How many Climate Change Denialists does it take to Change a Light bulb?

Whereas a CONSPIRACY THEORY is where people believe that tens of thousands (yes there is that many when you count all the disciplines of science that have contributed to our current knowledge of climate change) of scientists can ALL be motivated by the same thing

 

Wouldn't even be relevant except that the same idiotic environmentalists oppose nuclear energy as well. That type of pollution can also be regulated and technology is constantly improving and every year more and more of it is being removed from emissions. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/21/health/epa-mercury-rule

Millions of those crappy lightbulbs are ending up in the trash nationwide going to who knows where and that is NOT easily regulated. Less than half of communities nationwide,9,000 out of 19,000 municipalities as of 2009 which is the most current year I could find, have recycling programs and not all of those have areas where you can drop off bulbs or they only do it certain times of the year. People are lazy and careless and if it's a hassle in their community to dispose of these (*)(*)(*)(*)ty bulbs because they can only do it certain times of the year of they have to drive far then they aren't going to do it. That is a simple fact of life.

Thanks to the environmentalist nuts we are now stuck with gas that has lower gas mileage (you use more so you are having to drill for more, oh the irony) and it is in fact worse for the environment than just regular gas. And now we are stuck with millions of mercury filled bulbs. For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake thanks to idiots who support them like you we now have stuff that requires isntructions like this http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl to clean up in our homes with children and pets. Thanks a lot you twits.

 

I since you can obviously google I would like you to do a little more self education on this topic and come at it without the prejudice of urban myths

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

In any event CFL's are rapidly giving way to an even longer lasting type of light bulb - the LED

 

Your defense is that "Well they aren't as bad as the coal power plants...........seriously?" You do realize the mercury doesn't go away or disappear. When it gets in the ground and in the water it is there to stay.

Your side opposed nuclear power for years (only very recently have some environmental groups begun to change their minds on it) so we kept building more and more coal power plants and then your side complained about emissions from them. The logical argument would be to say that both coal plants AND CFL bulbs are both bad but idiots on the left have no logic skills so they don't see the hypocrisy.

LEDs are what we should have waited for (even those have heavy metals but not as much). But no, you whiny crybabies in the environmental movement had to have your way right then and there and you threw hissy fits about if for years. Meanwhile for the last few years you were only able to buy CFL bulbs since they banned the production and import of the incandescent bulbs. Hundreds of millions of those bulbs have been sold and most of those are now out of service now, many of which went God knows where.

The environmental movement is a bunch ignorant, luddites who never take actual physics or chemistry course (not one of my chem or phys profs thinks CFL bulbs are a good) and are completely ignorant of basic chemistry.

 

The guy seemed very wise to me? Perhaps you would like to listen and refute this old guy, he headed the US Senate Environmental Committee and has debated and WON every debate with Senator Barbra Boxer and left her unable to refute his argument that Man Made Global Warming is BS. This is a two part video but there are dozens more if you look around YouTube.
[video=youtube;kBuREuABX6s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuREuABX6s&list=UUk3W3ilX8vGG-300qzNpG7w&index=29[/video]

By clicking the YouTube icon at the bottom of the video you can select "watch on YouTube" and the part 2 is located top sidebar.

 

Do not waste my life on anything not referenced

Post something referenced to actual scientific data and I will spend time on it - and Oh! About James Inhofe, thanks for bringing up Big Energy's little boy - bought and SOLD!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

 

It seems you have the brainwashed ostrich syndrome (BOS) that allows you to hold high ground by proclaiming your time is somehow so valuable the only way you can expend it is by sticking your head in the dirt and looking for dirt on the opposing voice proclaiming it's OK to take your head out of the dirt? I will not waste a lot of your valuable time since you are so filled with wisdom that learning some new knowledge may cause you to bury your head for eternity so..........If you click the video and slide the bar over to minute 3:25 you will hear Senator Inhofe tell you something referenced to actual scientific data...actually first at that point he will tell you don't have logic nor science on your side you revert to name calling and then at minute 5:25 he actually gives you a peer reviewed study by Harvard-Smithsonian that states global warming is a hoax. He refers to the Dr. Fred Sites, former President of the national academy of science and quoted the Dr. saying he also agrees global warming is a hoax.

In your world it seems if the Senator's campaign isn't funded the Sierra Club even the FACTS he presents are somehow not FACTS? I personally think that's a special kind of crazy.

 

Come talk to us when Kilimanjaro is half-covered with snow again.

 

well, DUH! Some of us would rather not poison the Tuareg or dry up the wells at which the Wodabi water their cattle to take care of some dim bulbs in the USA.

 

IS not everyone's time valuable to them - truth is I do not have to "prove" anything to anyone - I know what I know from years of research on this topic and an ability to discern fact from fiction and the basis of that is reading actual scientific reports - not listening to random people on you tube or known shills of the oil and energy companies

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Sigh)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Don't care - post a LINK or a scientific article and get this

I DO NOT DO YOU TUBE

 

BOS if you have time to spend responding on debate sites you have time to watch two or three minutes on YouTube...anyway I told you the factual information in my last post referenced on the YouTube to even save you more of your valuable time in the sand. I'm sure you have access to google to refute the findings of the two cited factual scientific authorities I posted.

 

There is also that fact that Inhofe is already known to most people as a total dimbulb and a waste of floor space.

 

That sounds like and "everybody knows" statement...? I've watched his long floor speeches that follow a long passionate speech from Barbra Boxer on the subject on C-Span2 ...Barbra delivers the up to date Sierra Club/Center for America Progress facts and then Inhofe follows with his facts and yes it's tiresome but I watched it several times and he asks Barbra to hang around and refute his rebuttal and she never can. He's brilliant or Barbra Boxer is dumb as a rock.

 

No, I am on Pre-paid and Videos COST. Plus - what is it with people believing in You Tube? I mean there is significantly LESS standard of proof and truth than there is in the Advertising Industry.................. Would you, do you believe every advert on TV?

No, it takes little time to research solid referenced and validated data - not wot sum bloke sed on da tube duh!

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am on Pre-paid and Videos COST. Plus - what is it with people believing in You Tube? I mean there is significantly LESS standard of proof and truth than there is in the Advertising Industry.................. Would you, do you believe every advert on TV?

No, it takes little time to research solid referenced and validated data - not wot sum bloke sed on da tube duh!

Inhofe is the master of the cherry pick and the obfuscation - if you are serious post those research papers (you can find them on google scholar) and I will review them

 

You're using the "Ad Angelum" argument, where your Anti-Growth academic father-figures are disembodied pure spirits with special powers to benefit mankind.

You're stuck on morality and ignore competence. These scientists are all minor leaguers, in fields that they had to choose because they didn't have the talent for the major fields. Their confused, inaccurate, passive, and purely descriptive "science" is as respectable as an agent for improvement as any other eruption of arrogance. It's as bad as if thousands of sports writers started advising youngsters on how to become good at sports.

You always talk about some conspiracy of capitalists out to get you, but you ignore that thousands of times that number are the workers you will cause to lose their jobs. So you show your class bias by only caring about Limousine Liberals and their Right Wing classmates. Again, because you refuse to admit the existence of anything but Evil Corporate Greedhead (Christopher Walken) against Catwoman super-hero, we don't care about your Good Guy Bad Guy children's show. You elevated idiots are self-centered destroyers of working people, who are far more important than your comic book Clash of the Titans. A genuine Left Wing, instead of this 60s hippie freak show, would be totally against your cult.

Those who fear they are about to be exposed for incompetence and fraud always shout "Conspiracy Theory!" They also are so low that they'd associate those who don't worship every word that comes out of their mouths, as your cult does, must be just like the Nazi scum who deny the Holocaust.

And there is such a thing as a decadent society, where those who reach powerful and influential positions would be nobodies in a healthy society. So this kook cult is merely a sign of the times.

 

Getting back to the Big Joke focus, the Sierra Club of Abominable Snow-Job Men quit using recycled paper because it made their fishwraps of propaganda look cruddy.

 

I guess this is the wrong place to debate the subject anyway...Thanks for explaining why you don't like to use YouTube, the reason I wanted you to view it was because it was a video on the US Senate floor but I understand. Anyway I've been posting on your thread "Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels" and on post #11 you will find one of the referenced in the video...thanks!

 

I hear that the warming has actually stopped, and that the data for prehistoric times isn't really good enough to support the comparison necessary to establish whether current temperature fluctuations are normal or not (i.e. anthropogenic or not).

 

I find it ironic that greenies are so concerned about the hole in the ozone layer letting UV through, yet they want to stick UV-emitting light bulbs into all our homes.

 

I think you better look up the term "ad hominem" because THAT was a CLASSIC!!

 

Taxing cow farts isn't going to do any good, but I think it is incumbent on rightwingers to figure out a productive use for cow farts since it is generally their cows that are stinking up my air.

 

Thank you. I'm Ad Hominem about Ad Hominem. It's not a fallacy, and was only listed in order that known biased and data-manipulating people could hide behind a cloak of impartiality. I believe in the fact that there is such a thing as the "Ad Angelum" fallacy because I don't recognize authority. It is all opinion to me. I don't respect position. Too much of it is achieved through brown-nosing conformity by ambitious imbeciles.

Notice I say "believe in the fact" rather than just "believe." It is because authoritarians never say, "I believe Ad Hominem is a fallacy." In their opinion, if self-appointed experts say it is a fallacy, then that makes it a fact that Ad Hominem is a fallacy, which makes scientists our Guardian Angels.

Besides, a fallacy is not inadmissible; it is merely not conclusive. But it is abused to mean inadmissible. Perfectionism leads to paralysis. In order to avoid that, a preponderance of evidence like this has to be taken as the closest to truth that we can get in certain cases.

 

Welcome to my "Don't Bother Reading" list

Life is too short to waste on people uninterested in the debate itself but who would rather post accusation after accusation about the people who may hold a different belief to themselves

 

Very few people understand that ad hominem is seldom a fallacy. Of course few people understand logic these days.

Ad Hominem is only a fallacy if what you are attacking is irrelevant. Questioning the quality of the scientists as a scientist is not a fallacy because it is relevant.

 

Cow farts are not the problem it is the methane given off when cow dung decomposes. A smart right winger would use the cow manure for fertilizer, cow bedding and natural gas to power the dairy or feedlot and save electricity and improve the soil while helping the climate and not hurting it.

And...aftr the maure is fermented into natural gas the end result is good cow bedding and also good organic matter for the soil. The refuse could be used to burn like firewood also.