From the Guardian (credited to Robert Butler):
Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb? A: None. It’s too early to say if the light bulb needs changing.
[Update 9/5: Deltoid is running with this, and the comments are worth a read…
From Holly Stick (sister of Hockey, at #18): Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb? A: Seventeen to complain about how crummy and dangerous the swirly new lightbulbs are; forty-three to explain that lightbulbs have natural cycles so if we do nothing the light bulb will eventually get back into its warm light cycle; and three hundred and fourteen to blame Al Gore for inventing the science of lightbulbs to make money and to impose socialist government controls over life in general.
From stu at #28: The luminosity of the sun is of the order of 10^26 W, so clearly the effect of any single light bulb is so small as to be negligible. Besides, we are clearly just returning to the same state as in the well known Medieval Dark Period when there was no light emitted from light bulbs, this is obviously a natural process.
And there are more…]
Thank you!
LOL. Thank you Gareth!
Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Approximately 100. 1 to say that the current absence of light is the result of natural solar cycles and the other 99 to disseminate this finding through their ‘science organisations’ and oil industry funded think tanks.
hhhmmm…my post should read:
“How many climate sceptics does it take not to change a light bulb?”