energy saving light bulbs

[ban-all-sheds]

For the avoidance of any doubt, the passage in italics in my above post was indeed sarcasm, and yes, I am ridiculing Stoday's beliefs.

For the simple reason that they are, literally, ridiculous.

 

[kai]

Proper CFLs, by which I mean ones without integral ballasts.

My stepson bought a new-build a couple of years ago and had low-energy light pendants (Part L?) in the hallways. Unfortunately, they have no way of fitting standard lampshades. While you can pick up discounted CFLs for as little as 10p, I doubt that replacement lamps for the low-energy pendants will be discounted. However, I have some concerns about these cheapies; while my first CFL was discounted to £5 over 25 years ago and lasted until a couple of months ago, its replacement has already stopped working.

My solution is to swop the low energy pendants with normal pendants - the savings in replacement lamping costs will pay for the pendant on the first lamp change (Pendant costs a Pound, standard low energy lamp also a pound at the most, often less). The special bulbs in the low energy pendants cost around a fiver each, and are not easily available!.

 

[Stoday]

If you have a genuine claim to expertise, and can put forward credible alternative theories then that's one thing.

But when you know SFA about this subject and "decide" that the vast majority of those who do have expertise are wrong then that is irrational.

You are looking at the positions of two groups of people, A & B. A is much larger than B. A knows more about the subject than B.

You know nothing about the subject, but you "decide" that A is wrong and "B" is right.

There is no rationality in that "decision" whatsoever. It is irrational to the point of making you a loony.

I cannot read a note of music. I can't even play a mouth organ. Yet I can hold a sensible conversation on the merits of various composers.

The idea of my singing, apart from drunken shantys, is ridiculous. Yet I can appreciate and take a delight in Verdi's operas. I can certainly discuss the leitmotivs in Wagner's ring.

I cannot dance a step. If I took a leap I'd fall flat on my face. Yet I enjoy watching ballet. I can tell you why the Kirov Ballet is so much better than Sadler's Wells and why both are worth watching.

I do not need to be an expert on Climate Change to criticise the fundamentals of it. Nor do others.

 

[sherlockholmes]

But are you criticising the 'fundamentals' of climate science, or are you regurgitating verbatim bits of opinion pieces published in tabloids? There's a difference between forming an opinion of whether you like music or ballet, and forming an opinion on a body of scientific evidence. Or rather, there should be a difference. If it's just gut feeling, then there isn't one.

What do you think the fundamentals of climate science are? It's not just the daily mail readers who do this, it's the guardian readers too. It's not at all unusual to come across an internet dispute over many pages where neither party has the least grasp of the fundamentals. The tabloid controversy really bears little to no resemblance to the scientific discussion.

I think generally that contrarians just like to be contrarian. It's not a rational position, and if you came across it on a topic in which you don't reject the consensus, like evolution (i'd hope), or the geocentric universe, i'm sure you'd be able to recognise uninformed or misinformed contrarianism for what it is.

 

[DeadJoe]

I cannot read a note of music. I can't even play a mouth organ. Yet I can hold a sensible conversation on the merits of various composers.

The idea of my singing, apart from drunken shantys, is ridiculous. Yet I can appreciate and take a delight in Verdi's operas. I can certainly discuss the leitmotivs in Wagner's ring.

I cannot dance a step. If I took a leap I'd fall flat on my face. Yet I enjoy watching ballet. I can tell you why the Kirov Ballet is so much better than Sadler's Wells and why both are worth watching.

I do not need to be an expert on Climate Change to criticise the fundamentals of it. Nor do others.

Logic failure, I think. The conclusion you need to draw, based on the premise that appreciation of music does not require you to be a musician, is that you don't need to be a climate scientist to get wet when you stand in the rain, or hot when you stand in the sun.

Your ability to appreciate ballet without being able to dance is akin to appreciating 'A Brief History Of Time' without understanding more than basic mathematics.

Unfortunately, you do need to be an expert to criticise the fundamentals, although nothing is stopping you from having an ill-informed opinion.

Personally, I think radials are better than ring finals. I'm not an electrician. How well-informed does my opinion sound? I'm guessing not very.

 

[ajrobb]

Both opera and ballet are performed by experts for public consumption (money). Avant garde music and dance can put many of the public off by being too 'clever' but can influence future generations of musicians and dancers.

Scientists must work at the avant garde end of the spectrum and often fail to explain their work to the public. Many of the problems perceived by detractors arise from overly-simple explanations for the benefit of the public.

 

[bernardgreen]

There are motorists, car drivers, car users and at the bottom of intellect, car abusers ( some would say there is an even lower end, formula one fans. )

I think that applies to almost all activities that people can take part in or just watch.

 

[johnnykc]

It's not at all unusual to come across an internet dispute over many pages where neither party has the least grasp of the fundamentals.

.

ooh....I was wondering what these 4 pages were about...