Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
Prove it.

You have been refusing to believe any of my logical assertions for quite some time. I would think you would have learned I make a lot of sense by now and it isn't by following the crowd. Remember when I told you most of dark matter are black holes?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/massive-black-hole-not-even-exist-discovered-174700666--abc-news-tech.html

From ...[text shortened]... still "like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack."

You should stop underestimating me.

As far as I've been able to tell, you don't have any "logical assertions". Most of your "logical assertions" are decidedly illogical. In fact, you are the unmatched master of pushing wackadoodle theory as fact. You're not actually fooling anybody here.

@metal-brain said
Prove it.

I already did. Just look it up the price per wattage for yourself if you don't believe me.

@humy said
I already did. Just look it up the price per wattage for yourself if you don't believe me.

I did. I looked at the prices on Amazon and they were expensive. You are lying again.

@suzianne said
As far as I've been able to tell, you don't have any "logical assertions". Most of your "logical assertions" are decidedly illogical. In fact, you are the unmatched master of pushing wackadoodle theory as fact. You're not actually fooling anybody here.

You prove it then. Find me a cheap infrared light bulb. Easy enough if they exist.

@metal-brain said
I did. I looked at the prices on Amazon and they were expensive.

Not particularly. And not per wattage.

@metal-brain said
You prove it then. Find me a cheap infrared light bulb. Easy enough if they exist.

Right, and it does exist. I found one thus proved it so why should he have to?
Here it is yet again;

https://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/r125-infra-red-reflector-lamp-250w-bc-hard-glass-clear/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_byA5viK5gIVVeDtCh1d0QMTEAQYASABEgLDhvD_BwE
here it costs "£6.49" and its "250W".

For producing 250W of heat, £6.49 doesn't look particularly expensive!
Because that works out as £6.49/250W = ~£0.03 per watt of heat generated.
So what do you say is the problem here?

OK, so now lets compare the costs, shall we?

https://www.bltdirect.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
This is for a 60W iridescent light bulb for lighting, NOT specifically designed for heating purposes, and it cost £5.79
which works out as £5.79/60W = ~£0.09 per watt of heat generated which is MORE than the ~£0.03 per watt of heat energy generated by the infrared light bulb specifically for generating heat energy.

Well?
I have just shown you an example of an iridescent infrared light bulb designed specifically for heating purposes, that we do NOT propose to ban (so don't start that stupid straw man yet again) that, for just heating purposes, would be a cheaper buy per watt of heat generated than an ordinary iridescent light bulb that is NOT designed specifically for heating purposes and thus its only this latter type we propose to ban.

So, now I have completely destroyed your argument, what's your argument against a ban on the latter going to be now?

@humy said
Right, and it does exist. I found one thus proved it so why should he have to?
Here it is yet again;

https://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/r125-infra-red-reflector-lamp-250w-bc-hard-glass-clear/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_byA5viK5gIVVeDtCh1d0QMTEAQYASABEgLDhvD_BwE
here it costs "£6.49" and its "250W".

For producing 250W of heat, £6.49 doesn't look particularly expensive!
Because t ...[text shortened]... ompletely destroyed your argument, what's your argument against a ban on the latter going to be now?

You are a joke. I don't need 250 watts. They are too expensive as well, even if it was US dollars. Even the 60 watt bulbs are incandescent bulbs. Maybe the 250 watt bulb is too.

Your whole argument was based on banning incandescent bulbs and the bulbs you suggest are incandescents! Are you going to stop insulting everyone's intelligence now?

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sylvania-75-Watt-Equivalent-A19-Dimmable-Eco-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Soft-White-4-Pack-52603/204848825

@metal-brain said
I don't need 250 watts.

What about people that do?

They are too expensive as well

If they were too expensive then nobody would buy them and yet they do. I just shown you evidence that they are more cost effective for heating purposes and you have shown no evidence to the contrary.

Your whole argument was based on banning incandescent bulbs

No, it wasn't. It was based on banning only those incandescent light bulbs NOT specifically designed for heating purposes while allowing those that are specifically designed for heating purposes.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sylvania-75-Watt-Equivalent-A19-Dimmable-Eco-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Soft-White-4-Pack-52603/204848825

It says "...75-Watt ... ($1.86 /bulb)..."
So that's $1.86 /75W = ~$0.024 per watt of heat generated.

Now lets compare:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SYLVANIA-Infrared-Heat-Lamp-120V-NEW/191933114444?hash=item2cb01ae84c:g:rZIAAOSwaB5Xmgu~
"275W Infrared Heat Lamp Light Bulb
...Unit price: US $4.99 ..."

So that's $4.99/275W = ~$0.019 per watt of heat generated.

So even in the US, the Infrared incandescent light bulbs are cheaper in US dollars per watt of heat generated than the incandescent light bulbs NOT specifically designed for heating purposes.
Thus, yet again, I just destroyed your whole argument for why the latter shouldn't be banned.

@humy said
If they were too expensive then nobody would buy them and yet they do.

I also just found some much cheaper infrared lamps advertised on sale in the UK that have a wattage as low as 40w. Couldn't find any advertised for sale with such low wattage in the US because I am googling from UK thus, obviously, I have very limit access to US advertised websites but, obviously, since they are available here in the UK, there is no reason why those low-wattage ones cannot also be made available in the US and probably some already are. Those infrared low wattage ones in the UK are also more cost effective for pure heating purposes than the incandescent bulbs used especially for making light instead of just heat. So there is no reason why they wouldn't also be so in the US. Thus this claim that they are "too expensive" is just pure BS no matter HOW you look at it!

@humy said
What about people that do?

They are too expensive as well

If they were too expensive then nobody would buy them and yet they do. I just shown you evidence that they are more cost effective for heating purposes and you have shown no evidence to the contrary.

Your whole argument was based on banning incandescent bulbs

No, it wasn't. It was b ...[text shortened]... oses.
Thus, yet again, I just destroyed your whole argument for why the latter shouldn't be banned.

That is not much difference per watt and as I said before I don't need 250 watts. That would be a waste. All I need is 100 watts at the most for baby chickens and an expensive bulb like you propose could get damaged by the chickens.

Your 250 watt bulbs are too expensive. I can buy 4 standard incandescent bulbs for $1.86 per bulb and I'll bet I could find some for less than that if I tried. You want me to pay over two and a half times that for a bulb that is too much wattage. You are suggesting I use at least two and a half wattage than I need for two and a half more cost.

You are suggesting a lot of waste, both money and electricity used. You have lost this argument. I don't even have to split hairs over currency conversion rates. People are converting to LEDs anyway. It just makes sense.

@metal-brain said
All I need is 100 watts at the most for baby chickens

So use a 100 watt iridescent infrared light bulbs for your chicks; Problem solved.

Here's one;
https://www.agrisales-inc.com/philips-100-watt-heat-bulb
"Philips 100 Watt Heat Bulb
...$6.25"

-which is about the same price as the average price as those 100 Watt Light Bulbs NOT purely for heating. Don't believe me? Just compare prices for yourself.

And, as I keep saying, its NOT the infrared ones we propose to ban.
Thus yet again I completely destroyed your argument for not banning those iridescent light bulbs NOT designed purely for heating.

@humy said
So use a 100 watt iridescent infrared light bulbs for your chicks; Problem solved. As I keep saying, its NOT the infrared ones we propose to ban.
Thus yet again I completely destroyed your argument for not banning the iridescent light bulbs NOT designed purely for heating.

You have not demonstrated a bulb of that wattage is not too expensive. Every bulb you have suggested is way too expensive.

Stop trolling making ridiculous false claims of victory. You know you have lost this one. All of your bulbs cost too much.

@metal-brain said
You have not demonstrated a bulb of that wattage is not too expensive.

I just said;
"
Here's one;
https://www.agrisales-inc.com/philips-100-watt-heat-bulb
"Philips 100 Watt Heat Bulb
...$6.25"

-which is about the same price as the average price as those 100 Watt Light Bulbs NOT purely for heating. Don't believe me? Just compare prices for yourself.
.."

Thus I HAVE demonstrated a bulb of that wattage is not too expensive.

Just to preempt you shifting the goal posts yet again; I also found some cheap infrared ones of even lower wattage which I will show on request; no problem.

@humy said
I just said;
"
Here's one;
https://www.agrisales-inc.com/philips-100-watt-heat-bulb
"Philips 100 Watt Heat Bulb
...$6.25"

-which is about the same price as the average price as those 100 Watt Light Bulbs NOT purely for heating. Don't believe me? Just compare prices for yourself.
.."

Thus I HAVE demonstrated a bulb of that wattage is not too expensive.

Just to pr ...[text shortened]... also found some cheap infrared ones of even lower wattage which I will show on request; no problem.

For the last time...it is too expensive!

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sylvania-75-Watt-Equivalent-A19-Dimmable-Eco-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Soft-White-4-Pack-52603/204848825

If you made an effort to read you would have seen there are 4 bulbs. It says " Includes 4 bulbs ($1.49 /bulb)".

Your bulb is 4x the cost of those from Home Depot. I'll bet I could find them cheaper than that if I looked. You need to remember the less efficient a cheap incandescent the better for heating purposes. Those Home Depot bulbs would not be my first choice. They are dimmable and that is not needed.

I am confident I could find 100 watt bulbs for 1 dollar per bulb or less in a 4 bulb package if I tried.

@metal-brain said
Consumer choice is an obstacle to conserving energy. A carbon tax will narrow choices anyway. You can reduce choice of inefficient products now or later with a tax. You prefer to wait for a tax and get the same lack of choice.

Rich people will buy more inefficient appliances than poor people. Wealth inequality is the root problem. It increases violence too. You should ...[text shortened]... ealth inequality. He is also the most intelligent candidate I am aware of. Make America think again.

Any comments related to the conversation we were having about energy efficiency? If conservatives were interested in improving energy efficiency through consumer choice, they should be massively expanding energy star, not defunding it.