Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are addressing the notion of cutting down Co2, so I don't see how this is off topic.
With that said: Actually, I've not had a single failure. I started small, buying just a few, until I felt I had figured out which worked best.
CFL's are useless garbage, with a very short life and high cost, and high disposal cost, as well, in terms of dollars AND pollution.
The LED's are only marginally better, in my experience. I have a number of them and not only have I not found one I like the spectrum from, their performance is poor and lifespan hasn't been so good, either.
when i was in grade school. we learned in science class that CO2 was needed for photosynthesis.
why are greenies against science and hate trees?
As Ronald (trees cause more pollution than cars) Reagan used to say, "Well, there you go again."
I will use your typical non-answer as an example of how the GOP hive-mind copes with evidence, i.e. by changing the subject. All others who replied in this manner, consider yourselves addressed.
At least I tried. Hopefully, the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept will prove useful to others who haven't thought of it when debating the Walking Brain-Dead.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
I can't address your post on your terms, however, neither can the vast majority of voters.
When you inject politics into the discussion and make blanket statements about a huge raft of people you label conservative, you are just another HCGW shill. You can't pretend to own the correct scientific interpretation of the data and make an irrational statement about a collective group of people. Prejudice and science do not mix.
The earth has the capacity to reach equilibrium without man's help.
If not, we go away. Al the registered voters D or R can hop up and down and shout and the earths agenda does not even list our concern.
What do you propose 'we' do to save the earth. We, being 'all' the registered democrats in the USA because it is apparent that if 'all' registered republicans don't chant, 'we believe, we believe' you contend the earth will freeze????
There are other people on earth whose number is far greater than registered USA republican voters. Apparently they are irrelevant to your solution, whatever it is.
Conclusions arrived at via scientific method are only true for a moment. Scientific data may be interpreted incorrectly and when it becomes weaponized it is more of a cult. So it is not the science that is in question, it is the interpretation of the data that begs to be challenged and tempered in the fire of argument. Apparently the 'scientific' community is at odds. The grant sucking academics will fondle the government udder for more sustenence and do its bidding to keep the milk flowing.
Masinstream science believed bad odors caused disease., they also believed yellow fever was transmitted by filth and could not comprehend an insect vector was involved.
Nice rant, now explain to me why it's illogical that a "trace gas" which prevents the world from being frozen is magically benign (temperature-wise) when Man increases its concentration far beyond modern background levels.
I injected politics because A) this is a political forum and B) it's blatantly obvious that climate denial is the domain of the Republican Party, closely tied to their Creationist beliefs in human dominion over nature.
There was a YouTube video a few years ago (can't find it offhand) where some guys with a crane raised a tall banner or pole showing the volume of CO2 relative to other gases, as if volume alone proves that CO2 can't have impact. Classic layman's misunderstanding of a complex atmosphere. "It's small, therefore it's harmless!" (Try that theory with curare, genius.) Their demo was meaningless and the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept is why.
Address the science and logic, if you dare. All you've done above is change the subject to unrelated science errors from long ago, a classic diversion technique that presumes scientists are automatically incompetent just because knowledge progresses (the core of the scientific method). Global warming denial is all about anti-regulation zealotry, not modern evidence.
CFL's are useless garbage, with a very short life and high cost, and high disposal cost, as well, in terms of dollars AND pollution.
The LED's are only marginally better, in my experience. I have a number of them and not only have I not found one I like the spectrum from, their performance is poor and lifespan hasn't been so good, either.
Then you've not looked hard enough. There are high efficiency LEDs that rival, or surpass any incandescent bulb.
Like I said, I've not had a single failure and performance has been amazing. Keep in mind I did my homework; comparing user ratings, lumens per watt, and spectrum.
I'd rather pay for a quality LED than CFL or a Suzy Home Bake Oven heater any day.
As Ronald (trees cause more pollution than cars) Reagan used to say, "Well, there you go again."
I will use your typical non-answer as an example of how the GOP hive-mind copes with evidence, i.e. by changing the subject. All others who replied in this manner, consider yourselves addressed.
At least I tried. Hopefully, the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept will prove useful to others who haven't thought of it when debating the Walking Brain-Dead.
...you have the audacity to claim his was a non-answer, and follow with NOTHING even resembling a reasonable position and filled with rhetoric and attacks on millions of people.
I'd think about getting your cell in order before calling out hive-mindedness!
only if you can explain how we are also polluting other planets with so much dam CO2 causing their atmosphere to change. Since of course you cant then what makes you so dam sure our planet isnt going through the same change those planets did at some point due to a natural occurance?
And yet other planets have far higher CO2 levels than we ever had despite a lack of human interaction.
If other planets had Earth's carbon cycle and intelligent life evolved and started burning stored carbon, they'd end up in the same boat.
CO2 levels were higher on Earth in the past for natural reasons (e.g. far more volcanic activity) but this is the present and Man is the main driver now. Why argue against evidence? Human-created CO2 has a signature isotope so we can tell it from natural sources.
We also create smog and cut down trees and wipe out ocean life. You could say "Lightning causes forest fires so how can Man be blamed for any destruction of trees?" or "Sharks kill tuna so how can people be overfishing tuna?" It's like a kid blaming his little brother for everything. "Neener, neener! China is burning more coal so why can't America?"
AGW is just one realm of human impact that became "controversial" because oil, gas and coal money was involved. People have lied throughout history to protect nature-pillaging industries that produce huge profits. And they have the gall to blame scientists for needing grant money to do research (only when they don't like the findings of said research).
As Ronald (trees cause more pollution than cars) Reagan used to say, "Well, there you go again."
I will use your typical non-answer as an example of how the GOP hive-mind copes with evidence, i.e. by changing the subject. All others who replied in this manner, consider yourselves addressed.
At least I tried. Hopefully, the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept will prove useful to others who haven't thought of it when debating the Walking Brain-Dead.
But once again you introduce politics into it, thus trivializing what you have to say as partisanship. As long as you can't help but inject your personal political opinion into things, your continued insistence that you are speaking about science and evidence will continue to not be worth a dime.
You are the one who was coorolating CO2 levels to temperature, now you have no idea of the linkage?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I expected these non-responses
and attacks on millions of people.
