Mediamaven, I have to think about how to respond to you, because you said a lot. And, of course, it is highly likely, based on experience, that you will completely misunderstand what I am trying to tell you.

Your penultimate paragraph, for example, in your last post, is correct, in my view, only in terms of what politicians have done with the scientific information. And nothing to do with science at all. I know several NASA scientists and engineers, some of whom work in the meterological functions. I know more engineers who have worked in the climate change arena than the number of authors whom you will ever be able to read on the subject. Not a single NASA scientist, engineer, or manager whom I know, nor any scientist or engineer whom I know who works in the industry who keeps up with the SCIENTIFIC literature, advocates buying $50 light bulbs, or would spend that on a light bult for themselves. And, to an individual, including me, they complain bitterly to hotels all the time about the water restrainers in their shower heads and toilet tanks.

In terms of your other accusations, I need to think how to respond so that I don't inadvertently cause a coronary! I will say this now, however. Ecowatch is a very easy target. So is Al Gore. They are both morons. These people love the $50 light bulb. NASA scientists are not such easy targets unless you can demonstrate flaws in their reasoning, which, of course, is the way science works. And, I hope you realize that the GS-13,14 and 15 scientists and engineers who have spent decades on this subject completely understand the lunacy of fifty bucks for a light bulb, and would never recommend doing so, at least if my circle of friends and colleagues is representatives. Further, it is common sense that no one in those brackets would advocate such a thing!

I'll cogitate awhile on how to respond to you. Meanwhile, keep on soldiering on!

But

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.

Last Edited By: Florida Jeff 03/12/12 11:03 AM. Edited 1 times.