Nostalgia for an old fashioned light bulb?

I return to the original posting:-

Did you have a high score on the Authoritarian index? Not very libertarian of you telling people what to think.

When it comes to number crunching I have to rely on peer review to assess the figures. Practicalities is that I do not have the time to check the figures and am not a trained climatologist. But does that matter? When changing a light bulb over to low energy light bulbs or switching off instead of using standby mode. Small but practical steps to a) save my money and b) save energy.

it is not very libertarian of you to advocate that any state can or can't control what products people must buy. by the way, i think i am smart enough to turn things off or on when im not using them. i dont need the government to regulate me on that but thanks for being so concerned.

heck i'll go back to using candles and no computer. good times

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

I advocate self regulation not Governmental Regulation.

The processes for renewable energy are high tech not low tech back to the cave solutions.

carbon sequestration in power stations High tech not low tech.

Recycling processes, high tech not low tech.

Heat transfer systems, high tech not low tech.

None of the above has anything to do with Governmental Regulation.

It does have a lot to do with man's ingenuity.

And, according to your own "Priests of the Church of Gloom and Doom," none of your examples will have any measurable effect on either the CO2 levels or the increased temperatures from solar activity that caused them. But keep your "faith," because there's still no factual and verifiable data to back up your fears. False religions..............sheesh!

Democrats? Or republicans?

Let me think about that one, by in large every newspaper and major network broadcasts are ran with an obvious left of center ideology. News articles that scare people, sell news papers. News broadcasts that scare people sell airtime to sponsors. Political ideologues with an agenda scare people to further their cause, so yes, that would be the democratic left in this case. The question for you ashleykennedy, is try and connect this scare to the republicans.

It would be great if there was a common sense approach and debate on this subject as the two scientists below point out, but alas the hate from the left would never allow this to happen. Just remember, it was not the republicans wanting close and shut down all nuclear power in the 60's and 70's. The left leaning loons are to blame, and now we as a society are searching and scrambling for that wanted resource and technology today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6460635.stm

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Already did see first article.

And which high priest told you that?

As I'm more of a Libertarian/Anarchist I can freely disassociate myself from your attempt to pigeon hole me. a) I don't belong to a group (the first prerequisite for a church), so please stick to what I say and not to what you think I ought to say to make your argument.

80% of all know scientists agree. If it's good enough for cats it's good enough for me.

You've actually passed the first prerequisite for a religion...........belief in something that has no tangible evidence. Man-made global warming fits that to a tee. Your "scientific" leaders have no base data to support their claims.............do you?

Now, THAT I'll agree to. Heresay IS good enough for you. However, the "80% of scientists" you refer to has only been claimed by the perpetrators of the hoax..............never documented. Besides, science has never been determined by a popularity contest........that's how fallacies like the "flat earth" get made.

Science is determined with step by step experimentation with all data documented so that others may follow the exact path of the original scientist(s) and get the same results. It's not determined by a knee-jerk and emotional popularity vote. Your "scientists" have rejected all requests for their base data, only demanding their conclusions be taken as truth, and dealing with those who oppose those conclusions NOT with data, but with name-calling and condemnation of every sort. That idiocy has only been deemed "scientific" once throughout history..............now, with the global warming scam.

The reason you can't "knee-jerk" an answer to the fact that Earth's (and Mars') climates have changed throughout history from before humankind ever existed, is because that data doesn't fit the conclusion desired by your "scientists." Like I said.........it's a religion due to the lack of evidence that must be replaced by pure faith.............and a false religion at that. But, as you proudly said, that's good enough for you .

Please, T-D, don't ridicule other people's religion.

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

Although I don't believe it is a liberal conspiracy I do believe democrats would love to push this so they can win an election without addressing more important issues.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

Just like Dunkin dishonest use of quotes. So it comes to your religion.