[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

You're right that it isn't worth it, which is why I said at the end of my post, I don't care which bulbs you or anyone else uses, it just isn't the governments place to mandate one or the other exclusively. That's it - that's my whole point.

The spillage example is more of a demonstration that nothing is as simple as, "Wow these seem to work, let's mandate full replacement." We've gone from these things being absolutely harmless, don't even worry about it, to the idea that it may be smart to install a mercury cleanup kit in your home. Complications will arise, they always do, and it's never as simple as first imagined.

Again - if we do this, what's next? Grilling regulations (there's already been talk of "barbecue licenses" in Australia, I believe)? Washer/Dryer regulations? I can't believe that the same folks who are upset about the government "eroding our rights" are so willing to sign over more personal decision making to the federal government!

Buy CFL's if that makes you feel good and if you think you'll save money. By the same token, if you don't believe that then don't buy them. It's that simple - no government intrusion necessary.

Well, you see, now you're running with a different argument ... gov't regulation ... which maybe another good time-waster topic . But you started off with a one sentence post extolling (re-emphasizing Brites' ?) supposed and largely unsupported dangers and horrors of CFLs, and their potentially nightmarish cleanup costs. When it was all easily debunked for the sensationalist drivel it was, you re-focused on regulations and rights erosion ... oh well, that's a tactic on which I won't bite.

But if you look around the world and see what's happening with incandescents being replaced, enmasse, with CFLs, whether mandated or not, you may want to start stocking up on the old technology right now, before they're completely extinct! It can happen you know! So, fill you bunker to the ceiling and watch progress pass you by while being warmed by your waning incandescent heat, and keep on hollering "I have rights!" ... and see how far that'll get ya, see if the gov't will listen.

And then, when your last bulb blinks dead maybe you can join Brite in his cave, I hear he's discovered wax ... so just take some wicks with ya if you want some light

In the mean-time, watch out for other household hazardous materials, like bleach or drain cleaner products ... I hear that an accidental spill, ingestion or even a fleeting contact with those could ruin your carpet, and your whole day

[sy2]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Well, you see, now you're running with a different argument ... gov't regulation ... which maybe another good time-waster topic . But you started off with a one sentence post extolling (re-emphasizing Brites' ?) supposed and largely unsupported dangers and horrors of CFLs, and their potentially nightmarish cleanup costs. When it was all easily debunked for the sensationalist drivel it was, you re-focused on regulations and rights erosion ... oh well, that's a tactic on which I won't bite.

That's been my only argument re: CFL's this whole time. As I mentioned in the last post, the whole clean-up costs, etc... was a demonstration that this issue isn't as simple as so many people want to make it seem. NEVER did I post that CFL's should be banned or that people shouldn't be able to buy them. The issue with CFL's is do we mandate them - they've been available for YEARS to anyone that wants to buy them of their own free will.

But if you look around the world and see what's happening with incandescents being replaced, enmasse, with CFLs, whether mandated or not, you may want to start stocking up on the old technology right now, before they're completely extinct! It can happen you know!

Not only can it happen, it probably WILL happen if CFL's offer all of the advantages that they claim without disadvantages that mitigate those benefits. And if that change occurs then I welcome it with open arms.

So, fill you bunker to the ceiling and watch progress pass you by while being warmed by your waning incandescent heat, and keep on hollering "I have rights!" ... and see how far that'll get ya, see if the gov't will listen.

I'm not quite sure where this even came from - we're talking about heating technology and bunkers now? You seem to be taking this a bit personally, and sly insinuations of veiled insults is "a tactic on which I won't bite." So take your insinuations elsewhere, I've kept my comments intentionally devoid of similar tactics in hopes of some reciprocity. Looks like my hopes were a bit too high.

And then, when your last bulb blinks dead maybe you can join Brite in his cave, I hear he's discovered wax ... so just take some wicks with ya if you want some light

See above. Another comment cleverly devoid of any actual substance or argument.

In the mean-time, watch out for other household hazardous materials, like bleach or drain cleaner products ... I hear that an accidental spill, ingestion or even a fleeting contact with those could ruin your carpet, and your whole day

OK. Not sure how this applies either, really. Again, like I said in my other post, the mercury issue is either (A) a legitimate issue or (B) an indication that our "safe" mercury levels are far too low and we should increase them to prevent unnecessary expenses when a minor spill does occur. Either one works for me.

[lotuseclat79]

Melting Greenland ice could raise ocean seven meters
Article here.

The world's oceans could rise by up to seven meters if Greenland's ice cap entirely melts because of global warming, climate scientists said Tuesday.


The calving front, or break-off point into the ocean of a glacier in Greenland, 2005. Climate scientists said Tuesday the world's oceans could rise by up to seven meters if Greenland's ice cap entirely melts because of global warming.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

How to Solve Global Warming at a Stroke:

1. Pick a huge active volcano:

2. Seed it with a number of HUGE Thermo-Nuclear Devices:

3. Detonate:

Problem solved.

Why?

Because the Volcanic Winter which results, wil drop the temperature of the planet by many degrees. It will also shield solar radiation of most types.

One unfortunate by product: all animal life will starve as nothing will grow for a hundred years or so.

Doubters?

Research the eruption of Krakatoa 1883.

Paq

1. Krakatoa didn't kill all of the animal life. Only a small percentage primarily in the local area.

2. Volcanic eruptions emit greenhouse gasses. You'll have an initial cooling followed by a surge in warming.
The warming trend we're currently recording might have something to do with the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

3. A medium sized volcanic eruption emits more global warming greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all of mankind has since the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Something the GW hystericals don't want you to know.

4. Your solution is insane. Don't mess with mother nature.

5. Legislate the cleaning up of iundustrial pollution because we like clean water and air, not because you think that humanity is responsible for a naturally occuring phenomena, more likely caused by a warmer sun cycle.

[sy2]

I'd been thinking about the mercury thing and managed to dig up the actual Ellsworth American article. It gives a lot more information and says that the guy who was sent out to this woman's house just gave her bad advice. She should have taken precautions but she shouldn't have had to pay someone to come out there and clean it up.
http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index...7446&Itemid=31

Apparently she's still pissed off and campaigning against CFL's altogether because she spent the $2,000 and I don't think anyone paid her back, although the "clean-up recommendations" were put on that website after this happened.

So to your credit, compushelp, this case was totally overblown and some idiot just told this woman the wrong thing to do.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

I'd been thinking about the mercury thing and managed to dig up the actual Ellsworth American article. It gives a lot more information and says that the guy who was sent out to this woman's house just gave her bad advice. She should have taken precautions but she shouldn't have had to pay someone to come out there and clean it up.
http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index...7446&Itemid=31

Apparently she's still pissed off and campaigning against CFL's altogether because she spent the $2,000 and I don't think anyone paid her back, although the "clean-up recommendations" were put on that website after this happened.

So to your credit, compushelp, this case was totally overblown and some idiot just told this woman the wrong thing to do.

Gotta admit you threw me a curve with this one, your last post. I was ready to give up on you before , which explains the jokes in my previous post

It's a good sign ... kudos to you ... wish more ppl would take the time to dig for more complete info before reaching conclusions. You persevered with eyes open and dug up the right stuff ... which also happens to point to the way tabloid artists or agenda types twist things (I mean in this instance, I'm sure you knew that about their lot before).

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

1. Krakatoa didn't kill all of the animal life. Only a small percentage primarily in the local area.

4. Your solution is insane. Don't mess with mother nature.

5. Legislate the cleaning up of iundustrial pollution because we like clean water and air, not because you think that humanity is responsible for a naturally occuring phenomena, more likely caused by a warmer sun cycle.

Where did I state that the eruption of Krakatoa killed all animal life?

What I was suggesting, Lan, was that triggering a huge active volcano etc etc.

Obviously, my post was intended to be consiered along with my slightly later post # 1845, which I believe adequately espouses my own perspective: viz, that the climate change and carbon lobby have created a mass media inspired emotional knee jerk.

With the Krakatoa comment I was being cynical! As well as, hopefully, prodding readers to actually think a bit, rather than accepting third party "Facts" at face value.

Nice for the new wave climatologists as no one can prove them wrong: except the real experts, of course, who aren't buying into the current level of hype!

As for environmental pollution, that's another matter: or should be, however, as with all media inspired quasi-science, the two have now somehow been merged together.

Industrial process which has fouled natural resources with potentially lethal substances is, I believe, a far greater problem than global warming at present: and pollution has been a problem since the early 70s. So, that's 35 odd years and nothing much done so far!

Paq

[bill.aam]

"Global Warming" hits downtown Baltimore, and not the surrounding area where he also planted this ragweed... IMO these are the kinds of things that make absolutely no sense.

I thought it was called "Global Warming" One would think it would have had the same effect on ALL the plants…

There's growing scientific evidence that global climate change is linked to the dramatic rise in allergies and asthma in the Western world.

Studies have found that a higher level of carbon dioxide turbocharges the growth of plants whose pollen triggers allergies. In 2001 Lewis Ziska planted ragweed -- the main cause of hay fever in the fall -- at urban, suburban and rural sites near Baltimore. The plots had the same seeds and soil and were watered in the same way. Yet the downtown plants soon exploded in size, flowering earlier and producing five times the pollen of rural plants. The city pollen was a lot more toxic, too. The likely cause? The city plants experienced warmer temperatures and 20% more carbon dioxide, the effect of more cars and pollution.

WSJ

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

Where did I state that the eruption of Krakatoa killed all animal life?

Originally Posted by Paquadez

How to Solve Global Warming at a Stroke:

1. Pick a huge active volcano:

2. Seed it with a number of HUGE Thermo-Nuclear Devices:

3. Detonate:

Problem solved.

Why?

Because the Volcanic Winter which results, wil drop the temperature of the planet by many degrees. It will also shield solar radiation of most types.

One unfortunate by product: all animal life will starve as nothing will grow for a hundred years or so.

Doubters?

Research the eruption of Krakatoa 1883.

Paq

What I was suggesting, Lan, was that triggering a huge active volcano etc etc.

Obviously, my post was intended to be consiered along with my slightly later post # 1845, which I believe adequately espouses my own perspective: viz, that the climate change and carbon lobby have created a mass media inspired emotional knee jerk.[/quote] Carbon Lobby?

With the Krakatoa comment I was being cynical! As well as, hopefully, prodding readers to actually think a bit, rather than accepting third party "Facts" at face value.

Okay, I can accept that.
I was being cynical back in thiks very thread when I suggested that the best way to slow global warming would be to cap and/or filter all of the active volcanoes on the planet since they spew far more GH gasses than humanity ever has.
Yet I got ripped a new one for even suggesting such a thing.
The same user who ripped on me was silent for you. No surprise there.

Nice for the new wave climatologists as no one can prove them wrong: except the real experts, of course, who aren't buying into the current level of hype!

I wish you were right. Unfortunately the real experts, and moreover, the lawmakers in my country ARE buying into the hype.

As for environmental pollution, that's another matter: or should be, however, as with all media inspired quasi-science, the two have now somehow been merged together.

Which is precisely why action will not get done. Mixing a lie in with the truth will have a devastatiung effect on global economies, and produce absolutely NO effect on the intent of the issue. (global warming)

Industrial process which has fouled natural resources with potentially lethal substances is, I believe, a far greater problem than global warming at present: and pollution has been a problem since the early 70s. So, that's 35 odd years and nothing much done so far!

Paq

I FULLY agree. Ledt's legislate tighter and tighter pollution controls. Let's up the CAFE standard to reduce the pollutants that we spew into the air. Just don't call any of it a solution to global warming, a naturally occurring phenomena cause more by a warmer sun and volcanic eruptions than anything mankind is doing.

[Paquadez]

See, as I said in Mulders exit speech thread, you and I Lan, chose to agree violently!

In the UK, our revered Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to add a £10 levy on air travel, wait for this, in order to cut carbon pollution!



How? When? Where? Why?

To raise more money so he could waste it!

There was no coincidental statement on his plans to cut carbon emission!

Just a tax scam, that's all!

Paq

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

"Global Warming" hits downtown Baltimore, and not the surrounding area where he also planted this ragweed... IMO these are the kinds of things that make absolutely no sense.

I thought it was called "Global Warming" One would think it would have had the same effect on ALL the plants…

WSJ

Headlines you may see in the very near future;

Global warming cause of AIDS

Global warming responsible for Democrat election fraud

Global Warming linked to pedophile proclivity

Global Warming leads to ADD

Scientists: Depression caused by global warming

^ I think I've actually seen this one already.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Headlines you may see in the very near future;

Global warming cause of AIDS

Global warming responsible for Democrat election fraud

Global Warming linked to pedophile proclivity

Global Warming leads to ADD

Scientists: Depression caused by global warming

^ I think I've actually seen this one already.

You forgot this one Global Warming Turns People Gay

[sy2]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Gotta admit you threw me a curve with this one, your last post. I was ready to give up on you before , which explains the jokes in my previous post

It's a good sign ... kudos to you ... wish more ppl would take the time to dig for more complete info before reaching conclusions. You persevered with eyes open and dug up the right stuff ... which also happens to point to the way tabloid artists or agenda types twist things (I mean in this instance, I'm sure you knew that about their lot before).

Nothing like a little intellectual honesty to make your head spin, huh?

Unfortunately we don't get enough of it these days - and that's not a political shot, it extends to all of us. To our detriment.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

See, as I said in Mulders exit speech thread, you and I Lan, chose to agree violently!

All respects to you, my friend.

In the UK, our revered Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to add a £10 levy on air travel, wait for this, in order to cut carbon pollution!

How does this tax fight carbon? Does this fee make it too expensive for some to travel by air? And what is the revenue earmarked for? Probably some social program that has nothing to do with pollution.
Sounds like a typical liberal feel-good "solution" which only lines the pockets of special interest groupies.

How? When? Where? Why?

To raise more money so he could waste it!

There was no coincidental statement on his plans to cut carbon emission!

Just a tax scam, that's all!

Paq

Yup we agree. This politicial wouldn't happen to be moonlighting as a US Democrat Party Senator would he?

[Paquadez]

No.

Much more worryingly, he is slated to be the next British PM once BLiar steps down!

Paq