how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[flacaltenn]

I always buy 2 or 3 identical pair at time.. Works til the socks get old or you tire of them....

IMHO -- we are currently sock-free. But that hasn't been true in the past. It's just that they've all attended the 12 years of govt training camp and eat of the same political dumpsters..

 

[Foxfyre]

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all. There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do. And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.

Well that's a pretty good answer and I know that government can sure get ridiculous with regulations. Still, we had government regulations in place for example when the BP disaster happened and also when the Exxon Valdez had its big spill. What would a system of government that you prefer have done to stop these types of environmental disasters?

It was the government ignoring/waiving their own NECESSARY regulations that resulted in the BP spill. It was human carelessness and negligence that caused the Exxon Valdez spill and no manner of government regulation short of banning the transport of petroleum would have prevented it. Both should bring such overwhelming consequences down upon the negligence--and heads should have rolled in government as well in the BP case--to generate a great deal of care in not having such accidents.

But as tragic and heart breaking as the consequences of those two accidents were, it does not justify punishing millions, even billions of people, and consigning them to crushing poverty or hardship, by removing all risk and freedom from the process..

 

[flacaltenn]

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all. There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do. And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.

Well that's a pretty good answer and I know that government can sure get ridiculous with regulations. Still, we had government regulations in place for example when the BP disaster happened and also when the Exxon Valdez had its big spill. What would a system of government that you prefer have done to stop these types of environmental disasters?

Massey Mine disaster -- not too many years ago.. Inspectors shut it done MULTIPLE times. Always allowed it to resume. 12 people (?) killed. Those inspectors are culpable.. Probably been promoted and raised several times. The govt has a confused mission. THey are not there solely to police or assure safety. Their other mission is to PROMOTE that industry. Make it BIGGER. Like the USDA running ads for milk on TV -- It's ALL conflict of mission...

But many folks who don't get this anti big govt thingy aren't understanding that there's always a huge conflict of interest and govt/corporate collusion goin on...

 

[Foxfyre]

I always buy 2 or 3 identical pair at time.. Works til the socks get old or you tire of them....

IMHO -- we are currently sock-free. But that hasn't been true in the past. It's just that they've all attended the 12 years of govt training camp and eat of the same political dumpsters..

Yeah. After doing some sleuthing I think you are right. But geez, brain washing is a scary thing isn't it?

 

[itfitzme]

Ahhh yeah.. That great Energy Star program who's product is a label.. Yu do realize that Energy Star tax breaks is a large reason why GE and other appliance end up paying no taxes. You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? *To each his own..*

And it's not like these low-tech EXISTING PRODUCTS couldn't compete in the market on the basis of energy efficiency WITHOUT the label is there?*

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Uh...They do

Then why do you point to "energy star" to make a point about the need to have GOVT do these things? As far as I can tell -- all the label does (that isn't done in the free market) is to make a company eligible for tax dodges doled out like candy...

What do you think you are talking about. You indicated that UL doesn't. *As I worked as a manufacturing engineer, and bothered to actually google "Energy Star" and "UL", I corrected you. *What is that.. hmm...let me think.... oh, I know... you are wrong, talking out your assets.

Why did you bring up UL? *Oh, defending the inspecific sweeping generalization postings that *vaugely specific about flush toilets and lightbulbs.

Seeing as the poster bad no clue what the regulations and law are, I posted details that actually might fit

I never said the gov't needs to do anything. *I'm just trying to figure out what people think they are talking about.

It is all about the details. Intelligence isn't in being able to use abstract words, it's about the details.

 

[gslack]

I don't think we are sock-free. I think the current brigade of clones has found away around the usual methods of detection. A proxy that isn't yet blacklisted most likely.

IMHO, the similarities are too much when you realize just how many so-called different personas using the same MO and tactics we are seeing here now.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think we are sock-free. I think the current brigade of clones has found away around the usual methods of detection. A proxy that isn't yet blacklisted most likely.

IMHO, the similarities are too much when you realize just how many so-called different personas using the same MO and tactics we are seeing here now.

That's the way it looks to me too, but without proof, I think we have to give benefit of the doubt. I don't want to be accused of being anybody's sock and have already sorta pushed that envelope too much for my own tastes. So without proof, we could be really unfair and unkind with that kind of accusation.

But for sure there's nothing wrong with noting that they must have been separated at birth and all work from the same assigned talking points.

 

[itfitzme]

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all. There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do. And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.

Well that's a pretty good answer and I know that government can sure get ridiculous with regulations. Still, we had government regulations in place for example when the BP disaster happened and also when the Exxon Valdez had its big spill. What would a system of government that you prefer have done to stop these types of environmental disasters?

Good question. One that actually promotes the free market instead of ologoploies would be a good start.

 

[PMZ]

I don't think we are sock-free. I think the current brigade of clones has found away around the usual methods of detection. A proxy that isn't yet blacklisted most likely.

IMHO, the similarities are too much when you realize just how many so-called different personas using the same MO and tactics we are seeing here now.

That's the way it looks to me too, but without proof, I think we have to give benefit of the doubt. I don't want to be accused of being anybody's sock and have already sorta pushed that envelope too much for my own tastes. So without proof, we could be really unfair and unkind with that kind of accusation.

But for sure there's nothing wrong with noting that they must have been separated at birth and all work from the same assigned talking points.

Ah I figure when mamooth or saigon can get me temporarily banned within a few hours of my son joining the site, by weaseling and not being open about it, I can say what I feel about them.

IMHO there is no question that there is something odd going on with mamooth/saigon/pmz/ whoever. Be it proxy socking or separate individuals who seem to communicate as if from a script or on cue, it's still too much of a similarity to ignore.

Here's what you're wrestling with. There is only one truth. So, people who tell the truth, all have the same story. When a group of people tell different stories they are probably mostly made up.

However there is still one bit of confusion. Sometimes a group of people tell the same story, but it's provably wrong. Then they are probably retelling from a common source who's telling them the same lies.

I call those people Dittoheads.

 

[flacaltenn]

ItFitzme:

My sentence;;

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..

My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..

How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..

 

[SSDD]

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.

You are deluded.

 

[SSDD]

It's funny, the sheer number of conspiracy theories that some denialists embrace. Even if they're as crazy as the abiotic oil theory. So what if nobody has found any of that abiotic oil which is supposedly present in near-infinite quantities? A lack of evidence is no impediment to the true believer.

Russians have been drilling it for decades. I am afraid that you are the victim of the peak oil myth.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly he is willing to accept what Rush and Rupert tell him to think, without question. Given that he has to accept what they say as right, he is equally obligated to believe that everything contrary is wrong.

The perfect dittohead.

I suppose every culture has to put up with a certain percentage of equally cognitively limited lemmings.

Democracy is what keeps them powerless over the long term. To stay relevant in a democracy ideas have to demonstrate results. Not just failure.

We gave conservatism a fair chance to perform. It failed us spectacularly. Only a fool would not abandon ideas with that track record.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK -- Now I deeply regret ever even CONSIDERING giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives here on an Environment board.. You DO fit the mold perfectly...

 

[flacaltenn]

This might be the 1st science/enviro thread thrown into the Flame Zone since that wacky sock with the vulgar mouth was here..

 

[Coyote]

Several off topic/derailing posts have been removed from this thread - if your post is not here, that means you need to take that particular discussion to another area like the Flame Zone rather than derail this thread.

Thanks

 

[itfitzme]

ItFitzme:

My sentence;;

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*

My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*

How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..

Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

as a question, my answer is

They do?

is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.

So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.

Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;

As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace.

Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/product...L_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-110hr6enr.pdf

because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;

You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? To each his own..

based on;

How it all came began with what I THOUGHT

I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.

I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*

When you say things like;

Calm down..

it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)

And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".

But, back to your point that

The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..

You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*

They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?

Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.

Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?

Or do you think the process was;

1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?

I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *

Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.

For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.

I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*

Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?

After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.

 

[gslack]

ItFitzme:

My sentence;;

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*

My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*

How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..

Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say



as a question, my answer is



is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.

So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.

Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;



Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like



because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;



based on;



I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.

I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*

When you say things like;

Calm down..

it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)

And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".

But, back to your point that

The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..

You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*

They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?

Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.

Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?

Or do you think the process was;

1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?

I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *

Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.

For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.

I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*

Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?

After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.

The bolded part above...

under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.

Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "“This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device.”.

 

[PMZ]

As you can tell, I'm big on independent thinkers who can support what they believe. Parrots need not apply. I've never met an independent thinker who denied the simple science of greenhouse gasses. So, I figure that wishing that some other science might trump greenhouse gas science is, to me, inexplicable, except as a cult thing. Sort of like people who might wish that the law of gravitational attraction would be repealed so that they wouldn't fall on their face so often. Keep wishing, but, the real world will leave you behind.

 

[PMZ]

BTW, my motives here are simple. Teach and learn. I have never met anyone in my life that I couldn't do both with, if their minds were open. On the other hand, I've never met a closed minded individual with anything worth learning from.