Anyone sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff yet?
15 February 2008, 02:01 PM
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
How can any intellegent person 'firmly close their mind' to an issue as complex and potentially dangerous as this.
Closing your mind just means you will not listen to anything that is outside your view of things, that's not how people learn and develop.
I will add that it's just convenient to label this issue as being 'politically inspired', now there really is very little evidence to support that view!
Closing your mind just means you will not listen to anything that is outside your view of things, that's not how people learn and develop.
I will add that it's just convenient to label this issue as being 'politically inspired', now there really is very little evidence to support that view!
If you can't see it then I'm afraid you have the closed mind ....
Dave
15 February 2008, 09:18 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All it means is on the balance of evidence I have seen then GW, if it is happening, is not man made. However, there is swathes of evidence to show that it is politically inspired. Why do you think that every *green* initiative involves US getting taxed more?????
If you can't see it then I'm afraid you have the closed mind ....
Dave
If you can't see it then I'm afraid you have the closed mind ....
Dave
I'll say it again there's loads of 'evidence' both ways on this issue.
As for tax, well it's kind of a good way of curbing spending on things that pollute, so taken at face value it's a logical thing to do.
Of course i don't think that all the hype from both side is right, I tend to think somewhere in between lies the truth.
15 February 2008, 10:20 PM
#94
15 February 2008, 10:24 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been proven that worldwide human contribution to global warming consitutes to an entire 1% Therefore, however much Britain manages to reduce its "carbon footprint" by will be completely insignificant.
15 February 2008, 10:36 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 February 2008, 10:37 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 February 2008, 10:48 PM
#100
politician - Definitions from Dictionary.com
pol·i·ti·cian
/ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person who is active in party politics.
2.a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3.a person who holds a political office.
4.a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5.an expert in politics or political government.
6.a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.
[Origin: 1580–90; < F politicien. See politic, -ian
]
15 February 2008, 10:50 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: French side of the border at Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have absolutely no intention of reducing my carbon footprint, I'll leave all that to the greenies. I intend to drive my scoob as fast as I want, as dirty as it can get and **** the climate change. It's all a load of bull**** IMHO. Whatever happened to acid rain which was going to end the world. All scare-mongering, vast-profiteering crap.
15 February 2008, 10:55 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just shot yourself in the foot again. Gore cannot simply stop being a politician and still be alive, by definition. 2. 4. 5. and probably 6. apply to Gore.
politician - Definitions from Dictionary.com
pol·i·ti·cian /ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.a person who is active in party politics.
2.a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3.a person who holds a political office.
4.a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5.an expert in politics or political government.
6.a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.
[Origin: 1580–90; < F politicien. See politic, -ian]
politician - Definitions from Dictionary.com
pol·i·ti·cian
/ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person who is active in party politics.
2.a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3.a person who holds a political office.
4.a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5.an expert in politics or political government.
6.a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.
[Origin: 1580–90; < F politicien. See politic, -ian
]when did Al Gore become the anti-christ?
15 February 2008, 10:57 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 February 2008, 01:58 AM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can any intellegent person 'firmly close their mind' to an issue as complex and potentially dangerous as this.
Closing your mind just means you will not listen to anything that is outside your view of things, that's not how people learn and develop.
I will add that it's just convenient to label this issue as being 'politically inspired', now there really is very little evidence to support that view!
Closing your mind just means you will not listen to anything that is outside your view of things, that's not how people learn and develop.
I will add that it's just convenient to label this issue as being 'politically inspired', now there really is very little evidence to support that view!
17 February 2008, 02:00 AM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's a failed politician. It's all in his mocumentary including the death of his son. What these have to do with climate change I have no idea!
Last edited by Klaatu; 17 February 2008 at 02:14 AM.
17 February 2008, 02:04 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inter-glacial periods are warmer. We are currently in the middle of an inter-glacial period with a cooling Sun. Forestry records reveal at one point in time there was over 1500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere with no "dangerous effects".
17 February 2008, 02:05 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are the one who said 'my mind if firmly closed' not me.
I'll say it again there's loads of 'evidence' both ways on this issue.
As for tax, well it's kind of a good way of curbing spending on things that pollute, so taken at face value it's a logical thing to do.
Of course i don't think that all the hype from both side is right, I tend to think somewhere in between lies the truth.
I'll say it again there's loads of 'evidence' both ways on this issue.
As for tax, well it's kind of a good way of curbing spending on things that pollute, so taken at face value it's a logical thing to do.
Of course i don't think that all the hype from both side is right, I tend to think somewhere in between lies the truth.
17 February 2008, 02:13 AM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Earth does have a use by date, so whatever we "do" will eventually end up as being recorded in history as exercises in futility, but at least our guilt (Or those compelled to feel guilt via misinformation) will be placated because we "did something".
My advice, now that after the IPCC 4th and Stern reports were broadcast, is to buy shares in any carbon trading company.
Already a company based in Australia tunred over A$10b in one year trading carbon between Europe and Asia. Someone is making lots of money. In fact it reminds me of privatised power companies in the US, they (And still do) milk their customers. In fact California's solution to reduce it's "carbon footprint" is to buy power interstate.
My advice, now that after the IPCC 4th and Stern reports were broadcast, is to buy shares in any carbon trading company.
Already a company based in Australia tunred over A$10b in one year trading carbon between Europe and Asia. Someone is making lots of money. In fact it reminds me of privatised power companies in the US, they (And still do) milk their customers. In fact California's solution to reduce it's "carbon footprint" is to buy power interstate.
Last edited by Klaatu; 17 February 2008 at 02:17 AM.
17 February 2008, 08:05 PM
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are the one who said 'my mind if firmly closed' not me.
I'll say it again there's loads of 'evidence' both ways on this issue.
As for tax, well it's kind of a good way of curbing spending on things that pollute, so taken at face value it's a logical thing to do.
Of course i don't think that all the hype from both side is right, I tend to think somewhere in between lies the truth.
I'll say it again there's loads of 'evidence' both ways on this issue.
As for tax, well it's kind of a good way of curbing spending on things that pollute, so taken at face value it's a logical thing to do.
Of course i don't think that all the hype from both side is right, I tend to think somewhere in between lies the truth.
Other sites have no recorded data for several months of the year so *extrapolated* data has been used. WTF!!!???? So this is basically guesswork. And guess which side of the average the *extrapolated* figures turn out??
If you can't see, from just this one simple issue, temperature measurement, that the whole GW claptrap is just that then you'd better go eat your lentils and sell the car, get the bike oiled and walk to your corner shop rather than drive to the supermarket. That means there'll be more room for me.
Dave
18 February 2008, 01:12 AM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've gone green and now installed my LED light bulbs on all the exterior lights
So that'll save me about £40 a year in electricty
Pity the bulbs cost £40, and now I can't see sh*t
So that'll save me about £40 a year in electricty
Pity the bulbs cost £40, and now I can't see sh*t
18 February 2008, 01:38 AM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deadly serious, can you PM me or post your opinions when you get them? I'm all for LED lighting as it seems so much more efficient, but bought a 1w Philips Decor and, as predicted, it gives out the equivalent of perhaps a 15w bulb, I'd need to use loads of them to have any effect.
Well, mixed feelings they were bought to replace some 25watt MR16 outdoor downlighters in the soffits, so only really need to provide background lighting:
I ordered these: Initial Lights
Colour is right - like a incasdecent bulb. Output is about that of a 10watt halogen IMO (15watt at a push)
But due to stock shortage they also gave me several of these instead for teh same price as the cheaper ones: Initial Lights
These are brighter, but the beam is narrower and the colour is not uniform - due to the lens the light diffracts, so the outer edges of the beam have a yellowish-green colour to it. Only very slight though. Output is about that of a 15watt halogen (or 20watt if one wants to be really optimistic
).Wouldn't use either for anything other than background or ambient decor lighting, as the area they light up is very narrow, whereas a normal MR16 has a much broader beam so lights up a much larger area with a single beam.
Happy? As long as they last 12months - so I can get my money's worth. I tested every transformer to make sure they were all working within spec (for some reason, manuafactuer states not to use electronic transformers, only magnectic type transformers are suitable), as the last thing I want is these things packing up prematurely.
21 February 2008, 03:56 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have low energy light bulbs fitted to most fittings, they work OK. But they have their own problems too, mercury is used in their construction. So you save power but pollute water ways at disposal time.
There's another big con coming here, to save the planet people are encouraged to turn off their lights for 60 minutes next month.
There's another big con coming here, to save the planet people are encouraged to turn off their lights for 60 minutes next month.
21 February 2008, 09:47 AM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Thanks Ali. Still no news then...
There was a Beeb article about a month ago that says someone has discovered new technology to make LEDs brighter (something about getting more holes in to let the light out), might take a year to filter into the market.
Otherwise I don't see the difference between using 2x3w LEDs to give the same light as a 6w low-energy bulb - except the former means I'd have to double all my fittings
Keep working, Mr Philips.
There was a Beeb article about a month ago that says someone has discovered new technology to make LEDs brighter (something about getting more holes in to let the light out), might take a year to filter into the market.
Otherwise I don't see the difference between using 2x3w LEDs to give the same light as a 6w low-energy bulb - except the former means I'd have to double all my fittings
Keep working, Mr Philips.
21 February 2008, 08:20 PM
#119
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that, with any "energy-saving" bulb, or other appliance: school-level Physics applies. So:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted between forms, and ultimately it all ends up as heat.
For six months of the year or more, it's cold outside, and you use some kind of heating to keep your home warm. Chances are it's either controlled by a thermostat, or you switch it on or off manually when you get too warm or too cold. Either way, maintaining your preferred temperature requires energy from your boiler.
That energy serves no other useful purpose other than heating, and the total amount of heat energy you need depends on how warm you like to be, how big the house is, how good the insulation is and so on.
But...
The energy that goes into your light bulb ALL ends up as heat as well. That means it DOESN'T have to come from your boiler.
Therefore, the amount of fuel required by your boiler is reduced, on average, by exactly the same amount as is drawn by the light bulb (or the TV, or your mobile phone charger, or whatever else you have plugged in). You actually get a double benefit from the same energy.
With the 'energy saving' bulb, you get the light but not the heat - so your boiler just works harder to maintain the same temperature.
If you haven't noticed the effect for yourself, that's just because the amount of energy used by a bulb is vanishingly small compared to that required to heat a room. The energy saving bulb is a fashionable, token gesture, but plugging in the numbers and bearing in mind that the heat generated by a filament bulb is often not actually wasted but actively desirable, the arguments for them crumble.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted between forms, and ultimately it all ends up as heat.
For six months of the year or more, it's cold outside, and you use some kind of heating to keep your home warm. Chances are it's either controlled by a thermostat, or you switch it on or off manually when you get too warm or too cold. Either way, maintaining your preferred temperature requires energy from your boiler.
That energy serves no other useful purpose other than heating, and the total amount of heat energy you need depends on how warm you like to be, how big the house is, how good the insulation is and so on.
But...
The energy that goes into your light bulb ALL ends up as heat as well. That means it DOESN'T have to come from your boiler.
Therefore, the amount of fuel required by your boiler is reduced, on average, by exactly the same amount as is drawn by the light bulb (or the TV, or your mobile phone charger, or whatever else you have plugged in). You actually get a double benefit from the same energy.
With the 'energy saving' bulb, you get the light but not the heat - so your boiler just works harder to maintain the same temperature.
If you haven't noticed the effect for yourself, that's just because the amount of energy used by a bulb is vanishingly small compared to that required to heat a room. The energy saving bulb is a fashionable, token gesture, but plugging in the numbers and bearing in mind that the heat generated by a filament bulb is often not actually wasted but actively desirable, the arguments for them crumble.
21 February 2008, 10:59 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts