Pigletjohn, I don't know whether you "are in the sciences" or not, but you do display an overwhelming lack of understanding of matters of everyday life, and how scientific research is applied to the real world.
Scientific studies in order to prove energy consumption/fuel consumption/speed/any kind of efficiency are done in IDEAL circumstances, i.e., constant energy flux, constant temperature, no seismic movements, constant humidity, controlled number of "turning on/off" cycles, etc etc. They are a great base to start promoting a product, but by no means will offer the same result in a home, with normal use, under changing conditions and use.
Light bulbs have a very defined and easy-to-understand aim in life: illuminate rooms or places. They have to do it fast and efficiently. The solution we have had for the last century or so (normal light bulbs, no need to use specific terms when anyone will understand whet we are talking about) have fulfilled this requirement wonderfully. As a result, people have been using cheap and easy-to-replace light bulbs to illuminate their house, and it must be one of the most satisfactory, most useful and less controversial item that a household has had for decades.
Now we have a new series of energy-saving light bulbs (call them whatever you want, everyone understands what they are), which, regardless how well they perform in a sterile lab, the fact is, when used inside a house, with changes in humidity, temperature, ups-and-downs in electricity supply, being touched by normal people not wearing sterile gloves, being turned on and off multiple times at non-regular intervals... have proved that are much, much worse in terms of "immediate results" ,than the good old light bulbs. Any normal person can see that: a) They take ages to reach an acceptable luminosity, b) Many of them are big and ugly, c) The kind of light they produce is dull, d) They produce toxic residue (you can laugh as much as you want, but 5 mg of mercury is NOT a small risk, especially considering that every single household is using them) and e) They have to be disposed of in limited and sometimes difficult to reach places... in an ideal World everyone would recycle them in the proper way, but once again, this is not the ideal world, and even you will have to finally admit most people can't be arsed to make any effort for the sake of recycling bulbs. For goodness sake, people can't even be arsed to throw their rubbish in the bin most of times, and you expect them to travel several miles to dispose of a light bulb??
Anyone can see these things, we are not stupid (as you seem to imply in your arrogant posts) and we are perfectly able to judge whether or not a new product makes us happier than the previous one we have been always using.
And by the way, I AM into the sciences myself. I earn my living by doing research and writing scientific reports and articles using very specific conditions, very specific protocols and very specific products. And one of the many things that has taught me, is precisely the difference between "laboratory conditions" and the real world.
These new energy saving bulbs are just not performing, and are driving people mad. Whatever the industry does, they need to come up with something better. otherwise, regardless of the links you provide, or the very clear laboratory results you talk about, they will continue to be crap, and people won't use them. And then you'll be able to stick your scientific reports in the same hole the light saving bulbs will end up.