I hope you don't consider the relationship of a 4 year old to a parent a good metaphor for your relationship with your government.

Unless you're in North Korea, then of course that makes sense.

Not enough data for a reasonably intelligent prediction.

-Are these 1,000 who self-assess as "reasonably intelligent", or are these 1,000 who somehow actually are selected to be reasonably intelligent?

visions of urban gang members reduced to tagging pine trees...

90% of the response for handling global warming will look different depending on if the climate change we're observing turns out to be artificial or natural. I think the OP wasn't saying that we shouldn't plan, rather than we should confirm the cause before rushing into (possibly useless or worse) action.

while burning much more fuel. Higher peak power per liter of displacement isn't the same as efficiency. A jet turbine gives far more HP compared to a rotary at a fraction of the displacement as well, doesn't make it necessarily more efficient.

If you want maximum efficiency in converting chemical energy into kinetic energy, Sterling engines are the top of the heap (with terrible power:mass or power:volume ratios). If you want maximum power to weight you want a rocket engine.

Rotary (and piston) engines are buried somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

I never said it was "only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources".

You're right though, fossil fuels (for example) are an actual energy source when compared to typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime (and that's before the conversion losses). The typical solar panel you see on a rooftop is really more a coal burning panel.

Nothing against research into solar energy, just when you find people deploying with current technology onto their rooftops (or window panes) and announcing their "helping the environment" or that they have a "carbon neutral" energy source or that what they're doing makes economic sense is laughable.

As someone has pointed out with some simple estimated values, you'll generate about a penny worth of electricity every 5 days. Or about $11 worth after 15 years...

Assuming no subsidies anywhere along the production/sales/installation process making the solar panels feel artificially cheap. And not counting losses converting the electricity into 120v/Hz AC. Nor counting losses converting power to storage and back again to match energy demand that doesn't coincide with peak production. Or feeding it back into the grid where it takes at a minimum DC --> 120v 60Hz AC --> 240v 60Hz AC --> 120v 60Hz AC path with conversion losses at each step. Assuming your output from the panels at year 10 is the same as year 1.

Otherwise yes, a normal solar panel only takes 10-15 years to pay for itself.

...or just use the usual tactic, ratchet up the subsidies a little more to further hide the underlying inefficiencies.

They host (at least) 4,800 websites yet they don't have a working backup system in place? Amazing.

How DARE he be an anti fanboi!?! He's breaking the rules, isn't he! I'm going to do the right thing and instead be a smart sounding fanboi with you, CrackedButter!

Just a minor detail, that looks more like 256 "GIGA BYTES".

Yes, only in a form deployable by a first responder.