From a more skeptical source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurr...al-warming.htm
(quote)
So far, all we’ve managed is to document here (about storm frequency) is what we don’t know for sure yet. But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.
(unquote)

A less-skeptical view from the IPCC

http://centerforoceansolutions.org/c...orm-intensity/
(quote)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report (2007) states it is likely that “future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing [sea surface temperature increases]”. The scientific, peer reviewed studies used to inform the assessment, as well as studies that have since been published, indicate that climate change will affect the intensity, frequency and paths of strong storm and wave events. They also indicate a global trend towards increased intensity of hurricanes over the past few decades – most notably in the North Atlantic and Indian oceans. Coastal planning efforts rely on historical estimates of sea level, storm frequency and storm wave heights, and hundred year flood levels. This bias on historical data could leave many coastal communities unprepared in the face of climate change
(unquote)

My opinion is that bringing up the fact that weather is not climate is a red herring. It may be true, but pointing it out is likely to divert peoples' attention from the problem, and serves no purpose that I can see. The facts remain the facts. If they show that, in fact, climate change does not lead to more severe storms overall, that is worthy of discussion. Even so, common sense tells us that if you heat the ocean, more severe storms will occur, because more heat gives the storms more energy. That is a fact, even if the statistics may be confusing for some at the present time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Straight dope, or just dopey?

I am not a climate scientist, so I rely on them, not my own investigations. Any research relies on the reported facts.

(quote)
Extreme storm events such as super typhoon Haiyan, which wreaked havoc in the Philippines on Friday, are more likely in the future as the build-up of greenhouse gases warms the planet, scientists say.

Winds from typhoon Haiyan were estimated to have been 314km/h or higher when the monster storm made landfall on the Philippine island of Samar. That speed, if confirmed, would make it the strongest storm on record, exceeding hurricane Camille, which hit Mississippi in the US in 1969, according to US meteorologist Jeff Masters' WunderBlog.
Australian scientists say gauging the intensity of the storm – which included a tsunami-like storm surge and heavy rainfall – would be difficult because of limited information emanating from the storm-battered region. The death toll from the city of Tacloban alone may exceed 10,000 people, local authorities say.
Warmth in the Pacific ahead of Haiyan's formations.

Waters to the east of the Philippines were warmer than normal in the region where Haiyan formed. Photo: NOAA
Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the ANU and member of the Climate Council, said scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan.
Advertisement

“Once [cyclones] do form, they get most of their energy from the surface waters of the ocean,” Professor Steffen said. “We know sea-surface temperatures are warming pretty much around the planet, so that's a pretty direct influence of climate change on the nature of the storm.”

Data compiled from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows sea temperatures were about 0.5 to 1 degree above normal in the waters to the east of the Philippines as Haiyan began forming. The waters cooled in the storm's wake, an indication of how the storm sucked up energy.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...#ixzz2krXyrqZh

Notice how the scientists were careful to NOT say that global warming caused the typhoon?

There's a difference between direct cause and an increased probability. Sea surface temperatures vary from year to year even without global warming. There is no possible way to know that the sea temperatures would not have been above normal without global warming.

You are just incapable of reading an experts words without sticking your wishes into the interpretation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

From a more skeptical source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurr...al-warming.htm
(quote)
So far, all we’ve managed is to document here (about storm frequency) is what we don’t know for sure yet. But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.
(unquote)

A less-skeptical view from the IPCC

http://centerforoceansolutions.org/c...orm-intensity/
(quote)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report (2007) states it is likely that “future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing [sea surface temperature increases]”. The scientific, peer reviewed studies used to inform the assessment, as well as studies that have since been published, indicate that climate change will affect the intensity, frequency and paths of strong storm and wave events. They also indicate a global trend towards increased intensity of hurricanes over the past few decades – most notably in the North Atlantic and Indian oceans. Coastal planning efforts rely on historical estimates of sea level, storm frequency and storm wave heights, and hundred year flood levels. This bias on historical data could leave many coastal communities unprepared in the face of climate change
(unquote)

My opinion is that bringing up the fact that weather is not climate is a red herring. It may be true, but pointing it out is likely to divert peoples' attention from the problem, and serves no purpose that I can see.

Yes. So when YOU conflate the two, it is YOU who is responsible for creating the red herring. It is YOU who is serving up the denialists softballs that they can hit out of the park. How about YOU stop being their witless ally?

The facts remain the facts. If they show that, in fact, climate change does not lead to more severe storms overall, that is worthy of discussion. Even so, common sense tells us that if you heat the ocean, more severe storms will occur, because more heat gives the storms more energy. That is a fact, even if the statistics may be confusing for some at the present time.

The only person who seems to be confused by statistics is YOU, as usual.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Notice how the scientists were careful to NOT say that global warming caused the typhoon?

Scientists hedge with statistics and probability. They will not tell someone that if one smokes a cigarette one will die of a tobacco-induced ailment, but they can give convincing reason to not smoke. Basically if one does smoke one is more likely to die younger than otherwise and without any compensating benefit. Statistical cause-and-effect convinces me on mass probabilities. I made a decision when I was 8 years old based on the Surgeon-General's report to not smoke.

There's a difference between direct cause and an increased probability. Sea surface temperatures vary from year to year even without global warming. There is no possible way to know that the sea temperatures would not have been above normal without global warming.

There are simply some risks not worth taking. I do not speed. I do not do unprotected anal sex. I don't keep an exotic animal. OK, the dog has a pair of tiger-like stripes, but aside perhaps from a house cat that is he most tiger-like creature I am likely to keep around. Dogs pose some danger, but the statistics show that people with dogs are likely to outlive people who don't I am not going to provoke the razors in a dog's mouth; I told you that a dog can be very tiger-like under some extreme circumstances -- like a burglary.

Rapid AGW will bring forth the worst in human nature.

There are simply some risks not worth taking. I do not speed. I do not do unprotected anal sex. I don't keep an exotic animal. OK, the dog has a pair of tiger-like stripes, but aside perhaps from a house cat that is he most tiger-like creature I am likely to keep around. Dogs pose some danger, but the statistics show that people with dogs are likely to outlive people who don't I am not going to provoke the razors in a dog's mouth; I told you that a dog can be very tiger-like under some extreme circumstances -- like a burglary.

This, in a discussion of global warming, no less. Unsolicited. Words fail.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Republicans deny global warming, and have for decades. Democrats generally don't. Global warming is caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy. That's a fact. President Carter and Gov. Brown started the process of shifting to solar and wind energy in the 1970s. Reagan stopped it. Clinton and Gore started it again; the Republicans stalled it and Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Obama and the Democrats proposed cap and trade and carbon taxes, and set new car mileage standards. Republicans are still denialists; they passed oil company subsidies, and insist on the Keystone Pipeline and more oil drilling instead of supporting alternative energy. Polls show that Republicans are far less concerned with the problem than Democrats. 90-55 is a pretty big difference; as President Clinton might have said, that's "arithmetic." Is that enough facts for you? Given that these facts were obvious to begin with, why do you have the need to argue with my statement and call my pronouncement an idiot one?

Red = mindless political rant by Eric which is without substance.
Blue = Something of a factual statement.

So...
Younger gens are supposed to pay attention to Eric when the signal to noise ratio [blue words/ red words is itty bitty number?]
So, what's the plan, man?
LED lightbulbs: Really? I think one can just discard the political drama and state that "it's a bright idea to switch from incandescent light bulbs to either LED or CFL ones because the save you $$$$". Save green by being green. That is the Rag's way. Or how about keep your family budget in the black by not burning so much black coal , use CFL's or LED lightbulbs.



...

And

Originally Posted by Jordan

This, in a discussion of global warming, no less. Unsolicited. Words fail.

Yes it is. Here is the problem. Friends don't let friends toss out BoomerBait^TM. The hard part for other gens is knowing when they've managed to create that sort of chum.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK, what kind of light bulbs do you have Copperfield? Eric and I want to know.

There, Eric. Happy now?

CFL in the fixtures where they happen to fit (most of them; it's an old house).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Wind speeds are good proxies for the severity of any tropical storm. Barometric readings are another. So is area of the storm. This storm is the worst recorded, and more severe and frequent tropical storms (typhoons in the western Pacific and related seas) are consistent with models of climatic warming.

So yeah, I do realize that folks like you and Eric don't really care for statistics, preferring instead to opt for broad (often inaccurate) statements which probably contain something you heard on TV but misunderstood. Fortunately those of us who do understand statistics and work with them every single day are here to bail you out, so here are a few for you to mull over:

The top 5 tropical storm wind speeds:
Typhoon Nancy (1961) - 215 MPH
Typhoon Violet (1961) - 205 MPH
Typhoon Ida (1958) - 200 MPH
Typhoon Haiyan (2013) - 195 MPH
Typhoon Kit (1966) - 195 MPH

The top 5 tropical storms by wind size/diameter:
Typhoon Tip (1979) - 2,220 km
Hurricane Sandy (2012) - 1,520 km
Hurricane Igor (2010) - 1,480 km
Hurricane Olga (2001) - 1,390 km
Hurricane Lili (1996) - 1,295 km

*For scale Typhoon Haiyan had a diameter around 800 km.

I won't even bother to list the top 5 tropical storms in barometric pressure. Know why? Because Typhoon Haiyan ranked 21st... In just the western Pacific region (Haiyan tied for 21st place with 14 other storms in that region over the past 50 years). It's even further down the list if we include other regions.

So Haiyan only makes it into the top 5 in only one of the criteria you mentioned and it isn't the top dog in a single category. It was a powerful storm, no doubt (in a region that produces a storm of this relative intensity ever few years). It may have had the strongest measured wind speed measured over land (technically a group of islands that gets hit by 10-13 tropical cyclones each year). None of these things make this "the worst storm ever" or even particularly remarkable.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A quibble. The storms of today are better recognized from satellites and the measurements are now by radar. They have been getting more severe on the whole.

How much more severe? How much of the severity increase is based on improvements the accuracy of measurement as opposed to an increase attributed to climate change? What is the cost versus benefit of an increase in severity? Perhaps you should ask a journalist, I bet they know.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unlike you I never trivialize a death toll. So far the death toll is of the magnitude of the 9/11 attack. I have a suggestion for you: never trivialize any mass death from any cause. Doing so indicates a gap in one's morals.

Aww our resident fascist wants to preach about morality. How quaint.

And weren't you the caregiver waiting for his own parents to die?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why don't you do it? You are the one trying to refute my claims. And for good measure, maybe you can state why it is relevant. That factor seems to be a difficult stretch for you.

Nah, you can put in the time and do the research yourself.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So yeah, I do realize that folks like you and Eric don't really care for statistics, preferring instead to opt for broad (often inaccurate) statements which probably contain something you heard on TV but misunderstood. Fortunately those of us who do understand statistics and work with them every single day are here to bail you out, so here are a few for you to mull over:

The top 5 tropical storm wind speeds:
Typhoon Nancy (1961) - 215 MPH
Typhoon Violet (1961) - 205 MPH
Typhoon Ida (1958) - 200 MPH
Typhoon Haiyan (2013) - 195 MPH
Typhoon Kit (1966) - 195 MPH

The top 5 tropical storms by wind size/diameter:
Typhoon Tip (1979) - 2,220 km
Hurricane Sandy (2012) - 1,520 km
Hurricane Igor (2010) - 1,480 km
Hurricane Olga (2001) - 1,390 km
Hurricane Lili (1996) - 1,295 km

*For scale Typhoon Haiyan had a diameter around 800 km.

I won't even bother to list the top 5 tropical storms in barometric pressure. Know why? Because Typhoon Haiyan ranked 21st... In just the western Pacific region (Haiyan tied for 21st place with 14 other storms in that region over the past 50 years). It's even further down the list if we include other regions.

So Haiyan only makes it into the top 5 in only one of the criteria you mentioned and it isn't the top dog in a single category. It was a powerful storm, no doubt (in a region that produces a storm of this relative intensity ever few years). It may have had the strongest measured wind speed measured over land (technically a group of islands that gets hit by 10-13 tropical cyclones each year). None of these things make this "the worst storm ever" or even particularly remarkable.

So it didn't live -- or should I say kill as big as the hype. But it was undeniably a horrible storm. If it didn't kill as much as some previous storms, then such is because warning and relief efforts are now better than they were in East Pakistan in 1970.

How much more severe? How much of the severity increase is based on improvements the accuracy of measurement as opposed to an increase attributed to climate change? What is the cost versus benefit of an increase in severity? Perhaps you should ask a journalist, I bet they know.

I'd ask a physicist. Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity of an object and proportional to mass, and it is the energy that does the damage and harm in collisions. The damage that arises from a vehicle striking a fixed object that does not give (let us say a tree) quadruples with a doubling of speed. Mass might diffuse the damage within the object that gets damaged, but energy?

I would not want to get struck by a running greyhound (43 mph, 70 lb). A greyhound thrown by the wind at three times the maximum speed of a greyhound? That's nine times as much potential for injury. What at such a speed as the top for a greyhound would strike with similar energy? Something ten times as large -- a LION.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unlike you I never trivialize a death toll. So far the death toll is of the magnitude of the 9/11 attack. (comment -- the death toll has since gone much higher) I have a suggestion for you: never trivialize any mass death from any cause. Doing so indicates a gap in one's morals.

Aww our resident fascist wants to preach about morality. How quaint.

I am about as much a fascist as an alligator is a vegetarian. Fascism is pure psychopathy in politics, the unmitigated degradation of everything human.

And weren't you the caregiver waiting for his own parents to die?

They are getting their pills on time. Do you realize what a cultural desert rural America is? It's not as if I can get away for more than three hours at a time. Do you realize what Parkinsonism and senile dementia are like? These people are so sentimental about some hick town that they couldn't live anywhere else. It isn't my chosen life. If you could do what I do -- I see nothing in your writings that indicates that you could do this.

Death? Such is an inevitability for people in their eighties. Maybe I am unduly clinical about it, but I deal with debility and irrelevant sentimentality every day, several times a day. Getting an escape in the wake of the Inevitable? I can imagine no alternative. I am in a world that I have outgrown every way except financially. Unfortunately, money is everything in our plutocratic America.

Charming. It must be convenient for you to blame your parents for your present circumstances. God thing you didn't have anything to do with it.

dunno, man. That's gotta blow. Wait til your own parents get old ...
It's like they become the kids and you have to parent them. And it sucks.

I was there when my Dad's dad when into a diabetic-induced coma and came out with senior onset of dementia. His car actually became my first. My parents have recently been dealing with my Grandmother's health issues/finances for years now. I get it.

On the other hand, I've been reading PBrower's axe-grinding for months now, and his projection goes way beyond that. I dunno, I am interested in the theory, and I'm in kind of a weird position right now with school, but I am getting a little tired of reading about one or another middle aged loser's use of the theory to explain why his life hasn't turned out the way he wanted, and how it is someone else's fault.

With all due respect, you won't really "get it" til you experience it for yourself.

I believe you. On the other hand, I am the youngest, and like my aunts I might not be the one who has to deal with it personally. It would still be horrible, though, and for now I can be glad that it isn't an issue.

*knocks on wood*

So skip past his posts. That's what I do.

Nah, fuck that. I don't believe in shutting things out like that. Besides, they constitute a sizeable fraction of the activity around here, what else would I have to do?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

CFL in the fixtures where they happen to fit (most of them; it's an old house).

I have a 1920's vintage house. All light bulbs are CFL's and fit the standard sockets and those weird smaller ones I have on 2 chandeliers. I did have to hunt a bit for the chandelier ones. Hopefully, Eric our paragon of greenness is all CFL'd up as well.

Next, I'll see what the free energy audit shows. I'll probably have to insulate a bunch of stuff.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

They are getting their pills on time. Do you realize what a cultural desert rural America is? It's not as if I can get away for more than three hours at a time. Do you realize what Parkinsonism and senile dementia are like? These people are so sentimental about some hick town that they couldn't live anywhere else. It isn't my chosen life. If you could do what I do -- I see nothing in your writings that indicates that you could do this.

Death? Such is an inevitability for people in their eighties. Maybe I am unduly clinical about it, but I deal with debility and irrelevant sentimentality every day, several times a day. Getting an escape in the wake of the Inevitable? I can imagine no alternative. I am in a world that I have outgrown every way except financially. Unfortunately, money is everything in our plutocratic America.

So as it turns out we both trivialize death.

But only one of us is whining about it.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I have a 1920's vintage house. All light bulbs are CFL's and fit the standard sockets and those weird smaller ones I have on 2 chandeliers. I did have to hunt a bit for the chandelier ones. Hopefully, Eric our paragon of greenness is all CFL'd up as well.

Next, I'll see what the free energy audit shows. I'll probably have to insulate a bunch of stuff.

Tell that to our strange kitchen light fixture.

You know, I finally get the exact roots of PBrower's hate-boner for lower middle class white Americans. He's stuck in a whole town of people who refuse to defer their tastes and opinions to their betters, namely him. :P

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So as it turns out we both trivialize death.

But only one of us is whining about it.

You are the one who trivializes a large number of deaths so long as those people are not Americans and even if they have done nothing wrong. I know what Parkinsonism and senile dementia do.

I consider my deeds honorable self-sacrifice. Living a miserable life on behalf of the welfare and survival of others is a sacrifice. I am thinking of 'living' a book -- Travels with Charlie. A road trip with a dog and about 100 classical compact disks might be interesting. There are parts of the US that I have never been in. Maybe I will see for myself whether the Mall of America is as banal an achievement as I suspect. I have seen Minnesota -- but only from the air.

I can say this: I did get a chance to get away for six glorious hours a couple weeks ago. I went to an art museum, and on the way I took in some photographs of fall foliage. The museum (Toledo Museum of Art) had a remarkable collection of Japanese prints. Great material! That changed my feelings about life in general for some time.

Culture in rural Michigan is basically whatever kitsch is available at Wal*Mart at the time. OK, they have some decent video, and at the least I can consider cinema a sort of art. Read books? People around there aren't interested in what one read sunless it is some celebrity tidbits. I'd rather be where people care more about the Brothers Karamazov than about the Sisters Kardashian.

I have a college degree, and you are d@mned right that I am an intellectual snob. You, in contrast, are -- I have no desire to insult some innocent animal.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You are the one who trivializes a large number of deaths so long as those people are not Americans and have done nothing wrong. I know what Parkinsonism and senile dementia do.

I consider my deeds honorable self-sacrifice. Living a miserable life on behalf of the welfare and survival of others is a sacrifice. I am thinking of 'living' a book -- Travels with Charlie. A road trip with a dog and about 100 classical compact disks might be interesting. There are parts of the US that I have never been in. Maybe I will see for myself whether the Mall of America is as banal an achievement as I suspect. I have seen Minnesota -- but only from the air.

I can say this: I did get a chance to get away for six glorious hours a couple weeks ago. I went to an art museum, and on the way I took in some photographs of fall foliage. The museum (Toledo Museum of Art) had a remarkable collection of Japanese prints. Great material! That changed my feelings about life in general for some time.

Culture in rural Michigan is basically whatever kitsch is available at Wal*Mart at the time. OK, they have some decent video, and at the least I can consider cinema a sort of art. Read books? People around there aren't interested in what one read sunless it is some celebrity tidbits. I'd rather be where people care more about the Brothers Karamazov than about the Sisters Kardashian.

So you want to be awarded a medal for your life? Is that it? You need a gold sticker for your efforts?

Sorry but nothing you have said impresses me. I have been in the company of far better men.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have a college degree, and you are d@mned right that I am an intellectual snob. You, in contrast, are -- I have no desire to insult some innocent animal.

Congratulations. I have two. I actually use mine.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So Haiyan only makes it into the top 5 in only one of the criteria you mentioned and it isn't the top dog in a single category. It was a powerful storm, no doubt (in a region that produces a storm of this relative intensity ever few years). It may have had the strongest measured wind speed measured over land (technically a group of islands that gets hit by 10-13 tropical cyclones each year). None of these things make this "the worst storm ever" or even particularly remarkable.

I notice a) you didn't cite a source, and b) you conceded our point.

What is the cost versus benefit of an increase in severity? Perhaps you should ask a journalist, I bet they know.

What is being compared to what in your question? What relevance is it? Are you saying we should not inconvenience the poor billionaire fossil fuel company CEOs, versus save people from increased storm severity and all the other problems caused by climate change?

Aww our resident fascist wants to preach about morality. How quaint.

Don't you think calling brower a fascist is a bit of a stretch, even for you?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't know if it makes much difference, in the grand scheme of things:

Tense final stretch for UN climate talks after tumultuous first week


If the horse IS headed off the cliff, nobody seems willing to pull back on the reins.

Too many people have a financial stake in fossil fuels. Too many politicians are in their pocket.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Notice how the scientists were careful to NOT say that global warming caused the typhoon?

There's a difference between direct cause and an increased probability. Sea surface temperatures vary from year to year even without global warming. There is no possible way to know that the sea temperatures would not have been above normal without global warming.

You are just incapable of reading an experts words without sticking your wishes into the interpretation.

The scientists DO say that. Can't you read? If you want to promote global warming, then continue to repeat the arguments of the denialists.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In Japan's case, they've had a little trouble with nuclear power recently! They probably that figure an eventual death-by-global-warming is preferable to an imminent death-by-radiation.

So, they are building some wind power now. Lots of folks wonder why they don't concentrate on more of that, and make it a goal to ramp it up.

It's a global issue, not an American one. Bickering about Dems vs Repubs is sort of stupid.

Dems have a much better environmental voting and administrative record than Repubs do (I mean, any comparison to zero looks good). However, the Dems and Obama are falling short too. It is a global issue; but America is the biggest player and has the biggest impact, and yet is among the slowest to get moving on the issue. China generates more pollution now, and the suffering to prove it; and yet they do have a program for conversion and a rapidly-expanding renewable energy industry.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Red = mindless political rant by Eric which is without substance.
Blue = Something of a factual statement.

So...
Younger gens are supposed to pay attention to Eric when the signal to noise ratio [blue words/ red words is itty bitty number?]
So, what's the plan, man?
LED lightbulbs: Really? I think one can just discard the political drama and state that "it's a bright idea to switch from incandescent light bulbs to either LED or CFL ones because the save you $$$$". Save green by being green. That is the Rag's way. Or how about keep your family budget in the black by not burning so much black coal , use CFL's or LED lightbulbs.

It might be a good idea to read the words you put in red more carefully. These are facts, not mindless rant. It is a fact that Republicans don't consider climate change a real issue, and Democrats do. That makes a difference in political action. Unlike Boomers, some Xers seem to automatically assume that politics and government are useless, pointless and don't matter. It's not true. Individual actions like changing light bulbs are not a sufficient solution to climate change. It takes government action and support. Republicans oppose that action; Democrats don't. Rather than putting these facts in red and ignoring them, why not consider them?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I have a 1920's vintage house. All light bulbs are CFL's and fit the standard sockets and those weird smaller ones I have on 2 chandeliers. I did have to hunt a bit for the chandelier ones. Hopefully, Eric our paragon of greenness is all CFL'd up as well.

Next, I'll see what the free energy audit shows. I'll probably have to insulate a bunch of stuff.

All CFL'd up and insulated here. I'm glad you and Copper are. Now, if you are really concerned, deal with the politics of it too. Or console yourself that you have taken far-less-than-half measures.