Global warming?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Coign

To answer this, see above. Out government should NOT be spending money on faulty science forcing me to buy products that they have investments in, and fining and imprisoning those who do not follow their laws. If you can declare "light bulbs" illegal, were does it stop? Let me repeat that, DECLARING PERFECTLY SAFE LIGHT BULBS ILLEGAL, that is a destruction of rights.

Hi Coign,

You've put up a lot of information today, I'm just catching up. On this point, I call bullshit.

I am not sure what you're so apoplectic about, the chain of thoughts between climate change and light bulbs or the function of government to make laws that include limits on people and things. You're mixing up a lot of stuff here, and I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.

I'll just take your conclusion for now, the destruction of our rights. I dispute this conclusion, and I dispute the evidence you use to reach it.

Here's the link *I* found when I researched this point:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isla...ral-law-bans-/

Once again, I think you and I won't be able to learn from each other until we can have an agreed upon set of definitions, especially regarding what constitutes "proof". Do you respect the source I've linked to here?

[Coign]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I believed that they were going to remove our current bulbs. I understand that I can continue to use my 5 extra bulbs in my house.

But they are banning the sale and manufacture of a legal bulb. Do we need a one-child law also because your offspring will pollute the earth? Sure they won't kill off your current children, but you can't have anymore. How is that different?

And if you laugh off the slippery slope argument, you are deluding yourself. Laws are being passed and we are losing freedoms. Right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, right to travel freely, right to be free of suspicion.

And here are 900+ peer reviewed papers that oppose AWG climate change proof.

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Coign

And if you laugh off the slippery slope argument, you are deluding yourself. Laws are being passed and we are losing freedoms. Right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, right to travel freely, right to be free of suspicion.

I made those same points 25 years ago. The libertarian crisis was at hand then, too. About 12 years into it I realized, with some amount of shame, that the slope wasn't actually sloping.

And now, with even more time and understanding, I am still surprised to find that things were actually getting better all that time, not worse. I just couldn't see it, because I was stuck seeing only those things I was looking at.

[classicman]

I'll jump in on that "source" BigV, My answer is yes and no.
They're all over the place with their "facts."

No the Feds are not outlawing incandescent bulbs. Well, not exactly.
What they did instead was set efficiency regulations that are realistically unachievable with an incandescent bulb. Net effect ... no more incandescent bulbs.

In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[8] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.

By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[31]

via wiki since it has a good basic description of the law.
Here is the actual act in a text format.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'll jump in on that "source" BigV, My answer is yes and no.
They're all over the place with their "facts."

No the Feds are not outlawing incandescent bulbs. Well, not exactly.
What they did instead was set efficiency regulations that are realistically unachievable with an incandescent bulb. Net effect ... no more incandescent bulbs.


via wiki since it has a good basic description of the law.
Here is the actual act in a text format.

Regarding the quality of this source:

What facts are all over the place? The headline is a quote from a news story that they fact check, and then they determine that it is basically a lie. Also, the article linked to also has a link to the actual text of the law. They're going to the source information, about as reliable as I can imagine in a scenario like this "will incandescent bulbs be banned?". They answer emphatically NO.

Would you clarify your position please?

[infinite monkey]

I ask you, Coign, what are your thoughts on the banning of DDT?

Or thalidomide?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Regarding the quality of this source:

What facts are all over the place?

On differing subjects, I have found their opinion to be erratic.

Staying on topic...

"will incandescent bulbs be banned?". They answer emphatically NO.

I disagree. By making the standards for an incandescent bulb unattainable, it basically has the same outcome as a ban. Within the letter of the law, no they did not ban them, but in effect that is precisely what they wanted to achieve. By making the requirements unachievable, they, in effect, banned them.
Spirit or letter of the law? Your choice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

By making the standards for an incandescent bulb unattainable, it basically has the same outcome as a ban. Within the letter of the law, no they did not ban them, but in effect that is precisely what they wanted to achieve.

Government was demanding innovation from an industry that refused to implement technology available 35 years ago. Because those new light bulbs are so technologically old, the pigtail lights will probably be obsoleted in only ten years.

Some industries refuse to innovate unless force to. Cited was the radial tire. Industry conspired to keep that 1948 technology out of America until 1975. Cited is a domestic auto industry that was even given $100million to innovate - hybrids. And then quashed the technology. Leaving foreigners to again be 10 to 20 years more advanced.

It is an unfortunate fact that banks still will not use smart cards. Must increase service charges to protect dwindling profits due to their multiple decade fear of innovation.

Some industries refuse to innovate if not forced to. And then go crying to government for protection.

[infinite monkey]

Wouldn't opinions on differing subjects...um, differ?

[classicman]

NOAA also said ...

Between rising sea levels and increasing ocean surface temperatures, global warming will add to that vulnerability. Even so, population growth and shoreline development are what make us most vulnerable to hurricanes.

and

If tornado reports are biased by better reporting and detection, how would we know if global warming has affected U.S tornado outbreaks?

If we can’t detect a change in tornadoes themselves, says Hoerling, we might be able to detect a long-term change in the weather conditions that contribute to tornadoes. Key among those factors are the instability of the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor in the part of the atmosphere known as the planetary boundary layer, and vertical wind shear.

and

In their preliminary report on the analysis, the NOAA CSI team writes, “A change in the mean climate properties that are believed to be particularly relevant to severe storms has thus not been detected for April, at least during the last 30 years.”

That preliminary assessment, however, isn’t the same as saying “Climate change has had no impact on tornado outbreaks.”

just to quote a few.

[Undertoad]

You're both wrong: the post wasn't asking whether warming is occurring, but whether increased tornado activity is or could ever be a result of it.

[classicman]

The second quote in post #769 came as close to addressing that -as per my search on the NOAA site.

[classicman]

Interesting that you cited my post after your emotional rant.

Interestingly enough, you were refuted with a post by xob then with this as the consensus of the global cooling in the 70's. here

Could the [cold] winters of the late 1970s be the signal that
we were returning to yet another ice age? According to many
outspoken climate scientists in the late 1970s, the answer was
absolutely yes—and we needed action now to cope with the
coming changes . . . However, some scientists were skeptical,
and they pointed to a future of global warming, not cooling,
resulting from a continued build up of greenhouse gases.
These scientists were in the minority at the time.

According to Horner (2007), the massive funding of
climate change research was prompted by “ ‘consensus’
panic over ‘global cooling’.” This was “three decades
ago—when the media were fanning frenzy about global
cooling” (Will 2008) or, as Will (2004) succinctly put it,
“the fashionable panic was about global cooling.” “So,
before we take global warming as a scientific truth, we
should note that the opposite theory was once scientific
verity” (Bray 1991).

“Just think how far we have come!” Henley said. “Back in
the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was
coming. They thought the world was getting colder. But once
the notion of global warming was raised, they immediately
recognized the advantages. Global warming creates a crisis,
a call to action. A crisis needs to be studied, it needs to be
funded . . .”

And I even followed with

Going against what so many others are claiming as factual and presenting an alternate causal relationship is commendable, if not heroic.
His quote;

carries more weight than many of the bandwagon jumpers who are riding the gravy train of the fearmongering of imminent global destruction and the end of the human race to line their coffers with BILLIONS of dollars.

Just one more question . . . what if HE is right?

Yes I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Someone has to ask the questions.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Interesting that you cited my post after your emotional rant.

Interestingly enough, you were refuted with a post by xob then with this as the consensus of the global cooling in the 70's. here

The so-called consensus of global cooling in the 70s was never a consensus in any where near the same terms, given that there was no comparable level of international research at the time.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of national scientific bodies of every developed nation in the world never signed on to a global cooling theory.

[classicman]

Did they even exist to near the same capacity 40 years ago?