"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" .... but ... I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa