House Votes to Block Funds for Light Bulb Standards

The New York Times reported…

“The House on Friday voted to withhold funding to enforce part of a 2007 law that increases efficiency standards for light bulbs.

The new standards, which would require most light bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and at least 60 percent more efficient by 2020, have become a symbol of what conservatives see as an unnecessary intrusion by the federal government into the market.

Although the regulations do not specify what types of bulbs are allowed, the standards would have the effect of eliminating the traditional 100-watt incandescent bulb by Jan. 1, 2012.

“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home,” Mr. Burgess said Friday on the House floor.

Democrats have countered that the efficiency standards will help the environment and save consumers money on their electric bills. The Department of Energy has said that consumers will save about $6 billion a year by 2015 under the new guidelines, and Steven Chu, the department’s head, told reporters last week that the new bulbs look like current bulbs, turn on instantly and can be used with dimmers, unlike some compact fluorescent bulbs."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/house-votes-to-block-funds-for-light-bulb-standards/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema3

While this legislation is insignificant compared to other issues we face today, there are some important lessons to take from it that can help define the opposing political thought between conservatives and liberals.

The Republican/Conservative position is one of individual freedom to choose what we purchase without government intervention or coercion. Our position is that manufacturers are capable of producing new technology and are very adept at selling it to the American public.

The Democrat/Liberals position is one of government enforcing its will, reasoning that they know what is best for us. They back their position with reports of how much money consumers will save. And, they tell us these light bulbs are better for our environment. Really? How about the mercury they contain
.
Is this really a government function? Is it governments business to decide what we purchase with our own money? Should government decide what product we prefer or how much we should spend for it?

If consumers recognize the cost advantage of the new bulbs are they not self-induced to purchase them? Why do they need government to force them to save money? Is government saying that consumers are too ill-informed, stupid, or just wasteful to recognize the advantage of saving money on common household items?

The larger issue, of course, is just when and where will government intervention, by force, determine what other products we must purchase by eliminating any other choices. Will we find ourselves restricted in our choice of cars, TVs, food, clothing, housing, and nearly every other consumer good due to government legislation?

The type of light bulbs we use is not a safety issue is it? It's not a national security issue is it? It is not even a tax or jobs issue. What then is it?

Posted by Royal Flush at July 15, 2011 4:31 PM
Comments
Comment #325793


It is only a matter of time before the government starts busting people for trafficking in illegal incandescent light bulbs and producing them in their yards.

Perhaps the states will pass medical incandescent light bulb laws.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #325795
The Republican/Conservative position is one of individual freedom to choose what we purchase without government intervention or coercion. Our position is that manufacturers are capable of producing new technology and are very adept at selling it to the American public.

No it isn’t. The Republican/conservative position is one of intervention and coercion. Their position is that manufacturers and some consumers can force others to live on a planet with a different atmospheric composition and consequently, a different climate. Some people will likely incur costs as a result of the different climate, but the manufacturers responsible won’t be held liable because the costs were externalized.

The Democrat/Liberals position is one of government enforcing its will, reasoning that they know what is best for us. They back their position with reports of how much money consumers will save. And, they tell us these light bulbs are better for our environment. Really? How about the mercury they contain

Wrong again. The Democratic/Liberal position is one of freedom as well as the right to live one’s own life without others interfering. If you are able to force changes of the atmosphere’s composition on me then I am not a free man.

The type of light bulbs we use is not a safety issue is it? It’s not a national security issue is it?
Uh, yes it is. The fuel we use to light these lightbulbs often comes from overseas with various national security implications. The combustion of the same fuel entails a whole bunch of implications to public safety, the economy and other areas. Posted by: Warped Reality at July 15, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #325798

Royal what is the difference between the new energy standard for light bulbs and the gas mileage standards for automobiles?

The government isn’t saying to the consumers “do not use incandescent light bulbs” it is saying to the manufacturer “make the light bulb use no more energy than this amount”.

I don’t consider it to be a loss of individual freedom as it is a corporation that has to meet the standard not an individual. While it may seem to intrude on the “marketplace” the marketplace in reality has no individual rights.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 15, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #325799

WR

What did you use to stretch that position? It sure was not rubber bands.

It comes to choice. But, that only applies to women wanting to allow their babies to be killed. Oh, I did not understand the liberal-leftist dictionary on that one. Then why does the government want to force me to use their option on light bulbs. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!! Oops, that was from the 60’s. Got a little slow on that one. And now we have progressed to the point of POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT!! We are just too stupid and ignorant and uninformed to make simple choices like light bulbs.

In the very near future a law will be passed that we cannot change our own light bulbs; it will be a law that a ULBC (Union of Light Bulb Changers) member must change it for me. And since a union member is changing it, the light bulb must be union made or a severe penalty will be assessed. Something like inspecting all the light bulbs in the house to assure they are up to code and union made. If there is a violation then electric will be turned off immediately until the light bulbs are brought up to code. Of course the approval must me done by the union light bulb changer getting the approval from his steward and the steward getting the approval from his local and the local getting the approval from the local’s national hdqtrs and the hdqtrs getting the approval from Czar Nickolas of the Department of Light Bulbs, within the Consumer Safety Commission within the Homeland Security Department. All of this done in writing.

We are not far from that scenario playing out in other areas. Just wait til they make me buy a toilet made in China. Well, I am behind the times. I can’t buy a toilet that was not made in China. In the last 60 days I replace two of then made by Crane in China. Went to get some AA Batteries today. Nothing but those made in China were available. Now China is building a city in Montana right where oil is plentiful and guess who will get the permits in 10 seconds or less to drill. New slogan “Drill Bama Drill”.

Right now the country is on a fast trip to hell in a hand basket and even the congress left the hand basket behind. What gives. Oh, Obama will pick it up on his way to catch up with the Congressional Caucus trip to hell.

Posted by: tom humes at July 15, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #325800

tom humes,

Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

The is certainly true. All those crocodile tears for fetuses and scorn for school lunches and Medicaid.

Posted by: Aldous at July 15, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #325803

So now the public is free to use energy less efficiently, build more power plants to support the inefficiency, and charge more for it. The new standards were estimated to save the average famiily 7% a year, or $85, in other words, one free month a year.

I don’t feel more free. I just got robbed.

“Light bulb manufacturers overwhelmingly support the federal rules, because they want one set of efficiency standards every state is accountable to rather than a hodgepodge of standards across the nation.

Kim Freeman, spokeswoman for GE Appliances and Lighting, said legislation needs to come at the national level in order to avoid increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/14/2313834/texas-lawmakers-try-to-strike.html

Who brought this legislation about? Ah yes. The Representative’s name is Barton, a Republican from Texas. You might remember him from the Gulf oil spill hearings. He is the guy who delivered a prepared opening statement APOLOGIZING to BP. Currently there are no lightbulb manufacturers in Texas, but the Texan delegation seems to think doing away with standards will attract manufacturers to TX.

So, we’re going to do away with energy policy and let the marketplace decide. Well, that’s worked out so well with oil, I don’t see how it can possibly go wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2011 7:57 PM
Comment #325807

Welcome to the tyranny of the left. Individual choice is just so old fashioned. The left just can’t wean itself from mama’s teat. Mama…what shall I wear, what shall I eat, what light bulb must I buy? What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Even though j2t2 asks a silly question, I will give him an adult answer. He asks…

“Royal what is the difference between the new energy standard for light bulbs and the gas mileage standards for automobiles.”

I can still purchase any car I wish, not so with light bulbs.

phx8 is so desperate for an argument that he actually uses a GE spokesperson to advocate for consumers. How silly. It has been years since GE gave a damn about America or its consumers.

Mental disorders seem to be contagious.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 15, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #325810

TH,

So you believe you have a right to change the composition of our atmosphere?

Then why does the government want to force me to use their option on light bulbs.

The government is not forcing any particular option of light bulb. Any light bulb that is efficient enough can be sold. What you are proposing is letting some people dictate to the rest what our atmosphere is going to be the future, and externalizing all the costs associated with that climate that results.

In the very near future a law will be passed…
How does a fictional tale about a nonexistent union and a nonexistent law relate to this discussion? Or Chinese toilets for that matter? Posted by: Warped Reality at July 15, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #325811

RF,
A consumer can buy any bulb they choose. It just has to meet minimum energy standards.

If GE opposes the deregulation, then who on earth would be in favor of it? No one wins with this legislation. No one.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #325812
what light bulb must I buy?


The government isn’t telling people what type of light bulb people should buy. You’ll still be able to choose between incandescents, CFCs, fluorescent tubes and whatever else the free market decides to provide.

On the other hand, we could repeal the light bulb standard (as well as CAFE and other regulations) and just implement a carbon tax (or cap & trade scheme) instead. We could even loosen up restrictions on drilling permits as well.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 15, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #325815

Conservatives are RIGHT!!!

I feel the same way about the seatbelt law and car insurance! How DARE the government tell us how to drive!

Posted by: Aldous at July 15, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #325816

warped

“So you believe you have a right to change the composition of our atmosphere?”

still buying into that nonsense are you? MMGW is nothing more than junk science. i for one have no intention of having my choices in life dictated by a bunch of eco nazis. and from the looks of it niether do my counterparts. good luck with that you will get no co operation out of me.

Posted by: dbs at July 15, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment #325818

phx8

“A consumer can buy any bulb they choose. It just has to meet minimum energy standards.”

and a person can buy any car they want so long as it’s (fill in the gov’t approved color). don’t really understand what freedom of choice is do you?

Posted by: dbs at July 15, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #325821
still buying into that nonsense are you? MMGW is nothing more than junk science.

Oh really? So what exactly is the junk?

Is it the fact that combustion of fossil fuels releases CO2 into our atmosphere?

Is it the fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose significantly after the industrial revolution?

Is it the fact that CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths and emits it at certain other wavelengths? This, thereby allowing most of incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface and warm it, but preventing significant portion of radiation emitted from the Earth from reaching outer space?

If incoming solar radiation remains constant and outgoing radiation decreases, what must happen to Earth’s temperature?

If anyone wants any of these aspects explained more thoroughly, all he/she has to do is ask. I have a little bit of a lull in my work, so I have the time and am willing to answer questions from skeptics as long as they aren’t too absurd.


and a person can buy any car they want so long as it’s (fill in the gov’t approved color).

I find it interesting that you brought this up. I thought it was Henry Ford who said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black. “

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 15, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #325822

warped

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=global+warming+hoax

Posted by: dbs at July 15, 2011 10:35 PM
Comment #325825

“We could even loosen up restrictions on drilling permits as well.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 15, 2011 08:38 PM

Thanks Warped, most on the left have been arguing that there have not been any restrictions on drilling.

Posted by: Mike at July 16, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #325826

The right wing propaganda mill certainly produces a lot of videos don’t they?

My favorite is The Great Global Warming Swindle. The dialogue you posted is very similar.

Let’s list the common errors the film makes:

CO2 concentrations are too small to impact the Earth’s climate. The relatively small quantity of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere (abt 390 ppm) actually pack quite a wallop when it comes to climate even at postindustrial levels (280 ppm). With a little bit of physics, mathematics and thermodynamics we can create a model for Earth’s temperature based solely on black body radiation. This model assumes that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium and that it absorbs and emits heat as a blackbody. The body accounts for Earth’s mean albedo, but not for the greenhouse effect. According to this model, the Earth’s blackbody temperature is 254.3 K. Compare this to the mean temperature of 288 K or the freezing point of water at 273 K. I think we have to thank God for global warming; without the greenhouse effect, our planet would be an ice cube! A similar model can be created for other bodies in the solar system. Objects with no atmosphere have mean surface temperatures nearly identical to their blackbody temperature. Objects with atmospheres containing GHGs, on the other hand, show substantial differences between their mean surface temperature and their blackbody temperature.

CO2 is not the most potent GHG on a per molecule basis. Compared with H2O, CH4, CFCs and other gases, CO2’s greenhouse effect is a bit on the weak side. However, CO2 concentrations are much higher than CH4, CFCs or even SF6, which is the substance with the greatest per molecule greenhouse effect as determined by the IPCC. CO2 is 390 ppm. Apart from gaseous H2O, the rest of those substances are found in concentrations in the order of ppb or ppt. Gaseous H20 is obviously, the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, but anthropogenic behavior has not directly changed its concentrations by much apart from the indirect impact rising temperatures have on evaporation and precipitation. On the other hand, CO2 concentrations have increased by a startling 40% since the preindustrial era.

Natural CO2 emissions dwarf anthropogenic emissions. Although natural emissions are much larger than human ones, those emissions are carefully balanced by natural carbon sinks to form what is known as the carbon cycle. For example, cellular respiration releases CO2, but it is balanced with photosynthesis, which absorbs a nearly equal quantity of CO2. Volcanic outgassing and forest fires produce CO2 emissions, but a nearly equal quantity of CO2 is dissolved into our oceans, where it is incorporated into carbonate minerals.

Over the past .65 million years CO2 has been a lagging indicator of climate change. For the last 650,000 years the Earth’s climate has been driven by the Milanković cycle, not carbon dioxide emissions. Milutin Milanković posited that the series of 100,000 year ice ages and 10,000 year interglacial periods correlated with changes in several parameters of Earth’s orbit around the sun, which would have slightly changed the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth. These changes in solar radiation alone would have only minute effects on Earth if it weren’t for several feedback loops. One of these loops is the change in Earth’s albedo due to rising and falling amounts of land and sea covered by ice and snow. Another one of these things is changes in CO2 concentration that induce greater or less global warming from the greenhouse effect. These changes in CO2 concentration are initiated by changes in ocean temperature and therefore CO2’s solubility in water (as per Henry’s law).

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 16, 2011 12:21 AM
Comment #325827

Check this one out; there is no limit to the depths of depravity these liberals won’t go:

“Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/171807-sheila-jackson-lee-suggests-congress-complicating-debt-ceiling-because-obama-is-black

This woman is a disgrace and yet calls herself a Congresswoman of the United States. What feelings do these statements by Jackson Lee stir up in the black constituents of her district? This is more hate mongering from the left.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 16, 2011 12:33 AM
Comment #325829

Conservativethinker,

Do you think Obama was born in Kenya?
Do you think Obama is a Muslim?

Why do you think 30% of Conservatives believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim?

Posted by: Aldous at July 16, 2011 1:33 AM
Comment #325837

Aldous, do you think you are an idiot?

What does obama being from Kenya or a Muslim have to do with the wacko black congresswoman accusing republicans of not voting for raising the debt ceiling or raising taxes, simply because obama is black? You make about as much sense as she does. I guess that’s a liberal socialist thng.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 16, 2011 9:02 AM
Comment #325845

Obama spoke of his Muslim faith.
Obama spoke of his Kenyan homeland.
Was he lying?
I don’t know because he lies so much, most of the time I don’t know if he is lying or just acting stupid.

Posted by: tom humes at July 16, 2011 11:11 AM
Comment #325852


When it comes to their freedom and their right to choose, conservatives are getting shoved around. From private ownership of intercontinental ballistic missiles, trans fats, abortion, to gay marriage, conservatives are being denied their right to choose.

Posted by: jlw at July 16, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #325857

Sorry that the philosophical argument I presented sailed right over your intellectual capacity jlw.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #325864

Republicans always want to play like people are the victims, but the reality is, people are both on their way to embracing alternative technologies, and those technologies are already on their way to being low enough in cost that the transition can be made.

Republicans talk about freedoms, but what is this really about? In the end, ineffecient lighting creates an expense, and that expense falls to the consumer.

Even before we consider global warming issues, we should face the fact that the energy consumers consume isn’t free, and the price of that energy is an opportunity lost for that consumer to buy other things.

Now really, we’re not even talking a ban here, we’re talking efficiency standards. Far from being the end of such bulbs, it could be the spur to innovation.

And don’t tell me it isn’t possible.

What’s next for Republicans? Subsidies to protect incandescent bulb makers?

Why is that the Republicans are so quick to band together to defend the bad habits of our culture, and to portray anybody who opposes them as being for this kind of stale, sterile, wimpy faux-utopia? Sorry, there isn’t much nobility to defending the technology of the 19th century. American should advance, if nothing else, to spend its money on something else than electricity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #325865

Sephen,

You are good at telling me how to spend my money, but the last time I looked, you haven’t added a dime to my pocket.

Posted by: tdobson at July 16, 2011 3:31 PM
Comment #325871

stephen


“Even before we consider global warming issues, we should face the fact that the energy consumers consume isn’t free, and the price of that energy is an opportunity lost for that consumer to buy other things.”


that’s exactly why we should allow the market to provide it at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. that includes coal, hydro, and natural gas. that is also why legislating the mandatory use of technologies that are not ready to compete with these other sources on a one to one basis should be scrapped.


“Now really, we’re not even talking a ban here, we’re talking efficiency standards. Far from being the end of such bulbs, it could be the spur to innovation.”


inovations are seldom spurred by gov’t mandates. on the contrary they are spurred by potential profit to be made by creating a superior product which can compete with current technologies, and provide a more economical option.

Posted by: dbs at July 16, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #325872
that’s exactly why we should allow the market to provide it at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. that includes coal, hydro, and natural gas. that is also why legislating the mandatory use of technologies that are not ready to compete with these other sources on a one to one basis should be scrapped.

In that case, we should get rid of the light bulb regulations and implement a carbon tax instead.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 16, 2011 4:50 PM
Comment #325874

warped


“In that case, we should get rid of the light bulb regulations and implement a carbon tax instead.”


trying to force inovations through punitive regulations which pick winners and losers will not work either. cleaner technologies will phase out others when they can compete economicaly on there own merits, and because of that there is potential for financial gain in the marketing of them as a more cost effective alternative.

Posted by: dbs at July 16, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #325888

Seems like this is just a rehash of the low-flow toilet debate of the 1990’s.

We should all keep in mind that resources are limitless and developing countries will never compete in a global market for the same commodities that we rely on now.

Posted by: carl at July 16, 2011 7:21 PM
Comment #325890

carl writes…(tongue in cheek)…”We should all keep in mind that resources are limitless…” Yup, just like taxpayer money and left wing spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #325891
trying to force inovations through punitive regulations which pick winners and losers will not work either.

Are you referring to the current policy whereby we subsidize fossil fuels by letting them externalize their costs? A carbon tax doesn’t pick winners or losers. It only makes everyone take responsibility for their actions.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 16, 2011 7:45 PM
Comment #325892


Clean renewable energy sources will be much closer to competing on their own merits when they get the same tax incentives that carbon fuels get.

And, like the right wings insistence in maintaining subsidies for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.

Posted by: jlw at July 16, 2011 7:56 PM
Comment #325894


Punitive action regulations have indeed forced much innovation. A significant amount of technologies, which have helped many companies reduce the amount of pollutants they were emitting, came about in part because of punitive action regulation. Few would argue that our food supply has not been enhances by such regulations. There are many adults and children who are alive or uninjured because of manufactures adherence to regulations with teeth.

Of course, there are business who would like to relocate to a place where punitive action regulations do not exist, and consumers are subjected to caveat emptor rather than enjoying the improvements to life and health as a result of such regulations.

Warped, a carbon tax does not fit some conservative models of personal responsibility.

Techno-Medieval may best describe the conservative ideal for America.

Posted by: jlw at July 16, 2011 8:50 PM
Comment #325908

Good grief; we can’t even talk about light bulbs without liberals trying to convince us of Global Warming. There are a handfull of liberals on WB who are still trying to defend the lie of GW; while the rest of America has moved on.

This is a 2009 Gallup poll, 41% beleive it is exaggerated:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

This is a 2010 Gallup poll, 48% think it is exaggerated:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

This is a 2011 Gallup poll showin a 10 year drop in concern about GW:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146810/Water-Issues-Worry-Americans-Global-Warming-Least.aspx

Now the question is; are these Americans being ignorantly tricked by republicans or are they just figuring things out for themselves?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 16, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #325912

That fallacy again?

As I said before, the Right Wing propaganda mill produces a lot of videos, don’t they?

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 16, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #325914

From your link:

“Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true.

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.

Nine out of ten of my fellow congressmen favor the bill, therefore it is a good idea.”

When the country and scientists are split evenly on the GW debate, what makes your side correct?

Perhaps the fallacy is your’s?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 16, 2011 11:02 PM
Comment #325916
scientists are split evenly

That Oregon petition is a hoax.

what makes your side correct?

Maybe it’s the facts and the evidence, all supported by adherence to the scientific method and evidenced by the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed literature that has been written that endorses the view that anthropocentric emissions are the principal cause of recent warming. Articles pinning the recent warming on natural factors are absent from the literature because the data do not support that hypothesis.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 16, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #325920

warped

“Are you referring to the current policy whereby we subsidize fossil fuels by letting them externalize their costs?”


we subsidize a lot of things. corn ethanol, green technologies, you name it. i’m ok with doing away with subsidies so long as we do away with all of them. let the market pick the winners and losers.


“A carbon tax doesn’t pick winners or losers. It only makes everyone take responsibility for their actions.”

actually it does. it subsizes alternative energy by making it artificially more expensive to use hydrocarbon based energy sources. it also punishes the cosumer who ultimately gets to foot the bill in the form of artificially higher energy prices. in the name of…..wait for it……the great MMGW hoax.


Posted by: dbs at July 17, 2011 11:16 AM
Comment #325922
i’m ok with doing away with subsidies so long as we do away with all of them. let the market pick the winners and losers.

Then you are in favor of a carbon tax?

it artificially more expensive to use hydrocarbon based energy sources.

Why is internalizing the costs of fossil fuels “artificial”? Our current system artificially lowers the costs of fossil fuels by allowing people in those industries to externalize the costs.

the great MMGW hoax

Which of my statements from comment #325821 or comment #325826 do you dispute? Please do ask questions; I’ll be happy to explain anything you want in more detail.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 17, 2011 11:35 AM
Comment #325924

warped

“Then you are in favor of a carbon tax?”


where did i say that?


“Why is internalizing the costs of fossil fuels “artificial”? Our current system artificially lowers the costs of fossil fuels by allowing people in those industries to externalize the costs.”


pushing a green agenda by using cap and trade artificially skews the energy market. in order for me to accept your premise of ” externalizing the cost ” i would have to consider co2 as part of the cost, and i don’t.

Posted by: dbs at July 17, 2011 11:51 AM
Comment #325926

Warped Reality,
What you do not realize, WR, is that all of the scientists in the world are engaged in a socialist conspiracy to foist the hoax of Global Warming upon Americans. This is noteworthy, since up until current times, scientists seemed so uninterested in politics. Scientists are also doing it for the grant money. Except for the ones who do not get grant money. The ones not in it for the grant money are probably committed Marxists. All of the governments in the world (except, strangely enough, for Saudi Arabia) are also in on the plot to bring down America, which is proven by the scientists and politicians the governments of the world choose to send to the IPCC. This is also noteworthy, because it includes scientists from countries which are enemies of America as well as allies, with economic systems running the gamut from socialism to capitalism.

What’s the problem, WR? Haven’t you read the e-mails? There is no evidence of Global Warming. Except for the evidence that there is Global Warming, which is actually just showing a natural cycle of warming, and that means it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Nothing.

Besides, Carbon Dioxide is completely harmless, and a little warming would actually be good for humanity and the plants of the world! Not that it’s happening, mind you. I’m just saying.

Also, there were big snow storms on the East Coast this past winter, clear evidence that Global Warming is a hoax.

Furthermore, a scientist on the IPCC posted a paragraph of erroneous and dishonestly obtained information in the report, therefore, the entire 786 page report must be a hoax. Every word of it. The fact that every government and 98% of all scientists approved of the final version proves it is a conspiracy. Even Bush got in on the conspiracy at the end.

Thank goodness we have clear thinking politicians like Inhofe and Palin. They understand “truthiness” and they go with their gut. When are you going to wake up from your Marxist fantasy, WR? A conspiracy is afoot!

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2011 12:35 PM
Comment #325927
i would have to consider co2 as part of the cost, and i don’t

Well there’s your problem. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALA isn’t going to help. The fact of the matter is that greenhouse gases such as CO2 impose significant costs on other individuals and the society at large. As I said earlier, you don’t have a right to change the atmosphere and stick me with the bill for the repercussions.

You believe climate change is hoax because that is what the conservative media says, and also because it would otherwise seriously undermine your ideology of worshiping the corporate aristocracy. Again, I ask what dispute do you have with my earlier comments (comment #325821 or comment #325826)?

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 17, 2011 12:36 PM
Comment #325929

phx8,

I guess I must be part of the conspiracy then. Joseph Fourier, Svante Arrhenius and John Tyndall must’ve been a part of it too. I guess they were all Marxists; even Joseph Fourier who died before Karl Marx reached puberty.

Maybe we should rewrite the textbooks and get rid of Arrhenius’ law, Fourier analysis and the Tyndall effect. Especially the last one; it conflicts with faulty literal interpretations of Genesis.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 17, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #325932

WR,
Obviously you are unaware that Newsweek published an article on Global Cooling in 1975. So which is it, WR? Warming or Cooling? Hah! Got you there! And yeah, it’s possible scientists have been theorizing about Global Warming for over a century, sure, but Marxism was around then, too. Got you there. Besides, Fourier and Arrhenius and Tyndall were probably in it for the grant money.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment #325933

Article - The New Republic - Fossil fuel subsidies.

2002 to 2008, fossil fuel subsidies = $72.5 billion, nearly ten billion per year.

Tax credit for overseas production = $15.3 billion. Not only are taxpayers paying for a war that the Bush Administration said Iraqi oil was going to pay, they are also subsidizing Exxon and BP for producing there.

Tax credit for non-conventional fuels = $14.1 billion. What is that, NASCAR fuel? Commercial jet fuel?

The Obama Administration wants to eliminate $4 billion of the $10 billion per year. Republicans scream, tax increase, no way.

2002 to 2008, subsidies for renewable energy = $29 billion with $16.8 billion of that for corn ethanol. Looks like Obama has been keeping company with the Republican Party when it comes to corn ethanol subsidies for Iowa farmers and ADM.

Other countries that support fossil fuels with high subsidies include China, Russia, and India. Several countries, such as Venezuela, subsidize prices heavily at the pump. What was it, $0.12 a gallon in Venezuela?

Germany accounts for 25% of the worlds subsidies for renewable energy.

Posted by: jlw at July 17, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #325934

WR opines:

“You believe climate change is hoax because that is what the conservative media says, and also because it would otherwise seriously undermine your ideology of worshiping the corporate aristocracy.”

No, it has nothing to do with conservative media; I believe GW is a hoax because 141 scientists from all over the world sent this letter to the UN in 2007 and in 2009, asking for evidence, with no response:

“UPDATE (March 24, 2011):
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has yet to acknowledge receipt of either the 2007 Bali open letter, or the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge (a postal trace (see here) was done on the latter after it was sent a second time and it was confirmed that Secretary General Moon did indeed receive the open letter).


ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris announced the Copenhagen Climate Challenge in a special two-day counter-conference held in Copenhagen a few kilometers from the main UNFCCC site. The following video shows his presentation of the Challenge: http://vimeo.com/8647229

From the desk of Tom Harris, Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Canada”

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Or perhaps here:

http://vimeo.com/8647229

Or perhaps you can pick your poison from here:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

So again Warped I ask you, what elitist arrogance makes you think your side is right? As to the idiotic statements of phx8; perhaps the billions of dollars given by governments worldwide for the research of GW have a part in their decisions to push false science? Remember the old saying, “follow the money”, and you will find it normally leads to corruption.

Example: the debt ceiling is not about concern for a rising debt, by the left; it is about the acquisition of money for an agenda. Follow the money…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment #325936

“Not only are taxpayers paying for a war that the Bush Administration said Iraqi oil was going to pay, they are also subsidizing Exxon and BP for producing there.”

jlw

Didn’t the left accuse Bush of going into Iraq for the purpose of stealing their oil? Now you are saying Bush should have taken Iraqi oil? Which is it?

Posted by: Phil at July 17, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #325937

Conservativethinker: “So again Warped I ask you, what elitist arrogance makes you think your side is right?”

Have any scientific bodies in the world recently rejected the truth of human caused climate change? And where do we stop when it comes to rejecting the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists? Next you’ll be telling us evolution is a fraud, and the sun rotates around the Earth.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #325939

“Have any scientific bodies in the world recently rejected the truth of human caused climate change? And where do we stop when it comes to rejecting the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists? Next you’ll be telling us evolution is a fraud, and the sun rotates around the Earth.”

Adam Duck, I listed my links above and if you spent your time reading or watching the video, instead of trying to make condescending remarks, you would know where I stand. What I believe about evolution or the sun’s rotation has absolutely nothing to do with my conversation with WR. You are supposed to be a writer on WB, but if you can only make rude and condescending remarks, perhaps you would do best to stay in the blue column and pat SD on the back for his much talk and little content.


If we used your logic of a “vast majority of climate scientist” as the norm; then the 20% of liberals in the US would be vastly outnumbered by conservativethinkers. So we are to listen to a vast number of scientist, but we are not to listen to a vast number of American voters. This is called liberal socialist logic.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 2:44 PM
Comment #325940

adam

“Next you’ll be telling us evolution is a fraud”

evolution is a theory. it is a theory because no one knows, or can prove how life started on this planet.

Posted by: dbs at July 17, 2011 3:02 PM
Comment #325941

Conservativethinker: “You are supposed to be a writer on WB, but if you can only make rude and condescending remarks, perhaps you would do best to stay in the blue column and pat SD on the back for his much talk and little content.”

If asking a question and pointing out an absurdity in your reasoning comes off as rude or condescending then perhaps it’s because you feel in your heart that your view on climate change is worthy of such treatment. There’s no need to play the victim.

Conservativethinker: “So we are to listen to a vast number of scientist, but we are not to listen to a vast number of American voters. This is called liberal socialist logic.”

Frankly I wasn’t aware that our governmental policy was built on the opinion of voters or of scientists so I’m having a hard time understanding your point.

Dbs: “…evolution is a theory.”

Theory as in a set of beliefs that explains or at least does not contradict every single piece of evidence we know about life on the planet and the universe. Don’t mistake this theory for a hunch or a best guess.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 3:58 PM
Comment #325942

WR,
The fact that every major credible scientific institution in the world accepts Global Warming is PROOF of a conspiracy. Hurrah for those brave 141 scientists asking for proof, yet receiving no response; that CLEARLY proves it is a hoax. The IPCC report does not count. The hundreds of peer reviewed articles do not count, either, because… wait for it… they are all in on the hoax! Several of those 141 dissenting scientists are climatologists, so they would know, and a few of them don’t take money from Exxon, so don’t go there! Someday there will be peer reviewed articles to support them, and then you’ll see! It isn’t easy bucking thousands of climatologist peers, you know, when they are all working together in a plot, a conspiracy, and perpetrating a cruel hoax! They’re all in it together. Typical socialists. Just follow the money. No, not the Exxon money or oil industry or Harris the lobbyist. Not that money. Forget I said that. Governments are giving billions to scientists- socialists, communists, capitalists, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, French, Brits, Australians, they are all in it together! Every country in the world is against us!

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #325943
ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris announced the Copenhagen Climate Challenge in a special two-day counter-conference held in Copenhagen a few kilometers from the main UNFCCC site. The following video shows his presentation of the Challenge: http://vimeo.com/8647229

From the desk of Tom Harris, Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Canada”

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Or perhaps here:

”>http://vimeo.com/8647229

That group is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which is well known Right Wing propaganda mill. Tom Harris has zero background in climatology, he is a mechanical engineer with no publications on any relevant topic. Nonetheless, it is important to ask questions; healthy skepticism is essential to the scientific method. However, most of the questions asked are already well answered or the answers are not relevant. The important unanswered questions regard the influence clouds and aerosols have on our climate.

Or perhaps you can pick your poison from here:

“http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

More of the same. Although the Henrik Svensmark video looked promising it flopped when none of the graphs showing the “correlation” went beyond 1990. Here is a discussion of more errors. Apart from that, I see attacks on political supporters of Anthropogenic climate change, but that does nothing to change the science. There’s also some misinformation about Antarctic Sea Ice, which recently grew in size as predicted by global warming models

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 17, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #325944

Adam Duck,

My question, “So again Warped I ask you, what elitist arrogance makes you think your side is right?”

Duck’s answer, “Next you’ll be telling us evolution is a fraud, and the sun rotates around the Earth.”

My new question, “What elitist arrogance makes the left think their side is correct about GW?”

Awaiting a logical answer…

Point two:

My statement, “So we are to listen to a vast number of scientists, but we are not to listen to a vast number of American voters. This is called liberal socialist logic.”

Duck’s answer, “Frankly I wasn’t aware that our governmental policy was built on the opinion of voters or of scientists so I’m having a hard time understanding your point.”

My answer; Then the only thing I can say is that the Duck has been living under a rock. There are very few politicians who are not affected by Polls. Therefore Polls are the motivating force behind “governmental policy”. If this is not true, then why did obama, when talking to Republican leaders, threaten to take his case to the American people. If government policy is not built upon the opinion of voters, then why take your case to the people. The truth is that all politicians listen to polls and when obama figures out that the voters really want to cut spending and taxes, he will be more than happy to throw the rest of the socialists under the bus. But, I’m sure you are still having a hard time understanding my point. This is called burying your head in the sand…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #325945

tdobson-
This isn’t about you. Why do conservatives identify so much of themselves in the choices that companies are making?

You, the consumer, would gain from bulbs that provide more light per watt. You already gain from appliances that do the same. Even if you think global warming is BS, what you’re fighting for here is the right to choose a way to light your house which does a better job of heating your house than lighting it.

dbs-
The ridiculous thing about that suggestion is that your comrades on the right deregulated the energy industry. Because of that, they’re able to drive up the prices much higher than they were before.

Why do we always assume that capitalism unbound by regulation makes things cheaper, especially on goods people can’t do without, or in markets where there’s little to no competition?

The deregulated grids aren’t even more efficient, because in the effort to keep prices high (which you can do when the government doesn’t outlaw market manipulation), they fail to keep the current going through high voltage lines at their most efficient level.

See, what you fail to realize is that one man’s inefficiency is another man’s profit. Unregulated energy traders from Enron made billions manipulating the California energy market. People thought that it was all a power shortage. Right Wingers chose that time to attack the state for its liberal environmental requirements, saying that was responsible for the undependable power.

But it wasn’t. It was a bunch of twits back in Houston screwing around with prices, turning on and shutting off generators, bidding up prices artificially.

This is the kind of energy policy your people produce, one that isn’t dependent on real supply and real demand, but those qualities as filtered through layers upon layers of manipulation.

Of course, Republicans always take the opportunity to lament the lack of energy production, of one kind or another. King of works well: make sure demand remains sky high, even as you artificially lower supply.

If this sounds like a con game, well it is. I think it’s naive to believe that people in business necessarily have to do right by their consumers and customers to win. People just simply got to have no alternative.

The energy companies have a profit motive to get people to buy more energy. United States policy should not be set up to help them. It should be set up independently of what private businesses want towards the public good.

By the way, tell me something: are you opposed to incandescent lights getting more efficient? Is that a bad thing?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2011 4:50 PM
Comment #325946

Let me ask you Warped, what do you believe the end results of GW will be if left unchecked? Are we talking rivers drying up, the sun scorching the earth, the large scale loss of plant and animal life, fresh water becoming undrinkable, life in the sea ending, skin cancer becoming rampant, and perhaps the increase of intensity of storms and perhaps earthquakes?

I am not agreeing with your theory, I’m just curios.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #325947

SD

“If this sounds like a con game, well it is.”

That is what I think when I read your writings. Have the time you are guessing about the real facts. That means, at best, you are half right.

Posted by: mack the knife at July 17, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #325949

SD said, “Even if you think global warming is BS, what you’re fighting for here is the right to choose a way to light your house which does a better job of heating your house than lighting it.”

It’s called freedom SD; the freedom to choose and buy what we want. I know this is impossible for a liberal socialist, who has spent his life promoting the sucking on tit of the taxpayer, to really understand. We want government out of our lives, and our wallets. Now do you understand?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #325950

tdobson-
This isn’t about you.

Of course it’s about me. Stephen. Me, and every other American who pays taxes.

Liberals are real quick to add a program here and there whenever they think it will further their agenda. In this case the “green” agenda. If you want to go green, then by all means do it. I don’t want to. I like the light that my 100 watt bulb puts out and I’m willing to pay for the energy to use it. If you make a light source that I like better at a reasonable price, I’ll buy my light from you. Until then, STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS.

Posted by: tdobson at July 17, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #325952
Are we talking rivers drying up, the sun scorching the earth, the large scale loss of plant and animal life, fresh water becoming undrinkable, life in the sea ending, skin cancer becoming rampant, and perhaps the increase of intensity of storms and perhaps earthquakes?

None of those things are predicted on any large scale by global warming (except for the increased intensity of Hurricanes, but not their increased frequency). Unchecked, an anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse will significantly alter precipitation patterns; some areas will receive more rain/snow and others less. Globally, agriculture will need serious changes in order to adjust to the different climate. We’ll have to grow less food in the low latitudes and more food at higher latitudes, which means building an entire new infrastructure to handle all of that as well as large population transfers to make it all work. I don’t know how individual countries will cope with these challenges especially considering the governments that rule in many overseas places.

The Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer, which is a good thing for the economy. It’d allow for cheaper transoceanic trade by allowing transoceanic ships to use the Northwest Passage rather than the Panama Canal. However, there is also a significant evidence that Ice Sheets in Greenland & Antarctica (as well as various alpine glaciers) are at risk of melting. Introducing that much water into the oceans will raise sea levels a bit, which will pin economic hardship on coastal communities worldwide.

Apart from global warming, the increased CO2 content in the atmosphere would also lower ocean pH as CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This would alter the calcium compensation depth, which dictates where organisms can safely build calcium carbonate shells. Ocean acidification would do quite a bit of damage to the shellfish industry.

Overall, climate change would decrease global GDP by 20%. This is according to the report from Nicholas Stern. Frankly, I don’t understand why conservatives want to damage our economy so much just to fulfill their desire to worship the corporate aristocracy.

There are also a couple of extremely unlikely, yet extremely terrifying scenarios such as melting permafrost and releasing tons of CH4 into the atmosphere and creating a runaway greenhouse effect like that which caused the Permian extinction event (the largest known extinction event). Or maybe the collapse of the polar ice sheets dumps so much fresh water into the ocean that it shuts down thermohaline circulation. However, the chances of either of these happening is pretty remote this century, but if we continue this trend of unbridled combustion of fossil fuels for a few centuries, then the chances of these events occurring will increase significantly.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 17, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #325953

conservativethinker-
Call him by his full name. You have no business asking him for respect while you belittle him at the same time.

What I believe about evolution or the sun’s rotation has absolutely nothing to do with my conversation with WR.

It’s a question of what makes something believeable. The question is, do we discount major scientific theories on financial and religious grounds?

If we used your logic of a “vast majority of climate scientist” as the norm; then the 20% of liberals in the US would be vastly outnumbered by conservativethinkers. So we are to listen to a vast number of scientist, but we are not to listen to a vast number of American voters. This is called liberal socialist logic.

And conservatives, especially Republicans are greatly outnumbered by moderates and liberals put together.

See, I can play games with fallacies of popular opinion, too!

To say that there is consensus is to say that the theory is very difficult to invalidate by observation. It’s also to say that there isn’t a strong counter theory. The game isn’t that if the theory isn’t 100% certain, you get to make up whatever explanation you want to. No, your alternative has to be well proven, too, otherwise it’s not an alternative, it’s a pretext for your belief with out equal validity in scientific terms.

You want people to take your views for granted on things, simply for the sake of what you claim is a numerical advantage, but the power of your argument is all in the interpretation of poll numbers of self-identification.

If you look closer, you’ll find that Democrats are not as purely liberal as Republicans are purely conservative. A large chunk of the party is either moderate, or conservative in its self-description.

The semantics of all this pose a problem for you: would you regard the moderates and the conservatives who self-identify as that, but also Democrats, as true conservatives, or really moderates? Or would you regard them as little better than liberals?

Gets a little funkier, doesn’t it? Hell, given what your people say about moderates in your party, who take up about a quarter of your party, what can we really say about self-declared Republicans?

But of course, if you’re talking about things in terms of issues, then the nice, clean self-identification numbers are worthless as predictors of response.

Me? I think people are complex, and that’s why political shifts can be so bewilderingly swift and so frustratingly slow. In one case, you might face unexpected resistance, while at other times, a change might just happen, with little to prevent it. You draw these nice neat little borders, I draw fractal ones.

On the subject of the theory of global warming?

When a scientist says theory, they’re not spitballing. They call things theories, like Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and other things which have been repeatedly verified by experimental and/or observational results. Now, a theory can be superseded, in fact will often be rethought gradually by small adjustments. That’s what most science does. But whatever replaces them has to answer the same questions and then then some.

As of yet, all the folks on the right can claim is that they’re victims of some socialistic conspiracy on this. They can’t or won’t challenge this theory on an equal footing, though. They’ll say with certainty that the Earth is either not warming (a very quickly debunkable claim) or that the warming is natural (though they’ve yet to offer their own models to confirm this interpretation, while supporters of Global Warming Theory have demonstrated that natural processes alone are not capable of explaining the difference in climate results.

This is where those on the right attack them as conspirators, because otherwise you have to take them at their word, which would just not do.

They’ll also say that they haven’t had a chance to prove themselves right, or that the politics has pushed out any and all of the dissenting voices.

There seems to be a lot of different, often conflicting reasons for the refusal to acknowledge the theory’s validity, and the warning it carries.

But if it was all wrong, you wouldn’t need all that. Like all bad liars, the climate deniers proliferate their arguments to cover all imaginable bases. But if global warming or the human causation of it weren’t true, you could establish that truth by the scientific evidence alone.

No need for appeals to an economic conspiracy theory. No need for politicizing academia for the umpteenth time. No need to appeal to unproven hypothesis and discounted explanations.

You’re pursuing every avenue of attack aside from the truth. You’re not offering a countertheory because you can’t. The evidence supports global warming caused by humans. It doesn’t support warming happening just on its own. It doesn’t support the notion that nothing is happening.

This is just politics, politics backed by the people with the most to lose from policies requiring greater efficiency and moving the nation off of fossil fuels.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment #325956

Warped Reality-
I agree the thermohaline circulation shutdown is unlikely, at least the way it’s shown in the movies. Put simply, the idea is based on something that happened near the end of the Younger Dryas period, where a huge amount of freshwater got dumped into the oceans, disrupting the flow and causing another ice age.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that we had the Laurentian Ice Sheet that covered most of Canada as a source for that. We have no such system in place that would inflict such a massive, sudden flow of water into the system.

mack the knife-
You can talk about how I’m wrong, but do you have any plans to actually prove me so? I find it so annoying when folks question credibility in this manner. It’s lazy argumentation. Tell me: where am I wrong?

Conservativethinker-

It’s called freedom SD; the freedom to choose and buy what we want.

Ah, yes. So, are you okay with terrorists being able to buy C4? Perverts being able to buy child pornography? Junkies being able to buy drugs? Gays and Lesbians their marriage licenses?

Now, you might be a real libertarian, but that could put you in the minority in your own party. Truth is, though, I think there is some point at which I could get you to balk on this bold proclamation of yours. The truth is, we all have our opinions on what kind of commerce should not go on, for the Public’s sake. Companies should not be able to sell products with dangerous faults in them, or which don’t perform as promised.

I believe that government should set standards for efficiency, and that private enterprise should do most of the heavy lifting of figuring out how to adapt to that. Tell them the light bulb has to produce this much light per watt. Then let them figure out how to do it best.

I know this is impossible for a liberal socialist, who has spent his life promoting the sucking on tit of the taxpayer, to really understand.

I wonder how many taxpayer tits you sucked off of, and just aren’t willing or mindful enough to admit it. Ask Michele Bachmann about her $250,000 in farm subsidies.

It’s not big government for many Republicans when it puts money in their pockets.

Me, I’m comfortable with a system with a social safety net. I’m also comfortable with fiscal discipline, too, when such measures won’t fail due to a weak economy.

You know, it’s odd, but Republican districts and Republican-run states are some of the first in line for Federal funds. I mean, just look at Palin and her campaigning for earmarks.

If we look at things based on the evidence, I would say that perhaps what the Republicans exploit is the angst of being on public support, rather than the pride of not being on it.

Me? I’d just as soon we find ways to economically redevelop places, to kickstart private business into employing people gainfully.

Ah, but any comfortability with government intervention or patronage gets labelled by you as socialism. Well, ****, if you want to do that, you have every right to screw up the argument as you please. Me, I think thinking in rigid schools of thoughts is what gets you in trouble. Me I’m open to many things, many solutions, both private and public, so long as they work.

tdobson-
You like your 100 watt lightbulb. Hmm. Did you read that article I linked that pointed out that bulb makers will be making models that put out the same amount of light for lower power? Will you reject that? Do you want to go back to lime lights? Arc lamps? carbon filaments?

It’s not just your business, and I don’t see why the whole country has to stick with inefficient lightbulbs, simply so you can get the same old 100W lightbulb (which may not long remain the same old 100W lightbulb!)

It is my business how efficient the bulbs I too will be shopping for are. Why you think that the world revolves around your interests alone on the topic is beyond me.

And yes, I already have gone green. I’m writing this with a compact flourscent, a 15 watt model. As a consumer, I’m limited to what I can find in a store, so if the selection of appliances and bulbs and whatever aren’t that efficient, well when I buy what I need, I’ll be force to be less efficient than I could be for the same time of usage.

America needs to get more energy efficient, because the price shocks on energy aren’t doing anybody any favors. Energy, as defined in both economics and physics, is the ability to do work. By mandating greater efficiencies, the government can help the country do more work on less energy.

This isn’t just about the environment, this is also about commerce. The better our overall energy efficiency, the more freedom we have to chart our economic course without having to worry so much about fuel costs.

If you want to simply waste your way to economic ruin, fine. But where the decision concerns the rest of us as well as you, I’m going to choose to promote energy efficiency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #325959

adam

evolution is nothing more than a best guess. the day a scientist can take any combination of elements from the periodic table, and can create one single living cell is the day you can say i was wrong. evolution cannot be proven, period.

Posted by: dbs at July 17, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #325960

Stephen Daugherty: “Call him by his full name. You have no business asking him for respect while you belittle him at the same time.”

It’s no surprise to anyone that Conservativethinker demands a higher level of respect than he or she gives to us simply for disagreeing.

Conservativethinker: “My new question, ‘What elitist arrogance makes the left think their side is correct about GW?’”

I wouldn’t call it elitist arrogance so much as my own reliance on actual scientific bodies to pass judgment on the evidence at hand about climate change. Every important scientific body in the world has stated climate change is real and is caused by humans. That’s good enough for me. Why is that not good enough for you?

Conservativethinker: “There are very few politicians who are not affected by Polls. Therefore Polls are the motivating force behind ‘governmental policy’.”

Let’s not be so naive as to think our elected representatives lead based on our opinions or the opinions of scientists. I don’t want them to do that. I assume you don’t either. I would like them to take a large number of things into consideration of course but in the end our goal is to elect qualified individuals to represent us and make policy. We don’t vote simply to send a person to pull a lever for us based on our own narrow world views.

Now, opinion polls and scientific views are important factors in developing informed opinion about policy and helping us support or oppose actions. They’re not however the motivating force behind anything.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 7:31 PM
Comment #325961

Stephen,

I’m not trying to stop you from your 15 watt bulb. If you are happy with that, then by all means use it. Just don’t try to stop me from using my 100 watter. I think competition in the marketplace is wonderful. I can accept both being on the shelf at the store. Can you?

Posted by: tdobson at July 17, 2011 7:32 PM
Comment #325962

Dbs: “…evolution is nothing more than a best guess.”

A best guess is more like when you try and pick stocks, not when you’ve developed a theory that lines up with thousands of pieces of scientific data from over a century of human research.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 7:48 PM
Comment #325963

Dbs: “…the day a scientist can take any combination of elements from the periodic table, and can create one single living cell is the day you can say i was wrong.”

Someone might want to correct me but I would argue the theory of evolution barely deals with origins at all anyway. If your disagreement is based there you’re misunderstanding the theory.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 7:56 PM
Comment #325966


A few things that haven’t been mentioned here are that while the compact fluorescent bulb is more efficient, it also lasts longer than a typical incandescent bulb. Also LED light sources are much more efficient than and actually brighter than an incandescent.

It is possible that the difference in the color of the light is disconcerting to some people.
An incandescent light source is yellow, not white and some people find the reality of light the LED and compact fluorescent produce uncomfortable.

Then there is always the possibility that some people just want to be contrarian, it’s easy, and means they don’t have to think.

Warped,

Perhaps the concept that minute changes in ocean temperature (+/- a few degrees) basically trashes the plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain is also a socialist plot.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 17, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #325971

Warped Reality’s response in Comment #325952;

Are you serious about your predictions; it sounds like something out of a Science fiction comic book. When are all these things going to happen? In our lifetime or are we talking millions of years. Crazy, isn’t it; civilized life goes on for thousands of years and then all of a sudden, in our lifetime, it’s all gonna end. Talk about a miracle. Is this the stuff they teach you in college? I really like the part about the Arctic Ocean melting; now I understand what crazy Al Gore was talking about when he said the polar bears were drowning at sea. And the oceans turning into acid, that’s gotta hurt. I remember when they found a mammoth elephant in a Siberian glacier several years ago; the article said the mammoth still had daisies in its mouth. I guess what happened to the mammoth is similar to what is going to happen to us. The mammoth was standing there eating daisies, minding his own business, and a glacier snuck up behind him and the next thing you know, he’s a Popsicle.

SD said:

“conservativethinker-

Call him by his full name. You have no business asking him for respect while you belittle him at the same time.”

Are you telling me his real name is Adam Ducker; I thought that was just a stage name. I thought he was some famous liberal writer using an alias. Sorry Adam, I’m glad we have Stephen on here to keep us straight.

SD goes on to say:

“You’re pursuing every avenue of attack aside from the truth. You’re not offering a countertheory because you can’t.”

Tell me Stephen, how do you counter foolishness and who would want to waste their time doing it?

And then Stephen goes on to say:

“Ah, yes. So, are you okay with terrorists being able to buy C4? Perverts being able to buy child pornography? Junkies being able to buy drugs? Gays and Lesbians their marriage licenses?”

More foolishness Stephen.

“Let’s not be so naive as to think our elected representatives lead based on our opinions or the opinions of scientists. I don’t want them to do that. I assume you don’t either. I would like them to take a large number of things into consideration of course but in the end our goal is to elect qualified individuals to represent us and make policy. We don’t vote simply to send a person to pull a lever for us based on our own narrow world views.
Now, opinion polls and scientific views are important factors in developing informed opinion about policy and helping us support or oppose actions. They’re not however the motivating force behind anything.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 07:31 PM

Now this is liberal intellect at work; Adam said, “Let’s not be so naive as to think our elected representatives lead based on our opinions”. Well I don’t really know what liberals expect; but we call them representatives because they represent us, and how can they represent us if they don’t listen to what we say? If my representative or senator doesn’t listen to me, I vote for someone else. You will notice Adam, that we conservatives require our representatives to represent us; unlike the Lemmings on the left who follow their politicians off the cliff.

“We don’t vote simply to send a person to pull a lever for us based on our own narrow world views.”

Yes we do, or they lose my vote and I vote for someone who will.

Again Adam, you are living in a fantasy world or you are lying, when you say politicians don’t pay attention and make decisions on polls. There were a whole lot of democrats who lost the congressional and senate seats in 2010, not to mention the number of states, and blue states, who lost their liberal governments due to not paying attention to the polls. So, your elitist opinion of polls is bullshit.

“Someone might want to correct me but I would argue the theory of evolution barely deals with origins at all anyway. If your disagreement is based there you’re misunderstanding the theory.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2011 07:56 PM

Correct me if I wrong, but isn’t one of the foundation beliefs of evolution, that all life began with a common ancestor from the sea?

“Andy Knoll: It’s fair to say when you go out and walk in the woods or on a beach, the most conspicuous forms of life you will see are plants and animals, and certainly there’s a huge diversity of those types of organisms, perhaps 10 million animal species and several hundred thousand plant species. But these are evolutionary latecomers. The history of animals that we’ve recorded from fossils is really only the last 15 percent or so of the recorded history of life on this planet. The deeper history of life and the greater diversity of life on this planet is microorganisms—bacteria, protozoans, algae. One way to put it is that animals might be evolution’s icing, but bacteria are really the cake.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #325972

Hooray - no funding for an idiotic bill that should never have wasted the time and taxpayers money to be discussed!!!!!

Have you all lost your minds on some very basic facts?

1. The principles of “supply and demand”

2. Those Fluorescent bulbs have MERCURY in them!!!

The more we conserve anything that is produced by man; the more it will cost us to use it! Less demand, less product produced ie less available to the consumer so the price goes up to cover manufacturing/shipping/etc costs.

Why do you want lites in your home where your families live that if it breaks open it releases mercury into the air of that home. Now you are suppose to get some EPA dud in to clean up the mercury ‘dust’ god forbid if nano-particle sized cause now they are definitely in your lungs and throughout your home!!!!! Get rid of the DDT, PCBs, LEAD from your water pipes and now you get Mercury. Geez even the lakes and streams up here in so-called pristine maine have daily fish eating limits(depending on where & type) due to mercury from lumber mills. I’m just dancing in glee from all of this with a respirator on cause the damn bulb might break.

Posted by: Kathryn at July 17, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #325973

Kathryn,

“Why do you want lites in your home where your families live that if it breaks open it releases mercury into the air of that home. Now you are suppose to get some EPA dud in to clean up the mercury ‘dust’ god forbid if nano-particle sized cause now they are definitely in your lungs and throughout your home!!!!!”

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

This is from the GE website;

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#disposal

“What do I do with a CFL when it burns out? What is the proper disposal of a CFL bulb?
Follow these guidelines to dispose your CFL properly:

•Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check www.earth911.org (where you can find disposal options by using your zip code) or call 1-800-CLEAN-UP for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org. Finally, IKEA stores take back used CFLs, and other retailers are currently exploring take back programs.
•If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury containing product to an incinerator.
•ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs have a two-year warranty. If the bulb fails within the warranty period, return it to your retailer.”

If you read further you will be informed about what to do if the bulb breaks, and there is information about the mercury in the bulbs.

Yeah, I know it’s hard, but nobody said life was easy.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 17, 2011 11:33 PM
Comment #325974

dbs-

evolution is nothing more than a best guess. the day a scientist can take any combination of elements from the periodic table, and can create one single living cell is the day you can say i was wrong. evolution cannot be proven, period.

Evolution:
1) Creatures have genes.
2) Genes express themselves in different traits.
3) The ecosystem makes certain demands of creatures within it that they must meet in order to survive.
4) Genes that help creatures adapt successfully, or at least do no harm, get passed on. Those that hinder this adaptation, or which lower the chances of reproducing do not.
5) Populations separated for long enough will drift genetically away from one another. If the drift becomes profound enough, the difficulty of producing fertile offspring will ensure that the drift becomes permanent.
6) Therefore, a new pair of species will arise from the old pair.

This is a well proven set of explanations for how and why so many species exist. It’s been validated time and again.

Just admit it: your reasons for denying it have nothing to do with scientific reasoning. That’s just the rhetoric you employ in the name of a claim that is religiously founded.

The origins of life are largely irrelevant to evolution. However unlikely you might find the processes that science hypothesizes might have brought life into being, the first life took hundreds of millions of years to come into being. I mean, consider it in these terms: Rounding up to the nearest place, you’ll live about a century. You have to consider times spans several million times longer than your entire life, a thousand times a thousand.

Consider all the unlikely things that have happened just within your lifetime. Then consider how often, then, over the stretch of that span of time, several times a thousand times a thousand lifetimes, that unlikely things must have happened.

There are some processes that don’t have to happen again, once they’ve happened once. They make themselves more likely.

Kathryn-
This is my answer to you:

.

That dot there represents the total amount of mercury in one bulb. While care needs to be taken in deal with a broken bulb, it doesn’t require a hazmat team. Your old mercury thermometer contains over a hundred times more of it.

They should be recycled, and treated carefully.

At the same time, though, you do realize that much more mercury is released by the incandescent bulb, don’t you?

About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

Meanwhile, the consumer saves the value of the bulb many times over in energy costs.

It’s not perfect, but the choice, given the energy savings and the fact that incandescents cause much more mercury emissions simply by burning so much energy from dirty powerplants, should be obvious.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 12:01 AM
Comment #325976

There is an obvious alternative to CFL light bulbs that is time-tested, safe, uses less electricity than even LEDs, and is 100% renewable: whale oil. Whale oil was the primary source of artificial lighting in the late 1800’s in the U.S. The U.S. whaling fleet was almost 800 ships strong and almost every part of the whale was valued in the market. With modern technology, genetics, and animal husbandry, there is no reason that we couldn’t come to dominate the industry once again. We could probably even find ways to raise whales on farms similar to shrimp or krill.

I think the government should facilitate this proven green technology with research grants, investment tax incentives, and consumer mandates. If it was good enough for Abraham Lincoln, then it should be good enough for us.

Posted by: hellcats at July 18, 2011 12:31 AM
Comment #325977

Conservativethinker-

Are you serious about your predictions; it sounds like something out of a Science fiction comic book. When are all these things going to happen? In our lifetime or are we talking millions of years.

The Sahara Desert was once Grasslands. It only took climate change two hundred years to make the shift. Climate scientists studying the system have found that it doesn’t tend to make graceful changes. Transitions tend to be sudden and chaotic.

Crazy, isn’t it; civilized life goes on for thousands of years and then all of a sudden, in our lifetime, it’s all gonna end.

You base an awful lot of these arguments on what you personally find unbelieveable. Well, I’m sorry. You know, part of what started agriculture was that dessication of the Sahara. People who had depended all their lives on the bounty of the grasslands, who swam by a place which is now one of the driest spots on Earth probably thought it would last forever, too.

Well, **** happens. Now, the degree to which our civilization will be challenged will depend on how fast the CO2 rises, and how soon it crosses the critical threshold. But when it does, it will provide a challenge to our economy, to our ability to maintain our way of life. It’s said that you are antipathetic to us that you feel the need to be contrarian in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The arctic ice retreat has been observed year after year, exceeding its predicted pace. That’s right, it’s melting faster than even the scientists anticipated.

As for acidification? That, too, is an observed effect, and it’s happening faster than expected as well.

It’s not turning into battery acid, but it is a problem for species whose shell-strength depends on the neutral pH of the water.

Tell me Stephen, how do you counter foolishness and who would want to waste their time doing it?

I counter foolishness by finding out what the truth is and telling people about that. As for why I waste my time doing it, it’s because I’ve observed letting the idiots and crazies have the stage to themselves hasn’t inspired them to go away.

And then Stephen goes on to say: “Ah, yes. So, are you okay with terrorists being able to buy C4? Perverts being able to buy child pornography? Junkies being able to buy drugs? Gays and Lesbians their marriage licenses?” More foolishness Stephen.

Oh? Really, you just didn’t want to pollute your nice neat little bold pronouncement that freedom was being able to buy and sell whatever you wanted with some actual nuance.

Come on, any objections there? Or is your principle of free market economics as absolute as you claim?

As for life in the sea, there again the evidence speaks to it. In the world as it once was, there wasn’t much protection from ultraviolet light. The water provided protection, until Cyanobacteria (or blue-green algae as they were called at one point) raised oxygen concentrations high enough for an ozone layer to develop.

You want to make this out to be silly, but it seems like you’ve got a whole world of things that there’s good evidence for which you want us to dismiss and disparage. My thinking is, you should have to demonstrate a hell of a lot more credibility on those subjects before you start lashing out at the credibility of these reports.

I know enough about the sciences to know when you’re going off the rails, so don’t you think you can get away with all this psuedoscientific BS.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 12:33 AM
Comment #325978

hellcats-
Obvious? Maybe if you’re Captain Ahab. You do realize that whales are fairly migratory animals, right? We don’t have such mastery over genetics that we can remove their inclination or need to roam. More to the point, Whale oil, while renewable, would only be greener if getting that oil cost less carbon emissions to get out than the animal itself socked away by growing into an adult.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 12:39 AM
Comment #325983

stephen

“However unlikely you might find the processes that science hypothesizes might have brought life into being,”


they can’t be proven. we can take two elements and create water, or many other compounds, and combine them to prove without doubt how something is created, but we CAN NOT create life through science. so these theories about how life started have no more validity than a belief in devine creation, or intelligent design.

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 5:35 AM
Comment #325984

rocky


“Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist”


do you actually believe anyone follows these guidelines? when i lived i calif. they passed a law making it illegal to dispose of batteries in the trash. wanna bet where most of the batteries end up. we’ll need lightbulb police.

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 5:41 AM
Comment #325985

Conservativethinker: “You will notice Adam, that we conservatives require our representatives to represent us; unlike the Lemmings on the left who follow their politicians off the cliff.”

I tend to vote for the candidate based on a combination of qualification and representation. Your side left the qualification part out of the equation in 2010 and now we have rubes representing us in Congress. Thanks for that. Hopefully your side will do better the next time you vote.

Conservativethinker: “…when you say politicians don’t pay attention and make decisions on polls.”

A poll is certainly one of the many factors politicians pay attention to. But in your rush to argue against my statement you’ve forgotten what leadership is all about: Doing what is right for the people you represent. Sometimes representation means doing what is right even when your constituents disagree with it completely.

Conservativethinker: “Correct me if I wrong, but isn’t one of the foundation beliefs of evolution, that all life began with a common ancestor from the sea?”

I would say yes but I will still suggest someone with more knowledge of the subject can correct me. What Dbs and yourself fail to notice is that the question is not whether evolution (or climate change) is real but whether the vast majority of the scientific community believes this to be the most likely scenario based on available evidence. They do on both counts.

I trust the scientists to tell us what the science means and they have. You can cherry pick your scientists to try and pretend there is a meaningful debate in the community but the debate is over and continuing the way your side does in opposition simply further delays creation of solutions.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 18, 2011 8:33 AM
Comment #325986

dbs-
Do Astrophysicists have to create a star in order to theorize about one? Do they have to actually create a supernova to figure out how one works?

The thing about generating life is that this world has been so fundamentally changed by life’s existence that little remains of the world that created that life.

We have been, though, getting clues as to how life may have arisen. We’ve seen how basic amino acids can be created in the primordial stew, or through celestial impacts from carbon-compound rich comets and meteors. We’ve seen how life can be sustained without necessarily depending on sunlight, how bubbles of fatty acids can self-assemble themselves.

You dispute the origins of life because you have a religious or personal objection to it, not because you’ve demonstrated it can’t be done scientifically.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 8:47 AM
Comment #325987

dbs,

“do you actually believe anyone follows these guidelines?”

You miss the point.

The point is that you take more chances with your life walking across the street, and people don’t need to run around with their hair on fire making ignorant statements when the facts are so easy to find.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 18, 2011 9:08 AM
Comment #325993

“The Democrat/Liberals position is one of government enforcing its will, reasoning that they know what is best for us”

It is this line of thought that allows them to totally disregard any concerns about loss of freedoms that others may have.
When they have been convinced a product must be embraced, but it is not embraced by the people, they use government to force the product onto the people. They don’t care that you want to pay cents instead of dollars. They don’t care that you don’t want the hassle of haz-mat procedures.

They don’t care because their fears are more important than your rights and freedoms.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2011 1:30 PM
Comment #325994

SD wrote; “Consider all the unlikely things that have happened just within your lifetime. Then consider how often, then, over the stretch of that span of time, several times a thousand times a thousand lifetimes, that unlikely things must have happened.”

And…”I know enough about the sciences to know when you’re going off the rails, so don’t you think you can get away with all this psuedoscientific BS.”

Let’s begin our examination of SD’s comments above with this…pseudoscientific BS…”that unlikely things must have happened.”

Unlikely for whom? Science? Nature? God?

Apparently it is scientific for SD to believe something unlikely happened, because it’s existence demands it. Since life exists, and most agree that life doesn’t evolve from non-life, then something unlikely must have happened.

Notice here that SD doesn’t write “something unscientific” must have happened, but rather, that something unlikely must have happened. The word “unlikely” means “unscientific” as it couldn’t have been predicted or explained, or reproduced.

So, according to SD, were stuck with the origin of life as being something unlikely that must have happened. I would call this magical thinking on his part. We can observe the fossil record back just so far in time, and beyond that, we can use magic to conjure up an unlikely occurrence as evidence of what came before. And, our magic is stronger than science. Science tells us that life does not come from non-life. Magic however, allows us to overcome this irritating and inconvenient truth, and neatly bundle our wizardry as a theory of the origin of life.

As for the light bulb controversy, I will say that I am in favor of all kinds of advancements that improve our lives, are more efficient, and cost us less to use. And, I don’t need or want government bureaucrats to decide for me when and if I begin using them. I reserve that decision for myself.

Can anyone help me find some technology that was in wide use by the general public, that upon finding improvements to the technology, congress banned the preceeding technology?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 1:42 PM
Comment #325996


Royal, your philosophical argument fell apart when you failed to mention the ways in which conservatives support the denial of choice to others. Since conservatives do support the denial of choice in some instances, your statement about the Republican/Conservative position must be false.

Even if your philosophical argument is restricted to consumers, many conservatives still wish to deny some consumers the right to choose. They make their demands to government in this regard.

Phil, conservatives believe Bush went into Iraq to get those weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush Administration said that Iraq oil would pay for the war. So, who is paying for the war, the Iraq oil or the American taxpayers?

During the Bush Administration, the price of oil shot through the roof, approaching $150 per barrel and it wasn’t because Iraq oil was paying for the war. In addition, the Bush Administration was purchasing oil for the strategic oil reserve when it was at an all time high.

I think that had they been given a choice, the American taxpayers would choose to purchase oil for the reserve when the price is low rather than when it is close to an all time high.

As for the legislation concerning the incandescent light bulb, it was part of a reduce energy consumption bill, promoted by Bush, passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed by bush. The Senate modified the bill by removing the provision that would reduce tax incentives to oil companies.

When House Republicans brought this to a vote, it failed. And, it failed even though the Republicans have a 50 vote majority in the House.

If the question is, who knows best, the scientists or the voters, I think the answer is obvious.

I’m remind me of a link submitted by Beretta 9, if I am not mistaken.

The supposed symposium of 700 scientists with proof of global warming being false, turned out to be a hand full of anti-global warming speakers, including a couple of scientists, an audience of 700 investors, and sponsored by Exxon Mobile. All it proved is there are people who are more than willing to deny any truth that they perceive as having an adverse effect on their pocketbook.

Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #326003

No lights on over here incandescent or otherwise. But no surprise.

Posted by: Jeff at July 18, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #326009

stephen

“Do they have to actually create a supernova to figure out how one works?”


we can actually observe a supernova through a telescope. that is quite different than creating something that didn’t exist before.

” We’ve seen how basic amino acids can be created in the primordial stew, or through celestial impacts from carbon-compound rich comets and meteors.”


when have we seen this? where have we seen this? i don’t mean theorize about how this could have happened, i mean actually observe this first hand. if this is an observable event we should be able to recreate it in a controlled setting. if that is the case we should be able to reproduce those events on a small scale and create at least one living cell, but we can’t. if it were possible someone would have done it. this is why sciences explanation of the origin of life is no more valid then any other theory.


“You dispute the origins of life because you have a religious or personal objection to it, not because you’ve demonstrated it can’t be done scientifically.”

actually i don’t have an objection to science having it’s own explanation as to the origin of life, whether it conforms to my beliefs or not. what i have an objection to is someone claiming thier theory is valid, and others are not when they can’t prove thiers any better than i can prove mine.

if you told me the earth is flat, i can PROVE it isn’t. if i tell you water is not made up of hydrogen, and oxygen, you can PROVE i’m wrong. if you tell me life began in a primordial stew after being struck by a celestial object, or lightning for that matter, you cannot PROVE that.

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #326030

Stephen & Rocky
If you are more concerned over what you cannot change or prevent that is your choice(Environmental pollution by industries) but if it doesn’t bother you that you will be breathing in that minute additional mercury in an enclosed space - c’est la vie. I would rather have a natural gas light than compact fluorescent any day. Unfortunately I cannot afford that level of conversion. BTW how many of you actually follow the ‘recommended’ methods should a bulb be broken? Do you leave the room & house for 15min, etc.,etc. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf

When will you guys admit that frequently studies and guidelines developed ie published by Corporations are usually only those in favor of whatever plant, animal or mineral matter they are dealing with. It is healthy to be skeptical NOT neurotic about things. When someone is trying to push how healthly and good for *whatever* it is, I take it with a big grain of salt(sometimes blocks) and research the matter as best I can. I am happy that the NAP is now allowing free downloads of the majority of the books and papers they have in PDF. Makes for great access to info.

I continue to research the GMO issues - btw Hungary just outlawed all GMO in their country. Kinda makes you wonder why?

I have finally converted my cookstove from wood burning to both coal & wood. This has had the blessing of minimal creosote build-up in my chimney and less chance of chimney fires. There has been abit more ashes in the stove - but that is used on the driveway in winter. No salt-burnt grass along the drive this year!! I even watched to see how much grit would end up out on the snow in the yard this past winter - none that I could find, unlike woodsmoke from the stove. I also only used 300gals of heating oil this past winter - a substantial drop from when I used just wood. In the summer I use propane to cook with, so there is no electricity usage associated with the actual cooking process. I can even heat 5 gal of water at a time with the storage tank on the side of the stove. So if power is out I can still have hot water to clean dishes, etc. Otherwise my home is as modern as any other around and only 6yrs old.

So I don’t think the “fool” comment is justified. I am cognizant of what is happening in the world, reasonably well read - DAMN Borders is closing all its stores - fairly intelligent at least according to all the psyche tests I’ve taken if a tad depressed. But hopefully with all the financial woes throughout the world this remains a country where thought, speech and food are not regulated!

Posted by: Kathryn at July 18, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #326056

Royal Flush-

Apparently it is scientific for SD to believe something unlikely happened, because it’s existence demands it. Since life exists, and most agree that life doesn’t evolve from non-life, then something unlikely must have happened.

In chemistry, not all reactions happen as quickly or as often as we would like. So what would we do to increase the likelihood of such reactions?

Well, some clays and some minerals like Zeolites have incredible amounts of surface area per unit volume. We use zeolites in many chemical industries to increase the likelihood of chemical reactions. We also use catalysts. if a particular mineral showed up in the mix somewhere, an otherwise unlikely chemical reaction becomes more likely.

You’re talking about something unscientific happening. I’m not. A lot of current advances in chemistry and nanotechnology revolve around molecules that self assemble. Get the right chemicals in place, and the reactions and changes can be self sustaining.

We could also talk about geothermal vents, like those on the ocean floor, where they find bacteria with chemistry unlike sunlight-dwelling germs of its kind.

Didn’t I warn you not to think you could get away with pseudoscientific BS? I wasn’t making that statement just to contradict myself seconds later. I meant it.

Science does not tell us life cannot come from non-life. It doesn’t rule it out at all. It just can’t explain it fully yet, especially since the primordial earth itself no longer exists. Life has so utterly changed the character of the world that it’s difficult to figure out the whole story here.

But what science does tell us is that we can find the basic building blocks of life out there in the cosmos, that there are at least some processes by which these simple constituents can naturally form larger chains of molecules necessary for life.

Can anyone help me find some technology that was in wide use by the general public, that upon finding improvements to the technology, congress banned the preceeding technology?

It’s not banned. They’ll have to be more efficient, but they’re not banned. So your question is fairly irrelevant. What is it with the Republican need to exaggerate the effects of laws? Could it be that they intend to exaggerate the need for their own politics to intercede?

dbs-

we can actually observe a supernova through a telescope. that is quite different than creating something that didn’t exist before.

So it is. We can study what exists. We can study the fossil record, rocks from that period, look for signs of bacterial activity. We can do experiments to see what the quirks of chemistry and material science yield up.

We don’t have to see everything happen to infer how it may have happened. We can infer evolutionary relationships from genetic differences, from changes in the bones, from vestiges of ancestors in different animals. We can infer continental drift without being able to reproduce it in a lab or seeing it for ourselves in its entirety.

You’re operating from an argument from ignorance here. You’re saying that because we can’t demonstrate it for sure, it must be false, or that you’re free to just put in whatever explanation you please without being disputed. And you folks are quite pushy about insisting on it, even when the question is overtly scientific.

The operative assumption of science is that natural forces operate, and phenomena in the world can be explained by them.

The question is, can you prove your claim on those terms? If not, then there’s no call for you to claim it can’t be done

My advice: quit using religion to power your thinking on scientific matters. Religion’s mostly about how people get along with each other and God, not about examining the behavior of the natural world.

Kathryn-
An intact bulb emits no mercury at all.

I continue to research the GMO issues - btw Hungary just outlawed all GMO in their country. Kinda makes you wonder why?

No, actually, it doesn’t. People have decided to be unscientific about it, and instead of setting up some sort of system for figuring out whether genetically modified foods are safe, they simply engage in a knee-jerk reaction.

I can understand the objection. Measures should be taken to make sure that GM crops and creatures can’t intermix with their natural counterparts. But beyond that, it’s really a question of whether the genetic strain is actually harmful.

Overall, I believe in moderate, careful regulation of these sorts of things, and I believe both the zeal of some opponents and that of some supporters works against a reasonable compromise on the matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #326078


Stephen, it is often the case that harmful effects are after the fact. IMO, this has become more prevalent in our new age of deregulation and corporate influence.

The government has been charged with the responsibility of insuring the safety of products and quite frankly, they have been doing a rather poor job of it in recent years. If the government is unable or unwilling to do it’s job in this regard, perhaps Republicans are right in defending these regulating departments. As Republicans would say, why wast taxpayers dollars on agencies that have out lived their usefulness.

Dbs, Royal, the possibility of creating artificial life, the possibility of cloning human beings, pose a threat to our security. Our military is charged with the responsibility of researching any and all possible threats to the U.S. and somewhere hidden in that huge military budget……..

Posted by: jlw at July 19, 2011 1:57 AM
Comment #326079


correction, a change from defending these regulating departments to defunding these regulating departments.

Posted by: jlw at July 19, 2011 2:03 AM
Comment #326083

stephen

“We don’t have to see everything happen to infer how it may have happened.”


key phrase here” may have happened”. not happened.


“You’re operating from an argument from ignorance here.”

thanks for the 411, and you from one of arrogance.


You’re saying that because we can’t demonstrate it for sure, it must be false,”


you don’t listen well, do you? i didn’t say it isn’t possible, but go ahead and show me where i have. what i said i’ll believe it when you can prove it. until then it is no more likely then any other explanation.


“My advice: quit using religion to power your thinking on scientific matters.”


thaks for the advice enlightened one.


Posted by: dbs at July 19, 2011 5:34 AM
Comment #326084

Dbs: “…what i have an objection to is someone claiming their theory is valid, and others are not when they can’t prove theirs any better than i can prove mine.”

Good news. You can believe the Theory of Evolution no matter what you believe about how life formed. Evolution deals with the origin of species while the origin of life itself is another subject altogether. If there was a better theory than evolution the scientific community would have adopted it. It’s the same with climate change.

The scientific community is behind the conclusion of climate scientists. It’s the pundits, lobbyists, bloggers, and amateur political annalists that seem to have so much trouble with the conclusion.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 19, 2011 7:45 AM
Comment #326088

Kathryn,

“So I don’t think the “fool” comment is justified. I am cognizant of what is happening in the world, reasonably well read…”

But do you bother to read what you post?

Perhaps you don’t realize how foolish the “hair on fire” hyperbole makes you seem. Perhaps it’s just your style. Some people here don’t get my subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempts at sarcasm.


There are always trade offs, whether it be CFLs or GMOs.

You say you are burning some coal to help heat your house.

However;

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/

“According to EPA estimates, emissions from coal-fired utilities account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States.”

It seems to me that using a CFL that uses less energy and lasts longer than an incandescent bulb might be less dangerous to my health than burning coal for heat.

But that’s just me.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2011 10:53 AM
Comment #326094

SD writes; “It’s (incandescent bulbs) not banned. They’ll have to be more efficient, but they’re not banned. So your question is fairly irrelevant.”

OH really? If one can not purchase a product because of government regulations it is reasonable to call that a ban. Automobiles could be banned tomorrow with the same legislation.

As for life evolving from non-life, could SD inform us of the living organism for which no parents can be found? Can SD inform us of any non-life possessing DNA?

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

Supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

From his comments, one can believe that SD is unusually subject to miracle theories, but only if those miracles do not originate from God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2011 11:38 AM
Comment #326099

Rocky,

Please read this particular post - you might find it entertaining at least. pertains to pounds of mercury released by coal burning.

http://www.engineerboards.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6112.html

Granted it was written in 2008 - but conversions and math don’t change nearly as fast as the political process.

Posted by: Kathryn at July 19, 2011 2:32 PM
Comment #326100


If the war between science and religious dogma has been reduced to the cellular level, it seems to be a remarkable achievement as far as I am concerned. Christianity hasn’t been nearly as dogmatic since it discovered that it could not prevent the dissemination of scientific facts. When the science has been widely accepted as fact, Christianity has slowly yielded to those facts. Christianity has become more and more accepting of the Theory of Evolution, within the context of it being part of God’s plan.

The complexity of the cell, gives Christianity a rallying point, a place to make a stand.

With intelligent design, faith is reaffirmed and science will continue to seek the answers for ever increasing questions.

The two basic facts, the human race, and thereby the entire earth is under the control of a demon; and that demon will have his day of reckoning, remain unchanged and viable. There is no hiding place behind science or religion.

Posted by: jlw at July 19, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #326101

Kathryn,

From your own link;

“I think you need to look at exposure. Notwithstanding CFLs breaking in your home, I would say most of the mercury ends up in landfills which limits the exposure. Coal plants on the other hand spread the mercury over a wide area making it available to many receptors. I guess you would also need to consider the bioavailablity of the mercury from each source.”

“After doing the calcs, looks like there is 15mg less mercury put into the environment over the life of the bulb. Very rough calcs, though.”

I guess I would have to ask what’s your point?

CFLs have a life span of 8 to 15 times greater than incandescents, and properly handled, the danger posed by the mercury contained in CFLs is virtually negligible.

BTW, GW Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative pushed for a nationwide cap for mercury from 48 tons in 2004, to 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #326129


While Mercury from coal-fired power plants is disbursed over wide areas, a recent study published in the journal ‘Water, Air and Soil Pollution’, reveals measurable concentrations of mercury in areas adjacent to and down wind of the plants.

The mercury pollutes local soils and watersheds in urban areas, contaminates fish populations and makes them unsafe for human consumption.

Posted by: jlw at July 20, 2011 12:44 PM
Comment #326178


It is all about choice for Republicans. The Republican controlled House has big plans for the Clean Water Act. They want to gut the act and let each individual state decide what amount of pollution is acceptable to their citizens. I am sure that will work out well, especially considering the fact that many rivers and streams cross state boundaries and air pollution from one state contaminates the watersheds of other states. Legislating for litigation?

Posted by: jlw at July 21, 2011 11:56 AM
Comment #326205

A Carbon Tax should be part of the debt ceiling negotiations to reduce the deficit.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 21, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #326213

warped

“A Carbon Tax should be part of the debt ceiling negotiations to reduce the deficit.”

never gonna happen. if obama loses next year, the end around through the EPA is also history.

Posted by: dbs at July 22, 2011 6:50 AM
Comment #326214

dbs, Obama is dropping like a rock in the polls. He is losing to named candidates and he is losing to unnamed generic candidates. The unemployment numbers were up again this week. The economy is in shambles and Obama stands in front of the cameras and lies through his teeth, telling us everything is ok, and even the liberal press is now questioning his truthfulness. I agree with one commentator who said yesterday that Obama was in way over his head and he believed would rather leave DC. Obama thought he could just party in the WH every day, while the liberal democrat majority just shoved their socialist agenda down the throats of all Americans. The 2010 elections set him back on his heels, and once the shock of losing sunk in; the liberals began their spin of what the 2010 elections meant. We of the Tea Party know exactly what they meant and we certainly know what is coming in next year’s election. Obama is losing the Hispanic vote (through disinterest) because he failed to get them obamnesty, he is losing the black vote (through disinterest) because he failed to get them free housing, free cars, and free gas (from Obama’s private stash), and he is losing independents by droves because he is not a uniter, but a divider. When you tell every group exactly what they want to hear; eventually the lies catch up with you. If the Tea Party continues to hold the line, I foresee the collapse of liberalism. America is waking up to the socialist agenda of the left.

Posted by: Mike at July 22, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #326225
never gonna happen. if obama loses next year, the end around through the EPA is also history.

And that’s a tragedy.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 22, 2011 10:47 AM
Comment #326238

mike

“If the Tea Party continues to hold the line, I foresee the collapse of liberalism. America is waking up to the socialist agenda of the left.”

let’s hope the house continues to show the intestinal fortitude it takes to get the job done. they say opportunity only knocks once. in this case it’s beating down the door. now it’s time to answer the door.

Posted by: dbs at July 22, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #326336


There are quite a number of people on the left that are very hopeful the tea party will continue to hold their line.

Every day, the members of the tea party are becoming more divided on what is or isn’t a part of the socialist agenda. Are social security and medicare part of the socialist agenda? It depends on which tea party member you ask.

Posted by: jlw at July 24, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #326338


We are currently living the economic situation that was brought forth by the moral majority and it’s contract on America.

Despite the obvious economic success of the contract hit on America, the job was not completed. Thus, the name change to protect the guilty so that they may continue the fight to fulfill the contract.

Bringing the economy to the brink was apparently not enough to break the people so, perhaps tipping it over the edge will accomplish the goals of the contract.

Posted by: jlw at July 24, 2011 3:31 PM
Post a comment