That isn't what I said, Soldier's-Mum, and I think you know it. I said, quite explicitly, that there is no more danger of polluting our groundwater with CF bulbs than there is with standard fluorescent light bulbs. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of standard fluorescent bulbs in use today, all of which contain many times the amount of mercury found in a CF lamp.


If we're going to have a rational discussion about this issue, it won't do for you to keep deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

Enraged, check out this link.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

I too believe that the Earth is warming, but don't believe that-
1) It's something that we can do anything about.
2) isn't something to worry about.

Please note that every time that the Earth had been warmer then it is today, that crops were more plentiful, decease were less, life span increased, and birthrates went up. (Oh No!!! Over Population!!!)

If anything, we're at the very tail end of the mini ice-age that started in the 14th Century.

And another link for you to check-out on the history of the Arctic region.

http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/archeo/oracles/norse/40.htm

Warmer is better - this is true.  In fact, for decades it was recognized to be true by science generally, including climatologists & historians.  You may have noted that the period between ca. 800A.D. - 1300A.D. when the average temperature was 1^oC warmer than today, used to be called the Medieval Climate Optimum.  What does "Optimum" mean? That's right....... The Best!

Upon the advent of Global Warming Hysteria, however, the name of this period was initially changed to the Medieval Warm Period.  To eliminate (untruthfully) any suggestion that warmer was better.

Now, that period is called simply the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. To eliminate (again, falsely) any implication that the world could possibly ever have been warmer than it is today.

The Earth may, indeed, be warming.  But as Romulun accurately points out, there is NOTHING to suggest that this is a BAD thing, and EVERYTHING to suggest that it is a GOOD thing for human civilization.

EnragedParrot wrote:That isn't what I said, Soldier's-Mum, and I think you know it. I said, quite explicitly, that there is no more danger of polluting our groundwater with CF bulbs than there is with standard fluorescent light bulbs. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of standard fluorescent bulbs in use today, all of which contain many times the amount of mercury found in a CF lamp.


If we're going to have a rational discussion about this issue, it won't do for you to keep deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

Well, again, I have trouble interpreting what the meaning of is is.  But I was not talking about regular Fluorescent lights, I was talking of compact fluorescents which the Global Warming people are advocating and the public is buying off the shelf without understanding their dangers and they are disposing of them in the same manner as incadescent bulbs.  

Because fluorescent lamps contain mercury, governmental regulations in many areas require special disposal of fluorescent lamps separate from general and household wastes. Mercury poses the greatest hazard to pregnant women, infants, and children.
Landfills often refuse fluorescent lamps due to their high mercury content.

That is my point.  CF bulbs are not being disposed of as hazardous material and a large percentage of the public doesn't even realize they contain mercury.  Consequently, the more they are thrown into the normal trash, the greater the chance of contamination of our ground waters.  My argument was never meant to apply to fluorescents since, as a rule, they are by law or mandate, disposed of as hazmat.

SoldiersMum wrote:That is my point.  CF bulbs are not being disposed of as hazardous material and a large percentage of the public doesn't even realize they contain mercury.  Consequently, the more they are thrown into the normal trash, the greater the chance of contamination of our ground waters.  My argument was never meant to apply to fluorescents since, as a rule, they are by law or mandate, disposed of as hazmat.

Yes, that's why I said, "proper use of" in my post. Improper handling of both Compact Fluorescent and standard Fluorescent bulbs can be dangerous. However, the mercury content of a single CF bulb is very low, and breaking a single one in your home isn't going to pose a threat at all.


Also, while your argument may not have been meant to apply to Standard Fluorescent bulbs,  I assure you, it does. It's simply naive to think that most people using standard Fluorescent bulbs are going to take proper precautions when disposing of them. Nine times out of ten they'll be tossed into a dumpster and forgotten.


Of course, this discussion of the pros and cons of Compact Fluorescent lamps is veering off topic from the theme of my thread, which is the greenhouse effect. So I'd appreciate if we could get back on track.

romulun wrote:Enraged, check out this link.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

I too believe that the Earth is warming, but don't believe that-
1) It's something that we can do anything about.
2) isn't something to worry about.

Please note that every time that the Earth had been warmer then it is today, that crops were more plentiful, decease were less, life span increased, and birthrates went up. (Oh No!!! Over Population!!!)

The link you give only supports your second claim. Care to take a crack at the first (since that's closer to what this thread is about)?

If anything, we're at the very tail end of the mini ice-age that started in the 14th Century.

I'm not sure that that's meaningful. 

The link you give only supports your second claim. Care to take a crack at the first (since that's closer to what this thread is about)?

If human caused CO2 is a mere 1% of all the CO2 produced, making the other 99% natural, then what could we do to make an impact to reduce it?

Volcanoes produce 60 times what humans does, decay, animals, trees, grass, etc all makes more CO2 then humans; but the big mama of all CO2 producers is the Oceans.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

When the Earth cools, the oceans absorb CO2, and when the Earth warms, CO2 is released. It takes centuries to cool, or warm the oceans, so what can man do to keep the oceans from warming?

However, the Big Daddy of Global Warming is Solar activity.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

What would you do to counter the Sun?

Rumulun, although your arguments seem persuasive, I remain unconvinced. They have been covered countless times (I've discussed them several times on this same forum), but I'll go ahead and post my rebuttal of each one anyway.

romulun wrote:If human caused CO2 is a mere 1% of all the CO2 produced, making the other 99% natural, then what could we do to make an impact to reduce it?

Actually, humans are responsible for about 38% percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere (280 ppm to 380 ppm is 100 ppm, or 38%). The 1% (actually 2%) figure you give is the amount humans are increasing CO2's concentration in the atmosphere each year, it isn't the net of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Volcanoes produce 60 times what humans does, decay, animals, trees, grass, etc all makes more CO2 then humans

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but according to the USGS, volcanoes emit approximately 200 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, while humans emit approximately 30 billion tons each year. Also of note is that volcanic eruptions usually have a net cooling effect, as can be seen from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

When the Earth cools, the oceans absorb CO2, and when the Earth warms, CO2 is released.

That's true. In fact, this feedback mechanism is particularly worrisome to climate scientists. Warming produced by human emissions of Co2 could warm the oceans to the point where they start releasing even more CO2, thus reinforcing the warming.

However, the Big Daddy of Global Warming is Solar activity.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

What would you do to counter the Sun?

Changes in solar activity certainly have effects on the climate. However, the simple fact of the matter is that there have been no trends in solar activity sufficient to produce the bulk of 20th century warming.

However, if warming is a good thing, based on the website in my earlier post is a good thing, or that since the last ice age, the Earth had been warmer then today, where's the problem?

Polar bears survived the last two warming, as did man. England and northern Europe had far milder winters, food was more plentiful, and other positive things.

I just don't see reason to fear the warming, and have my doubts that Co2 is the bogeyman that many claim. But I do see danger in ramrodding an agenda based on science, that many scientist fear to question because they'd lose their job if they did.

If a scientist merely questions Global Warming, (Science begins with questions) he's endangered of losing his funding, position, and good name to those who often times don't know enough science to debate the subject. And only a few dared to stand up to such heat.

Most of the scientist that came out to correct the IPCC Report, wouldn't dare to engage the threat of Global Warming as a whole, just the parts they contributed and got twisted by the final writers.

romulun wrote:
I just don't see reason to fear the warming, and have my doubts that Co2 is the bogeyman that many claim.

CO2 isn't a bogeyman, it's a greenhouse gas. If you'd like to contest that, well, that's what this thread is here for.

If a scientist merely questions Global Warming, (Science begins with questions) he's endangered of losing his funding, position, and good name to those who often times don't know enough science to debate the subject. And only a few dared to stand up to such heat.

Most of the scientist that came out to correct the IPCC Report, wouldn't dare to engage the threat of Global Warming as a whole, just the parts they contributed and got twisted by the final writers.

Hmm, I don't believe you. I haven't heard of a single climate scientist, or any scientist, for that matter, who has ever lost their job, funding, or been ridiculed for not accepting anthropogenic global warming theory.