricity but not really any cleaner. There is also some research being done in unlocking the secrets of chlorophyll but it is in very early stages.

#24 It's hard to argue against anthropomorphic climate change when we haven't had a single supervolcano eruption or meteor impact since the industrial revolution started, isn't it.
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

+1 27. kirkelicious commented 8 years ago

#25 Most oft the people you list are affiliated with CATO, Heartland, Lavoisier... - organisations funded by the fossil fuel industry that have clear agendas. This alone does not dismiss their research (if they did any) but the conflict of interest is worth mentioning none the less. Less than half of these people are real climate scientists with much experience in the field, and the combined record of substantial publications on climate in peer reviewed scientific journals is not impressive, to say the least. I suppose those are the best you can come up with?
I will not reply with hundreds of names of climatologists, who agree on the scientific consensus. That would be silly...

Solar activity sure is a factor that influences earths climate. That does not mean CO2 concentration does't. In fact solar irradiation is declining since the sixties, whereas the climate is constantly getting warmer.

But then again i am a scientist but no expert on climate. So it would be better to just read the meta-studies published by real experts that passed review by other experts, than cherry picking facts that prove our points.
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

-1 28. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

I am truly glad, we have intelligent and informed people like you, kirkelicious, and others on snotr here to explain on a scientific basis what needs to be explained to the non-scientific users that make it a political issue, argue out of emotions, support ridiculous government conspiracy theories and list poor sources. It's something many of us know it is scientific fact, but could never explain it as well as you ...your comments and clarifications are really appreciated <3
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+1 29. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#26 ,I wasn't "comparing" them, I was just trying to portrait how it is better to use electric appliances in dally life rather than polluting ones, since we have the technology to do so. Good point though :)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-2 30. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#27 Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air? Cato gets 80% of its funding from individuals and only 5% from corporations,so how can you say they are funded by oil and gas companies. Can you back that up? They also take no funding from the government. Thank goodness for groups like them.Scientists of all persuasions are paid or funded by someone,and to think that only the ones promoting man-made climate change are truthful and independent is asinine.
Global warming theory is still just that , not a fact .
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

+2 31. kirkelicious commented 8 years ago

#30 oops you're right about CATO, my bad. Didn't bother to look it up and remembered wrongly. It is founded by Koch Industries, who also have a lot to lose if political measures against global warming come into action.

The problem with science from lobbies and think tanks is, that they generally do not do real own research. Their main job is to filter the existing science done by transnational organisations, put a spin on it and present it in a way that fits their objectives. What results do you expect from a group that declared its goals - free economy, less government,.. - in advance.

Real science on the other hand has no desired conclusions. Its goal is to examine the evidence and constantly update the theory (check #18 for the definition of a scientific theory) to make it best fit all available data. Scientists working on government grants are not in for the money. If they are good at what they do they could make much more elsewhere. They do it for the love of science and are willing to change their minds if new evidence conflicts with previous concepts they believed, because that's what scientific progress is about. Few of them would waste their time trying to confirm a theory they know doesn't hold water.

Your link simply is an opinion piece. A source in a scientific debate should look more like this:

As much as I enjoyed our little debate, i think it is exhausted by now.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-3 32. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#31 Thanks and I agree (not with you :D ) that it is time. Good luck wiping all that lipstick off your butt. >:)
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+1 33. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

No need to bother..I'm presently not wearing any.. >:)
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+2 34. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

Squirrel stew is ready guys :squirrel: :squirrel:
Picture of oleHashow30 achievements

0 35. oleHashow commented 8 years ago

it is impossible to talk to you since you always changing subject

i was here just to highlight your bullshit so others will see
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-5 36. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

And I just responded to you because you seem to like BS . But do YOU have anything to offer to the debate or are you just trolling.
Picture of oleHashow30 achievements

-1 37. oleHashow commented 8 years ago

i offered a lot when i said the grass wont grow behind solar panel

but you like to talk about global warming and other stuff that doesnt really have anything to do with this video
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+1 38. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#37, the scientists are currently developing transparent solar panels for public use :) they can be also used as windows.
No matter what oil-enthusiasts are saying, electricity is the future ;)
Picture of celestus8722 achievements

+1 39. celestus87 commented 8 years ago

#38 I know your heart is in the right place but your understanding isn't. As I explained earlier, electricity is a given. There is no argument against it. No one is against electricity. The battle is between clean/renewable electricity and fossil/fusion electricity.

Please read this wikipedia article carefully. It will help you present your arguments with more clarity. ;)
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+3 40. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

That's why I love snotr, because of in depth and intelligent conversations like this one and different viewpoints, so much contributed by some of the snotr users that truly have a lot of knowledge..I also noticed that with the Volvo engine Video..even when I don't know much about a topic I like reading all the comments and looking up stuff...there is always room for learning new things... :) <3
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-2 41. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#38 While solar or wind generated electricity is great for short distance cars and supplemental home power it will be a long time before it can replace the huge amount of power required to keep hospitals,schools and universities, and large commercial buildings lit and air conditioned. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel and it is in abundant supply.
The real shame of all the hype about co2 is the way it is killing the coal industry and coal-fired cogentrix plants that power many rural communities and provide jobs for thousands of people. Also about a billion people on this planet have no connection to the power grid and need coal to cook and heat with. In Africa , India ,Afghanistan , and many other developing countries, most of the people are cooking meals in their huts over dried animal dung because coal or wood is not always available and that is leading to indoor air pollution ,sickness and death. There will always be a need for fossil fuels in this world. :)
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

0 42. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#39 look closely in the comments and you'll see that there still is people against it.

#41 why do people always have to give the exceptions as examples ? you think the campfire your neighbor did is what pollutes and kills the planet ? it's the enormous number of cars, and factories and plants that pollute Earth. I mean seriously, nobody in the right mind would think that fire for reasonable appliances is the problem of our pollution. And there IS electric technology for cars for the long run. it has been demonstrated many times, but there are CERTAIN oil companies that don't allow this to happen ;) in fact, its not the smoke and pollution that kills this planet, humans do :) Humans have the same living pattern as a virus: they go in one place, multiply, consume the resources(kills), and moves to the next area/target when the previous one is depleted.

Anyway lets change the topic because I think we're going nowhere with this. What are you guys planning to do on holidays ? :)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-4 43. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#42 What exceptions? Powering hospitals and schools , or millions of people cooking with dung in their huts?
Did you even look at that link about India ?
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+3 44. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

*AHEM* *cough*
so, what are you guys up to for the holidays ? :)
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

+2 45. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

Scheduled to work Christmas and New Year's...what are some of the holiday plans snotr members have....everyone come on.... I heard Geekster is inviting us all to his house for squirrel stew... >:) <3 :squirrel:
Picture of Sizzlik64 achievements

+4 46. Sizzlik (admin) commented 8 years ago

Got to work too..but then big family dinner. But there is always room for a little stew or roasted squirrel with snotr sauce
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+2 47. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

Seems I'll be joining the club and be working too, but what the hell :D of course I'm gonna make time for some stew :D :squirrel:
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+1 48. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

Ok Ok I get it. Guess I'll grab my RWS pellet rifle and go squirrel hunting for Christmas. :) :squirrel:
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+1 49. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#48 Nope! you need to be eco-friendly because the bullets will release CO2 into the atmosphere >:) , grab a bow and hunt like a man :D
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 50. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#49 All RWS pellet rifles are break barrel/spring piston type , no CO2 used. Mine shoots pellets at over 1200 fps which makes it way more accurate than a compound bow and arrow that only hits around 350 fps. (i)
If you did use CO2 in the woods the nearest tree or bush would just suck it up anyway. >:)
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

0 51. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#50 yes but with a bow is more halal >:)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 52. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#51 Since we are being silly,how do you get the squirrel to face Mecca as you shoot him? >:)
Plus I always fry my squirrel in hog fat to make it crispy , so not so halal. :squirrel:
Picture of Geekster80 achievements

+1 53. Geekster (admin) commented 8 years ago

#52 you basterd >:)
Picture of ComentAtor48 achievements

+2 54. ComentAtor commented 8 years ago

i personally love burning fossil fuels :P esp on 4 wheels
Picture of bimble8 achievements

+1 55. bimble commented 8 years ago

Biggest problem is the affect they have on overflying birds