Global warming is a fact, just the causes are heavily debated.
I think for anyone who does any serious (so, look at the actual scientific reports) research it's pretty obvious that we're not helping the situation, though.
Global warming is a fact, just the causes are heavily debated.
I think for anyone who does any serious (so, look at the actual scientific reports) research it's pretty obvious that we're not helping the situation, though.
I made my point clear, we will not run out of oil, we will not run out of cheap oil in my lifetime.
Someone brought resources depletion to the debate, so someone cared. It has a lot to do with climate change or global warming or whatever it's called, the enviromentalist paradigm (I'm generous here) has changed from the exhausting of resources to the evil of those same resources. When they realised they couldn't keep telling the "running out of X" lie they changed to blaming the use of the same resources "we should have exhausted years ago".
Stopping right now, the mod posted while i was typing.
One thing that cracks me up is that, politically, the same side that is against government austerity is pro-energy austerity.
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
Who is "they"?
---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 09:40 AM ----------
I don't know why that's funny. Two expressions having the same word doesn't somehow make them related; being in favor of cutting one thing doesn't mean that one wants to cut anything.
We have 250 years of oil left.
That doesn't mean that all 250 of those years will be cheap. Extraction can get expensive when the sources become inefficient.
That's not even taking into consideration the effects on the environment, which is what this entire thread is about.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
What, being discriminant in spending? It seems like you're just spouting taglines at this point.
The two aren't really even related. People proposing climate mitigation strategies implemented over decades aren't at all arguing the same thing as people that want to cut hundreds of billions in spending now, now, NOW.
So, I guess the humor is in torching the fuck out of strawmen. Have fun, I guess.
You didn't read the bolded part very carefully, did you?
Electricity in California costs twice the national average. NOW.
California has also been declared the worst place to start a business in the country for like 9 years running.
They have plenty of climate mitigation strategies in play, though.
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
California utility companies are pieces of shit and I'm more inclined to believe that the high costs here are because they're fucking bastards and not so much due to environmental regulation. At one point, water usage was down in San Diego because people were conserving water to save money (and for various other reasons, maybe). What was the water company's response to people being good and conserving water? They raised the rates because profits went down. We used less water and ended up paying more. Regulations provide a convenient scapegoat; they can screw us and blame it on regulations.
Hell, in Taiwan the water companies actually thank you when you use less water, not charge you more.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_10.htm
It's a bit dense, but it's worth the read.
Climate changed has happened before continues to happen and will continue to happen as long as there is an earth.
Did you know it was a lot hotter during the time of the dinosaurs than now?
We have geologically speaking just come out of an iceage. Now are we adding to this? Probably but we've only have a few years of data to go by and with these sorts of things more study is required.
One thing is for sure we are consuming a lot of the natural resources, look at fish for example we really should be allowing fish stocks to re-supply more effectively but in the EU they just allow them to continue over fishing. madness to the max.
Yea, that's why I said in my post that I'm more inclined to believe what I wrote if only because we've been screwed so hard by the water company. Never said it was based in reality, since I haven't done anywhere near enough research to make an actual informed statement.
With a CFL they just add enough mercury vapor to meet the lifespan they are guaranteeing.
Mercury in the bulb will be destroyed, absorbed eventually, the lifespan is mostly a how much they put in the bulb.
Also the phosphor also degrades and is destroyed.
120v->ballast->Mercury vapor->UV light->phosphor->visible light
In every CFL there are 3 things that WILL go eventually. The ballast (depending on quality), The Mercury (depending on quantity) and the Phosphor (also depending on quantity).
So it's quite possible to make relatively long lasting CFL bulbs, but in general they will just try and meet the requirements they market them at.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.