tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29018691.post2290636501639829596..comments2023-03-21T10:15:22.865-04:00Comments on Pricey's Page: Other Legislative Highlights 3-16-07Jay Ovittorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05761128359904926515noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29018691.post-29786287233169992992007-03-21T23:10:00.000-04:002007-03-21T23:10:00.000-04:00Why is HB838 necessary? You mention the energy con...Why is HB838 necessary? You mention the energy consumed on the national level, but HB838 only affects NC which makes up less than 3% of the US population. Sounds rather absurd to limit the choice of North Carolinians for a perceived benefit so small. And what are the alternatives? Higher priced, poorer performing fluorescents?<BR/><BR/>If this is in any way connected to the "Man Is Causing Global Warming" hysteria, it is misguided. I have been a meteorologist with the Department of Defense for over thirty years. I have not seen concrete evidence that man is causing Global Warming. In fact, there are clues to increased convection on Jupiter (caused by planetary warming) and the ice caps on Mars have been shrinking for the past three years. Why? Well it ain't SUVs or incandescent bulbs! The sun appears to be getting hotter. Not much we can do about that. And, the largest emissions of CO2 gas comes from our oceans.<BR/><BR/>I'm in favor of reducing energy dependency on foreign imports(coal plants are not among them). But the goal should be stated as such. GE is already in the process of developing more energy efficient incandescent bulbs. Before we ban them, we should see what they do.<BR/><BR/>Remember that consensus science agreed that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that heavier than air flight was impossible.<BR/><BR/>Don't be a Flat-Earther!<BR/><BR/>CraigAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12602190255615111932noreply@blogger.com