Politics even affects light bulb choice.

[glenn1]

Reducing carbon emissions is absolutely an unambiguous good. Full stop.

Conservatives may be dumb in a lot of ways, but unlike you they're typically smart enough to know the difference between fact and opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Conservatives may be dumb in a lot of ways, but unlike you they're typically smart enough to know the difference between fact and opinion.

Unless you are a climate change denier reducing carbon emissions is an unambiguous good, all other things equal.

If you are a climate change denier, there's really no point in discussing this further with you as you aren't amenable to scientific evidence.

 

[thraashman]

Conservatives may be dumb in a lot of ways, but unlike you they're typically smart enough to know the difference between fact and opinion.

You must not read P&N very often considering many of the more prominent conservative posters on here and their almost complete inability to separate fact from opinion.

 

[glenn1]

Unless you are a climate change denier reducing carbon emissions is an unambiguous good, all other things equal.

If you are a climate change denier, there's really no point in discussing this further with you as you aren't amenable to scientific evidence.

If you want to threadcrap your own thread that's fine, we can go down the global warming angle. First, "climate change" is meaningless unless you want to claim it doesn't change absent madmade influence. Secondly, proposing that our goal be an unchanging climate frozen in amber baselined upon some arbitrary time period is folly; shall we attempt to endlessly maintain a 1950s climate? 1900? Pick any year, and it's equally ridiculous. Third, we can discuss the predictive accuracy of current models. And finally, discuss whether proposed carbon reduction plans actually are pass a cost/benefit vs. simple mitigation if climate change should occur.

No matter what, pinning all this on a single conservative's light bulb choice is a complete morality play farce.

 

[fskimospy]

If you want to threadcrap your own thread that's fine, we can go down the global warming angle. First, "climate change" is meaningless unless you want to claim it doesn't change absent madmade influence. Secondly, proposing that our goal be an unchanging climate frozen in amber baselined upon some arbitrary time period is folly; shall we attempt to endlessly maintain a 1950s climate? 1900? Pick any year, and it's equally ridiculous. Third, we can discuss the predictive accuracy of current models. And finally, discuss whether proposed carbon reduction plans actually are pass a cost/benefit vs. simple mitigation if climate change should occur.

No matter what, pinning all this on a single conservative's light bulb choice is a complete morality play farce.

No, we're not going down that road as I counted far too many hilariously stupid straw men, bald misrepresentations, red herrings, and non sequiturs in that paragraph to have it be worth that time.

For rational adults amenable to scientific evidence if all other aspects are equal as they were here a reduction in carbon emissions is an unarguably good thing. If you don't feel that way you're way too far off the deep end on too many other topics for this one to have much meaning.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, we're not going down that road as I counted far too many hilariously stupid straw men, bald misrepresentations, red herrings, and non sequiturs in that paragraph to have it be worth that time.

For rational adults amenable to scientific evidence if all other aspects are equal as they were here a reduction in carbon emissions is an unarguably good thing. If you don't feel that way you're way too far off the deep end on too many other topics for this one to have much meaning.

Kind of like the term "climate change denier"?

 

[fskimospy]

Kind of like the term "climate change denier"?

No, not at all. Thanks for asking, though!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, not at all. Thanks for asking, though!

glenn1 never said that he believed that our climate wasn't changing...yet you called him a "climate change denier". Your labeling him as such is a blatant strawman...a misrepresentation of his position.

 

[fskimospy]

glenn1 never said that he believed that our climate wasn't changing...yet you called him a "climate change denier". Your labeling him as such is a blatant strawman...a misrepresentation of his position.

Don't worry, Wikipedia to the rescue!

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

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior

Simply accepting that climate can change is not what the term is about. I do so enjoy your stops in my threads though, friend DSF. Come back any time.

 

[blankslate]

Saving money is a good thing and CFLs in certain cases can do that.

However there are certain things that can shorten the life of a CFL that won't lessen the life of incandescent bulbs or LED bulbs.

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led comp chart.html

As said before CFLs are a temporary solution for general home use until LEDs improve in terms of light projection angles and color rendition and come down further in price.

Instead of using terms like environment the packaging of CFLs and LEDs would be better off highlighting the savings in money possible when they are used.

 

[Fern]

Oh god, are you serious? You realize you're reading the abstract, right? If you go read more about the actual conduct of the study you will see that my depiction was correct.
-snip-

We can only read what you provide.

That what you provide doesn't match up with your assertions is your fault/problem.

IMO, this whole is stupid, made worse by the fact that you link us to something, then claim your data is really found elsewhere where we would have to pay to get it.

Exceedingly poor basis for a thread.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

We can only read what you provide.

That what you provide doesn't match up with your assertions is your fault/problem.

IMO, this whole is stupid, made worse by the fact that you link us to something, then claim your data is really found elsewhere where we would have to pay to get it.

Exceedingly poor basis for a thread.

Fern

You can only read what I provide? The rest of your computer is broken? Is Google down? If you don't see some information that you are interested in from the link I provided why not either look for it yourself or ask about it instead of just making random, wrong assumptions?

I'm terribly sorry to hear that my thread didn't live up to your high personal standards. I'll try and make some birther threads in the future.

 

[glenn1]

You can only read what I provide? The rest of your computer is broken? Is Google down? If you don't see some information that you are interested in from the link I provided why not either look for it yourself or ask about it instead of just making random, wrong assumptions?

I'm terribly sorry to hear that my thread didn't live up to your high personal standards. I'll try and make some birther threads in the future.

Your thread got you what you wanted; the chance to call conservatives stupid. Also, you haven't contributed any additional worthwhile content or opinion in 100+ posts, so you should close it at this point and look for some new material.

 

[Nebor]

I would imagine that being anti-environment is just as much about signalling as being pro-environment is. That is, the signal to others is more important than the issue itself. Just as green proponents place their solar panels on the street-ward side of their homes despite that being the shadier side, anti-environmentalists shy away from buying "green products" and make a show of not recycling.

This thread can be summed as, "Look, these cavemen don't believe what I believe! Let's all point and laugh at them!"

 

[fskimospy]

Your thread got you what you wanted; the chance to call conservatives stupid. Also, you haven't contributed any additional worthwhile content or opinion in 100+ posts, so you should close it at this point and look for some new material.

I'll be sure to watch for you to apply your rigorous personal standards in future threads. Considering you haven't contributed anything worthwhile at all however, I hardly think you're a good arbiter of 'worthwhile content'.

 

[fskimospy]

I would imagine that being anti-environment is just as much about signalling as being pro-environment is. That is, the signal to others is more important than the issue itself. Just as green proponents place their solar panels on the street-ward side of their homes despite that being the shadier side, anti-environmentalists shy away from buying "green products" and make a show of not recycling.

This thread can be summed as, "Look, these cavemen don't believe what I believe! Let's all point and laugh at them!"

Or it could also be used to say 'tribalism causes people to make irrational decisions to their personal detriment and that seems bad'.

 

[Balt]

We have recycling bins at work. I hope no one puts a "save the environment" sticker on them, because then I'll have to start throwing my cans and bottles in the regular trash.

Clearly anything and everything done to conserve the environment is a socialist plot, and I won't be a part of it.

 

[OverVolt]

OP is really hung up on the sticker on the lightbulb like it changes anything. He thinks he has us a good, its funny. Its a sticker man. The liberal agenda is all about stickers on things now eh?

And I prefer the light from incandescent bulbs and always have.

 

[OverVolt]

We have recycling bins at work. I hope no one puts a "save the environment" sticker on them, because then I'll have to start throwing my cans and bottles in the regular trash.

Clearly anything and everything done to conserve the environment is a socialist plot, and I won't be a part of it.

Well supposedly for every 1 trash can made at home, there were 70 cans of of trash made upstream in manufacturing etc.

If you recycle 100% of your trash, say 10 cans of trash. There were still 700 dumped into a landfill. People make fun of liberals for being impractical hippies for a reason. Sure recycling tricks you into thinking you are helping the environment but you're not.

 

[OverVolt]

Saving money is a good thing and CFLs in certain cases can do that.

However there are certain things that can shorten the life of a CFL that won't lessen the life of incandescent bulbs or LED bulbs.

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led comp chart.html

As said before CFLs are a temporary solution for general home use until LEDs improve in terms of light projection angles and color rendition and come down further in price.

Instead of using terms like environment the packaging of CFLs and LEDs would be better off highlighting the savings in money possible when they are used.

Yup.

I turn my lights on/off quickly between rooms.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no reasoning with the brain dead.

 

[OverVolt]

There is no reasoning with the brain dead.

So if you recycle 1 can of trash and there are 70 more used in making your products that you don't ever see upstream in manufacturing, liberals pull a "mission accomplished" George Bush style on recycling/green environment accomplishment and thats not stupid how?

And thats even if you recycle 100%.

There are those juice boxes that are metal layered on plastic layered on cardboard that are literally impossible to recycle but you don't see liberals trying to change that do ya? Cause liberals wouldn't know their head from their ass about how to actually make the environment better.

 

[OverVolt]

If they already manufactured the light bulb, a competitors product not having a "green energy" sticker on it doesn't change anything, first they already made the incandescent lightbulb anyway, second, mercury in CFLs isn't actually good for the environment, . All liberals care about is accomplishing nothing and feeling good about it.

 

[Balt]

Well supposedly for every 1 trash can made at home, there were 70 cans of of trash made upstream in manufacturing etc.

If you recycle 100% of your trash, say 10 cans of trash. There were still 700 dumped into a landfill. People make fun of liberals for being impractical hippies for a reason. Sure recycling tricks you into thinking you are helping the environment but you're not.

Trying to understand your logic here. You're saying that recycling doesn't help... because there isn't enough recycling?

You are saying that creating a "new" product generates 70 times the waste upstream, so recycling doesn't help? Sounds like a pretty good argument for recycling, actually. I think it's easier to reclaim the aluminum from my office's 300 discarded coke cans (assuming a city generates enough waste for recycling to be practical) than to go mine more aluminum.

Will there still be waste created? Well, sure. But I don't think anyone has ever argued that it's a 100% efficient process.

 

[Engineer]

Well supposedly for every 1 trash can made at home, there were 70 cans of of trash made upstream in manufacturing etc.

You have anything to back that up because I've worked around factories for 20 years (helping to automate them) and see nowhere near the waste that you proclaim. Hell, most plants that I visit recycle the living hell out of stuff, especially the Japanese plants (they are anal about saving energy and recycling).

Example:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/an-auto-factory-as-green-as-its-cars.html

Subaru has a "zero landfill" policy. Not sure how close they come to that but if they are even as good as "most" of the plants I've been around, they are damn good.