virginiadiver69
New member
I didn't know that.
What's the color like, are they real white?
Global warming?
- Thread starter MCary
- Start date
- Status
What's the color like, are they real white?
The CF's I use are all daylight, 6500K. So far I've only had to replace 3 since I've been using them, and that's over several years. Can't say the same for the old incandescents that typically had me replacing bulbs weekly in one fixture or another.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I don't want to derail the thread again, but here's something to think about. You can make the argument that oil company profits are in line with other industries, but there is something to keep in mind when saying that. Oil profits are going up because of rising oil prices, but why is oil going up SO MUCH? It's because of the falling dollar and the peg oil has with the dollar. Is it really fair for these companies to be profiting off of a failing dollar that is failing in large part because of the debt accrued to run the war machine needed to defend that oil? I don't think so. These oil companies have an unfair advantage given to them by the people of this country and it's not too much to ask for something in return.
Well its about frickin time! I've been fishing for you Hippie. Where have you been?
Oh and your wrong of course. Rising oil prices are a result of increased demand on the world supply mostly from the developing nations of India and China.
greenbean, I do believe I declared myself the winner. This rebuttal was unnecessary. Its like kicking a field goal after the clock ran down and the other team left the field. Doesn't count.
Although this part had me in stitches:
I guess you can't lose. Supportive data is ok, non-supportive data is "noise". I have to admit greenbean, your logic is infallible. I think I'll give up and go to something easier. Like arguing with a southern baptist the challenges of getting 2 of every living critter on a boat.
Mike
Oh and your wrong of course. Rising oil prices are a result of increased demand on the world supply mostly from the developing nations of India and China.
greenbean, I do believe I declared myself the winner. This rebuttal was unnecessary. Its like kicking a field goal after the clock ran down and the other team left the field. Doesn't count.
Although this part had me in stitches:
I guess you can't lose. Supportive data is ok, non-supportive data is "noise". I have to admit greenbean, your logic is infallible. I think I'll give up and go to something easier. Like arguing with a southern baptist the challenges of getting 2 of every living critter on a boat.
Mike
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Lol, I've been lurking, but I know how much time these threads can take and wasn't sure if I wanted to dive in. And what's this about you fishing for me? What ever do you mean?
Partially, sure, but not to the extent we're seeing. Not only do we have to defend the oil, but the higher oil prices drive everything else up, which pushes inflation higher, and it goes on and on. Why should oil companies have protection against that? Nobody else does.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
:eek1: Did you just agree with me?
:lol:
virginiadiver69
New member
You're right hippiestink, those are some good reasons for drilling for our own oil. Even though I've learned that overseas really means domestic to you types.
Oh...by the way, crude prices aren't pegged to the dollar. I do agree though, that as the largest and most important world economy our dollar value does influence crude and every other commodity.
The driving factor for oil prices is speculation.
Not the "military industrial complex man" :smokin:
Oh...by the way, crude prices aren't pegged to the dollar. I do agree though, that as the largest and most important world economy our dollar value does influence crude and every other commodity.
The driving factor for oil prices is speculation.
Not the "military industrial complex man" :smokin:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
The world oil market is traded in USD, and oddly enough both Iraq and now Iran threatened to trade oil in Euros. It's not looked upon kindly by the powers that be. The petrodollar might be the only thing keeping that paper we print afloat, so don't mess with it, or you'll have the U.S. marines on your border. The military industrial complex is no joke either. All you have to do is take a look at the revolving door between the weapons industry and government employees. And I don't know what you mean by overseas meaning domestic, but the U.S. is the 3rd largest producer of oil, so you can't say we don't drill.
Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that â€" far from warming â€" the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.
Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.
He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade.
"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."
Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.
He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade.
"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."
Nothing like jumping to conclusions.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
greenbean36191
Premium Member
That's nice that you declared yourself the winner, but I didn't realize we were competing and I'm not sure anyone here caught your winning argument.
As someone who claims to be a scientist, your seemingly willful ignorance of basic rules of science and statistics is boggling to me. I'll try to clarify a few of them for you.
First of all, science cannot prove anything. It can only make hypotheses and predictions and then test them. Assuming your results are statistically meaningful, you can determine whether they support or refute the hypothesis. If the results refute the hypothesis then you go back and reformulate the hypothesis so that it fits with the new evidence. If the results support the hypothesis, then you come up with new tests trying to refute the hypothesis. If there's no statistical meaning to the results you can't say anything without designing a new test to give you statistically meaningful results.
So that brings us to statistical significance. The determination of what is and isn't noise has nothing to do with my perception of whether it supports a given theory. That's defined by set statistical formulas to determine the required sample size and the amount of change needed to determine statistical significance. Over a short period where the variation is 30 times larger than the trend, the trend isn't significant regardless of which way it goes. With last month's data it was a decrease since 1998. With this month's it's an increase. When a trend is not significant it's noise and doesn't support or refute anything. Likewise, data from an insufficient sample size (as determined statistically) doesn't support or refute anything. Trying to determine regional trends from a single station can't tell you anything.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/march-2008-update-on-global-temperature-trends/
"With this additional data point, we can map the most recent non-warming/cooling trend from Ocober 2001 - Current. Stated another way, applying a simple linear trend to the data, there has been no warming, and possible cooling, since October 2001. This encompasses 77 data points of anomalies. While this certainly could indicate a peak, or a downward trend, there have been similar periods in the past where we’ve seen this occur. The most recent 77 data-point period of cooling occurred from April 1990 - August 1996. We saw another spurt in the interim before we saw the more recent flattening. I do not point this out as an argument against cooling, but we also must be honest about the data we are looking at. In the event that there is, in fact, an overall warming trend underlying our climate, these cooling/flattening periods occur. Clearly, the longer it continues, the less likely it is that it is a blip, and the more likely it is that something has changed. It’s simply too soon to tell, and all we can do is look at the data. Right now, what we can say is that claims that warming is accelerating are flat-out false, and the most recent few years shows zero indication of warming. We cannot say that it indicates a definite reversal, nor that there may be a longer-term warming trend for which we are simply seeing an aberration."
Remember how fast C02 is going up. Why are temperatures going down?
"With this additional data point, we can map the most recent non-warming/cooling trend from Ocober 2001 - Current. Stated another way, applying a simple linear trend to the data, there has been no warming, and possible cooling, since October 2001. This encompasses 77 data points of anomalies. While this certainly could indicate a peak, or a downward trend, there have been similar periods in the past where we’ve seen this occur. The most recent 77 data-point period of cooling occurred from April 1990 - August 1996. We saw another spurt in the interim before we saw the more recent flattening. I do not point this out as an argument against cooling, but we also must be honest about the data we are looking at. In the event that there is, in fact, an overall warming trend underlying our climate, these cooling/flattening periods occur. Clearly, the longer it continues, the less likely it is that it is a blip, and the more likely it is that something has changed. It’s simply too soon to tell, and all we can do is look at the data. Right now, what we can say is that claims that warming is accelerating are flat-out false, and the most recent few years shows zero indication of warming. We cannot say that it indicates a definite reversal, nor that there may be a longer-term warming trend for which we are simply seeing an aberration."
Remember how fast C02 is going up. Why are temperatures going down?
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.†In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.†In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
virginiadiver69
New member
...or religion. It's got all of the elements.
- Status
Similar threads
