Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[DC]

I don't know if these have been mentioned in this thread, but here is a run down of the worlds oldest working light bulbs

http://www.centennialbulb.org/facts.htm

wow 1901, didnt know that. thanks for posting

 

[mhaze]

This isn't doubletalk at all. The intention of the law is to prevent the production of inefficient lightbulbs*. The wording of the law prevents the production of inefficient lightbulbs.*

No doubletalk. .....

I think if you read my post to Bri you'll find that I mentioned a number of people, perhaps "half", on this thread agree with the phrase doubletalk being applied here. You are simply in the other half.

Having said it like this, I really don't need to hear your doubletalk argument for the 14th time. And that gets back to my comment about "condescending", doesn't it?

 

[mhaze]

wow 1901, didnt know that. thanks for posting

Yep, if you keep the temperature down, the filament can be bigger, and incadescents can then be made to last practically forever. But it's a really inefficient system and the light is dim and of poor quality.

I do something similar though with incadescents on dimmers. Turn them way down as nightlights, and most of those have lasted 5 years plus. Seems the filament breaks most often on a sudden current inrush to full power.

 

[Bri]

I think if you read my post to Bri you'll find that I mentioned a number of people, perhaps "half", on this thread agree with the phrase doubletalk being applied here. You are simply in the other half.

You and OnlyTellsTruths are the only two that I recall using or agreeing with the term "doubletalk" in this thread. If there were others, it was certainly far fewer than half. Just another of a growing list of inaccuracies you continue to perpetuate, mhaze.

ETA: OnlyTellsTruths used the phrase "double speak" but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and count it. I don't know if OnlyTellsTruths still feels that way since it was used in one of the earlier posts in the thread, in reference to a correction of your inaccurate "it's a ban on incandescents" statement.

ETAA: It's fascinating that in your previous post, the following hypothetical was presented:

Suppose that not all...but a good fraction, say half, of those whom you argued these points to regarding the double-talk of 'it is nt a ban' were insulted...​

Now it's morphed into actual fact that half the posters on this thread really agree with the phrase "doubletalk!"

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

You and OnlyTellsTruths are the only two that I recall using or agreeing with the term "doubletalk" in this thread. If there were others, it was certainly far fewer than half. Just another of a growing list of inaccuracies you continue to perpetuate, mhaze.

ETA: OnlyTellsTruths used the phrase "double speak" but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and count it. I don't know if OnlyTellsTruths still feels that way since it was used in one of the earlier posts in the thread, in reference to a correction of your inaccurate "it's a ban on incandescents" statement.

ETAA: It's fascinating that in your previous post, the following hypothetical was presented:

Suppose that not all...but a good fraction, say half, of those whom you argued these points to regarding the double-talk of 'it is nt a ban' were insulted...​

Now it's morphed into actual fact that half the posters on this thread really agree with the phrase "doubletalk!"

-Bri

double talk.....2. empty, deceptive, or ambiguous talk, esp by politicians

disingenous

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating





Arguing the point endlessly, continuing steadfast with the doubletalk, ignoring contrary evidence....

Traits of a Bulb Truther.

 

[Bri]

Arguing the point endlessly, continuing steadfast with the doubletalk, ignoring contrary evidence....

Traits of a Bulb Truther.

As I said before:

It appears that you throw the phrase around whenever you want to avoid actually addressing the growing list of inaccuracies you've spread in this thread, but maybe it's really a brilliant argument that's going over my head.​

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

As I said before:

It appears that you throw the phrase around whenever you want to avoid actually addressing the growing list of inaccuracies you've spread in this thread, but maybe it's really a brilliant argument that's going over my head.​

-Bri

Inaccuracies?

There are a lot of similarities between the logic you've presented for "not doubletalk" and legal decisions in the history of racial segregation.

Two quick examples.

Poll tax - NOT targeted at blacks on the surface, in fact actually targeted them because of their then-economic status

Redlining - NOT targeted at minorities on the surface, in fact actually targeting them by where they predominantly live

This list could be quickly made into dozens or hundreds of examples that simply "didn't fly" and didn't pass the smell test. The fact that "saving the earth one light bulb at a time" is a politically correct belief, instead of a politically incorrect belief, doesn't seem to me to change the presence of logic errors, double talk and disingenous methods, to what extent they are there.

 

[Bri]

Are we still talking about light bulbs?

My this discussion has taken a strange turn!

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Are we still talking about light bulbs?

My this discussion has taken a strange turn!

-Bri

Yes, of course we are. Providing examples of similar cases of doubletalk and disingenous schemes that didn't pass an ordinary "smell test" as the "NON BAN" on incadescent bulbs is IMHO, relevant.

Since there is a long history of legal opinion on them.

But since you don't get it, let me help you.

Case A. Define "energy efficient to exclude traditional light bulbs" then claim you are not banning traditional light bulbs, only non-energy efficient bulbs.

Case B. Define "redlined district" as an area with 93% blacks, then refuse to approve loans in that district. But argue that you are not discriminating against blacks.

Case C. Set up a poll tax in areas where the poor are heavily black, then argue that it isn't meant to discriminate but just defray expenses of the election process. Argue it is not targeted against blacks.

Case B and C are textbook examples. Case A is your case. You are using the same disingenous logic or lack of.

You have no case. But suit yourself, ignore contrary evidence if you like. Try using argument from ridicule. No, wait....you did that.

 

[Bri]

mhaze, if you start singing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" I'm gonna lose it!

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

mhaze, if you start singing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" I'm gonna lose it!

-Bri

What? You got something left to lose? (just kidding)

No, seriously I have been saying that wackos obsessing on light bulbs was basically nothing but comic relief so ...

Here ya go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqrCij6CbHA

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think if you read my post to Bri you'll find that I mentioned a number of people, perhaps "half", on this thread agree with the phrase doubletalk being applied here. You are simply in the other half.

Even if your polling by pulling a number out of your butt were accurate, it would still be argumentum ad populum. (The Bandwagon Fallacy.)

I submit that your poll is less than scientific and meaningless even in assessing the number of people who agree with you.

Having said it like this, I really don't need to hear your doubletalk argument for the 14th time.

Evidence to support your claim that I have engaged in doubletalk?

I guess that will come right after your evidence that the EISA is written in "snarky" language.

I understand you can put your fingers in your ears and disregard the facts about the law in question. You are free not to listen to them. And you're doing a good job of not listening to them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

double talk.....2. empty, deceptive, or ambiguous talk, esp by politicians

disingenous

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating





Arguing the point endlessly, continuing steadfast with the doubletalk, ignoring contrary evidence....

Traits of a Bulb Truther.

And of course the definition of doubletalk does not apply to, for example, my posts pointing out the distinction between the following two statements:

1. The law is a ban on incandescents.

2. The law establishes energy efficiency standards that will effectively ban the production (not the sale or use) of traditional energy inefficient incandescent bulbs of standard size, color, function, etc.

It most certainly is not doubletalk to point out that these statements aren't equivalent especially when it's demonstrable that most people take statement 1 to mean the law is actually a ban on all incandescents.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, seriously I have been saying that wackos obsessing on light bulbs was basically nothing but comic relief so ...

Wait a second! A person who admits to stockpiling lightbulbs (including those exempt from the new energy efficiency standards), who has publically said that halogen lightbulbs aren't incandescent and don't have filaments, who claims the EISA is written in "snarky" language, who thinks the law would exempt a 101w lightbulb from the energy efficiency standards---this person is referring to other people as "wackos obsessing on light bulbs"?!

 

[Belz...]

More R & D has gone on in the past couple of years than in the past couple of decades.

That makes no sense, since the past couple of decades include, by definition, the past couple of years.

(Okay, I'm being uselessly pedantic )

 

[Belz...]

because it is a technology that is very inneficient, and there are alternatives that are far more efficient.

So we should ban all inefficient technologies and force people to update, say, their computers with better technologies regularily, for instance ? Where do you stop ? Nanny state, indeed.

 

[mhaze]

And of course the definition of doubletalk does not apply to, for example, my posts pointing out the distinction between the following two statements:

1. The law is a ban on incandescents.

2. The law establishes energy efficiency standards that will effectively ban the production (not the sale or use) of traditional energy inefficient incandescent bulbs of standard size, color, function, etc.

It most certainly is not doubletalk to point out that these statements aren't equivalent especially when it's demonstrable that most people take statement 1 to mean the law is actually a ban on all incandescents.

Of course! I got it now!

A ban on handguns is not a ban on handguns because, well, cops can still have them. And you can still have your pre 1891 black powder guns. Because everyone would interpret a "ban on handguns" to mean the absolute elimination of them, we need to point out 14 times that it's not "A BAN ON HANDGUNS".

I understand that is the only card you have to play, but it's a bit ridiculous. However, continue there is a place and a need for comedy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So we should ban all inefficient technologies and force people to update, say, their computers with better technologies regularily, for instance ? Where do you stop ? Nanny state, indeed.

How about we start with something whose adoption is at most a minor inconvenience and whose result will be a tremendous reduction in electricity use (and therefore reliance on the burning of fossil fuels).

If we accept your slippery slope argument, next thing you know the thread will be Godwined.

 

[mhaze]

So we should ban all inefficient technologies and force people to update, say, their computers with better technologies regularily, for instance ? Where do you stop ? Nanny state, indeed.

And don't forget that as computer technology advanced, and power consumption went down, usage of computers went up by corresponding orders of magnitude, such that now....

Total power consumption by computers far exceeds what it did for previous generations of "inefficient computers".

Similarly, LEDs ... make far more efficient flashlights that last much longer, so we should need fewer of them. But the flashlight market has shot through the roof with cool gadgets since LEDS were introduced, and is now undergoing yet another expansion with the CREE LEDS.

These illustrate Jevons Paradox, and I am of the opinion this is going to happen with lighting. Qualification: If the end of technology advances had been CFL, this would not be the case. Everyone would have been in legislated, mandated misery with noodle bulbs.

But now, LED bulbs for the home are getting very nice, and more reasonably priced. I'm writing this post from a room with 4 60 watt equivalent LED floodlights in the ceiling. Very, very nice.

Jevons may well apply to lighting, and thus the environmentalists may find their legislating a ban on traditional incadescents to backfire bigtime. I'm okay with that...they don't seem to have yet learned their lesson with corn-to-ethanol, maybe they will learn something this time.

Probably not, but maybe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course! I got it now!

A ban on handguns is not a ban on handguns because, well, cops can still have them. And you can still have your pre 1891 black powder guns. Because everyone would interpret a "ban on handguns" to mean the absolute elimination of them, we need to point out 14 times that it's not "A BAN ON HANDGUNS".

I understand that is the only card you have to play, but it's a bit ridiculous. However, continue there is a place and a need for comedy.

Sorry--your analogy is faulty once again because a ban on handguns isn't the same (legally or by intent) as imposing energy efficiency standards on lightbulbs.

Also, even if the question were merely about the exceptions to the energy efficiency guidelines, your analogy still fails. The kinds of bulbs exempt are not archaic collectible bulbs only (as is the case with pre 1891 black powder guns). In fact, some of the objections critics of the law have show that they are ignorant of the extent of the exceptions to the new energy efficiency standards.