Global warming?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by glatt

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

No they can't. That is not their job, their right, or their responsibility. A bureau they created was given more power than our Constitution granted them. This country was built on the understanding of a limit of government to only do what they needed to keep our country running. But Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President keep pushing their power into the lives of the people and gain more control and more of a "nanny-state" with every passing month.

But let's take the above fallacy as a truth. Let's put us into a horrible nanny-state where we have lost the right to decide what to buy or how to live.

You think light-bulbs are the big majority of energy spending? This regulation is what will save us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_..._United_States

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/190426

This is not a RIGHT of protecting people but a LOSS of freedom to enjoy our modern clearly lit life.

[Undertoad]

You should be able to buy any light bulb you like, as long as you generate the electricity for it.

[classicman]

climate shift. The question is not whether it is happening but how much is from human impact? There is a large amount of evidence supporting both sides and I imagine that we are going through a natural climate shift and human impact is just exaggerating the effects. That means we can probably do some to lower the magnitude of changes but they will still occur no matter what.

Excellent

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Coign

No they can't.

Well, since incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, it appears they can.

Answer this. Does one have a right to cause unlimited pollution in the environment that other people live in?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Coign

To answer this, see above. Out government should NOT be spending money on faulty science forcing me to buy products that they have investments in, and fining and imprisoning those who do not follow their laws. If you can declare "light bulbs" illegal, were does it stop? Let me repeat that, DECLARING PERFECTLY SAFE LIGHT BULBS ILLEGAL, that is a destruction of rights.

Hi Coign,

You've put up a lot of information today, I'm just catching up. On this point, I call bullshit.

I am not sure what you're so apoplectic about, the chain of thoughts between climate change and light bulbs or the function of government to make laws that include limits on people and things. You're mixing up a lot of stuff here, and I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.

I'll just take your conclusion for now, the destruction of our rights. I dispute this conclusion, and I dispute the evidence you use to reach it.

Here's the link *I* found when I researched this point:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isla...ral-law-bans-/

Once again, I think you and I won't be able to learn from each other until we can have an agreed upon set of definitions, especially regarding what constitutes "proof". Do you respect the source I've linked to here?

[Coign]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I believed that they were going to remove our current bulbs. I understand that I can continue to use my 5 extra bulbs in my house.

But they are banning the sale and manufacture of a legal bulb. Do we need a one-child law also because your offspring will pollute the earth? Sure they won't kill off your current children, but you can't have anymore. How is that different?

And if you laugh off the slippery slope argument, you are deluding yourself. Laws are being passed and we are losing freedoms. Right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, right to travel freely, right to be free of suspicion.

And here are 900+ peer reviewed papers that oppose AWG climate change proof.

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

[Coign]

Originally Posted by glatt

Well, since incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, it appears they can.

The government does a lot they are not supposed to do. But there is nothing a "law abiding citizen" can do about it. Be it groping someone in front of hundreds at an airport, or an officer walking into your house because he can make up the excuse, "I thought there was an illegal activity going on inside." Doesn't mean I can't talk about it and declare it illegal and point it out to people.

Originally Posted by glatt

Answer this. Does one have a right to cause unlimited pollution in the environment that other people live in?

The right? Yes. Should they? Off course not. It is a matter of law versus morals. It is a matter of personal responsibility. But when the government removes personal responsibility they remove a person's morals that would govern that facet of their life.

Pollution and those responsible for it should be a civil matter, not a criminal matter. You take someone to civil court and fine them. You don't pass a federal mandated policy/law/regulation. It is NOT their right or job.

[glatt]

I'm not following you. If a person has the right to pollute as much as they want, then how can you stop them by taking them to court with a civil action? Their defense would just be "tough shit, it's my prerogative."

[classicman]

I'll jump in on that "source" BigV, My answer is yes and no.
They're all over the place with their "facts."

No the Feds are not outlawing incandescent bulbs. Well, not exactly.
What they did instead was set efficiency regulations that are realistically unachievable with an incandescent bulb. Net effect ... no more incandescent bulbs.

In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[8] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.

By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[31]

via wiki since it has a good basic description of the law.
Here is the actual act in a text format.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Coign

And if you laugh off the slippery slope argument, you are deluding yourself. Laws are being passed and we are losing freedoms. Right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, right to travel freely, right to be free of suspicion.

I made those same points 25 years ago. The libertarian crisis was at hand then, too. About 12 years into it I realized, with some amount of shame, that the slope wasn't actually sloping.

And now, with even more time and understanding, I am still surprised to find that things were actually getting better all that time, not worse. I just couldn't see it, because I was stuck seeing only those things I was looking at.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Coign

The right? Yes. Should they? Off course not. It is a matter of law versus morals. It is a matter of personal responsibility. But when the government removes personal responsibility they remove a person's morals that would govern that facet of their life.

We live in a world where every action we take affects the world around us. If I decide to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed building, someone with asthma might suffer from my actions. I am not directly hurting them, my fist has not touched their face, but I am hurting them indirectly since we share the same environment.

One role of government is protect the rights of it's citizens, to a certain extent, from both direct and indirect attacks. If personal responsibility fails at protecting citizen's, which it has in many respects, then government needs to step in.

I ask you, Coign, what are your thoughts on the banning of DDT?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'll jump in on that "source" BigV, My answer is yes and no.
They're all over the place with their "facts."

No the Feds are not outlawing incandescent bulbs. Well, not exactly.
What they did instead was set efficiency regulations that are realistically unachievable with an incandescent bulb. Net effect ... no more incandescent bulbs.


via wiki since it has a good basic description of the law.
Here is the actual act in a text format.

Regarding the quality of this source:

What facts are all over the place? The headline is a quote from a news story that they fact check, and then they determine that it is basically a lie. Also, the article linked to also has a link to the actual text of the law. They're going to the source information, about as reliable as I can imagine in a scenario like this "will incandescent bulbs be banned?". They answer emphatically NO.

Would you clarify your position please?

[infinite monkey]

I ask you, Coign, what are your thoughts on the banning of DDT?

Or thalidomide?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

So instead of a 100 watt incandescent bulb you prefer the mercury in florescent bulbs?

And the pusher for this law was/is GE. Because I am sure they are only thinking about energy conservation and not the money they will reap by forcing you to buy their product.

You are again forgetting to learn the facts and numbers. A symptom of junk science reasoning.

Which puts more mercury into the environment? Incandescent bulbs. That one is a no brainer. But is not found where subjective reasoning is promoted in sound bytes. I leave it to you to either provide the facts and numbers. Or ask to learn rather then tell us what junk science says.

GE was opposed to the high efficiency light bulbs - completely opposite of what you have been told to believe. Please learn facts before 'knowing'. GE had demonstrated the technology in 1975. And refused to implement it. GE now finds itself playing catchup. Most of the new technology light bulbs are made in China - where people would rather innovate. Once a characteristic of Americans before knowledge only came from sound bytes.

Wal-Mart discovered GE was stifling technology. So Wal-Mart told GE to provide those clearly superior bulbs. GE said they would slowly implement them. Not good enough. Wal-Mart invited all other companies to replace GE as a primary supplier. Only then did GE decide to get serious about finally implementing their 1975 product.

Wal-Mart also asked Home Depot to join them in advancing mankind. But Home Depot, then, was being run into the ground by another anti-American named Nardelli. Nardelli also could not see any value in innovation - and refused.

You know Nardelli by his anti-American thinking. After being paid $200million to leave Home Depot (they had to save the company), he then took over Chrysler. And ran that into the ground. Did what anti-Americans do. Cost control. Stifle innovation.

You advocate hate of innovation - the only thing that every great American does. And you would not know that. Your posts are based in sound bytes reasoning. Lies that exist only when technical facts and numbers are ignored. See how much it took to explain reality misrepresented in those two sentences? Only patriotic Americans learn this stuff before having an opinion. Due to sound byte reasoning, you must love Nardelli. His reasons are so similar to yours.

GE did everything they could not maximize profits at the expense of all Americans. Those informed only by soundbytes would not know that. Therefore another industry that should have been dominated by America is now in Chinese hands. Anti-Americans will blame everyone - and not their own thinking - for those job losses.

You make a valid complaint about whether government should ban crappy technology that could have been eliminated 20 years ago. In theory, American industry should want to innovate. So why did GE refuse to make those light bulbs for over 35 years? We do have a serious problem. Some industries conspire to keep superior products out of the market.

Example: The radial tire arrived in 1975. Why was the radial tire routinely sold all over the world starting in 1948? Kept out of American until 1975 - long after it was standard all over the world? There is no magic philosophy that explains everything. You must learn details and numbers - or be extremist dumb. By assuming a magic philosophy, you are literally insulting all others with the resulting diatribe. Are so divorced from the details and numbers as to not even know you are insulting.

Meanwhile Uniroyal, Goodrich, Firestone, Goodyear, and so many other American tire companies. Which one is still American? Goodyear. All others so hated innovation - conspired to keep radial tires out of America - so to be sold to foreigners. So many American tire companies fired Americans only because, like GE, they conspired to stifle innovation. To enrich American management even after they destroyed American jobs. Your sound bytes simply ignore hard facts and numbers. And the #1 reason why American jobs are lost.

But you would not know this. Soundbytes even back in 1975 blamed everyone but America's greatest enemies. A majority then recited those soundbytes. It is called brainwashing. You are doing same. Your citation insults me because you clearly have no idea what it says. Some political agenda has told you how to think - brainwashing. With sufficient knowledge, then you summarized the key points and numbers. You don't. And do not even realize how insulting you are being.

The cigarette industry proved that cigarettes increase health. Using soundbytes, most Americans knew it must be true. When challenged to prove it in court, they simply dumped millions of pages of documents. You are using the same insulting logic. Dumping reams of URLs without any idea what any of them say.

Prove me wrong. Post as any better educated persons does - with the reasons why and numbers. You never do.

Meanwhile, there is virtually no valid research that denies global warming. There are some theories such as the Atlantic Oscillatory Effect. You get respest when you cite such basic science with numbers. You don't and you can't. Meanwhile those who pioneered and championed that theory now say it was completely wrong. Now agree that mankind is creating global warming. Because the science that say so is overwhelming. And is mostly denied only by those brainwashed by subjective spin and soundbytes - and no numbers.

You post subjectively. That is insulting. You only assumed GE wanted the new light bulbs. A conspiracy attitude demanded it. You could not bother to first learn facts - GE was stifling the technology for 35 years. Had you bothered to first learn facts, then "brainwashing by soundbyte" would not be possible. But you never bothered to first learn. Nor demand numbers. Numbers. 35+ years ago.

> And the pusher for this law was/is GE.
Because that is how brainwashing works. Knowledge because one feels it must be true. No daming questions. No first learning the details. And no numbers. Brainwashing by soundbyte.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Regarding the quality of this source:

What facts are all over the place?

On differing subjects, I have found their opinion to be erratic.

Staying on topic...

"will incandescent bulbs be banned?". They answer emphatically NO.

I disagree. By making the standards for an incandescent bulb unattainable, it basically has the same outcome as a ban. Within the letter of the law, no they did not ban them, but in effect that is precisely what they wanted to achieve. By making the requirements unachievable, they, in effect, banned them.
Spirit or letter of the law? Your choice.