Good to see you’re still around. I’m still waiting on a response from you on my global warming questions. Have you been working on that at all?

I’d also like to see what you have to say about the fact that the mercury in CFLs is negligible, when compared to the primary sources of mercury emissions, such as coal power generation.

I was going to prepare a lengthy rebuttal, but I think John Ryan and Dr. Bushwell did a good job, so I’ll just say “ditto”, and maybe add a couple of points.

Here’s another source for you on mercury in CFLs:

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

The fact is that even if every CFL sold in 2007 were simultaneously destroyed (which is obviously not going to happen), the net release would equal about 0.16 metric tons of mercury, compared to the approximately 2,000 metric tons released via coal power production every year. Mercury emissions from CFLs are NEGLIGIBLE.

On a note separate from AGW, it is interesting that they are so worried about mercury (which they should be) but have seemingly little concern about the millions who die because the international community smacks around countries who use DDT.

First of all, I thought you claimed to be an environmentally friendly person, Teach. If so, I would think that you would be aware that the push against DDT was to stop reckless, indiscriminate DDT use, which was not only destroying the environment, but was also causing certain pests to develop a resistance to it. Second, DDT is banned for use in malaria prevention. DDT usage is yet another subject that conservatives like you are misinformed. You’ve taken a stand based on ignorance and emotion, rather than a balanced examination of the facts.

Everybody panic! What we are talking about is a new report that is being cited, but not linked anywhere I can find, that shows that carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, which is up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s. And despite all that, the climate temps have been flat or going down for the past 10 years. Strange, huh?

I’ll let Bushwell’s comments stand here. Learn about climate science, THEN post about it, NOT the opposite.

Finally:

But, for the funny part of AGW: Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study. Oops.

I like how you find so many things to be funny, but the funny part is your lack of understanding. You don’t even try. From the article:

These findings do not mean that biofuels cannot be an important part of energy policy, Gibbs added. Growing biofuel crops on marginal lands can have an overall positive environmental impact and there are enormous tracks of degraded land in the tropics.

The problem is with rainforests being destroyed in order to grow crops for biofuels. So, the point is not to stop using biofuels, but rather to ensure that they are being grown in such a way that will produce a positive effect.

Teach, why do you continue to post these nonsensical AGW rants, when you have STILL avoided any intelligent conversation on climate science? Let’s talk science, Teach.

“the U.N., along with all the usual AGW suspects, is pushing everyone to replace their all their light non-CFL bulbs with Compact Fluorescent Lamp’s, which, let’s see…..contain mercury!”

First of all, it hurts my eyes when people put an apostrophe in a plural word like “lamps.” Please fix this.

Second, take a look at the information in your own source:
——–
* No mercury is released when the CFL is intact or in use.
* A CFL contains a maximum of 5 mg of mercury.
——–
If 5 mg of elemental mercury were to disperse in a typical room, the effect would be extremely unlikely to produce any toxicity. OSHA sets a limit of 0.05 mg/m^3 averaged over 8 hours. A typical medium-sized room is about 25 m^3. Do the math, and you find that even if all of the mercury from a CFL were to immediately vaporize upon exposure to air (which it would not), there would not be enough to cause problems.

So unless you plan on smashing as many CFLs as possible, the insinuation that the mercury in CFLs is dangerous is wrong.

“On a note separate from AGW, it is interesting that they are so worried about mercury (which they should be) but have seemingly little concern about the millions who die because the international community smacks around countries who use DDT.”

On what basis do you make this claim? Do you figure that the UN also condones murder, rape, and kiddie porn owing to its stances on climate change and CFLs?

“Everybody panic! What we are talking about is a new report that is being cited, but not linked anywhere I can find, that shows that carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, which is up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s.”

Where have you seen this report cited? It’s not in the WaPo article you linked. If you’re talking about Christopher Field’s presentation just yesterday at the annual meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science, you’ll probably have to wait a few days for the report itself to be accessible on the AAAS Web site or perhaps one Stanford University’s. But you won’t look for it, and even if you do you won’t read it with comprehension, and even if you do *that* you’ll dismiss it anyway with your usual straw man approach–”OMG, SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM AGW TOMORROW!” Nuances mean as little to you as sound science does.

“And despite all that, the climate temps have been flat or going down for the past 10 years. Strange, huh?”

Can you cite a source for this? No, you can’t, but that’s OK–I have some data for you:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Let me know if you don’t understand what this graph reveals. It’s only one of several data sets I can produce that lays waste to your assertion about recent temperatures the world over.

“The last one is my favorite. If the Earth is warming up so fast, and supposedly now worse then ever, what need do we have for an icebreaker, when there will be no ice in the polar regions, particularly after the alarmist reports that all the polar ice will be gone?”

Can you cite any climate scientists who claim that the polar ice will be gone altogether within the next bunch of years?

This is truly an awful post. When people combine howling bias with rank ignorance, the results can be devastating.