“What if climate change is a big hoax…”

Published on December 23rd, 2009

Posted by Uncle Dave in Ecology, Politics, international

Here’s an editorial that sums up what John and Adam have been saying.

77 users responded in " “What if climate change is a big hoax…” "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 cj said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 am

The problem is not the end.

The problem is the means to get to that end.

Anyone with any knowledge of history and on how government works knows that it is the *worst possible* vehicle for attaining such noble ends.

The other important point is the cost. At what cost can such ends be attained?

Only entrepreneurs, who have the ability to calculate costs versus rewards, can come to the most efficient conclusion on how resources should be arranged.

# 2 Jetfire said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am

Who says it will create a better world? Making things more expensive doesn’t translate into making them better. Green Jobs sounds nice and all but people need to be able to afford the stuff they make. Green jobs is almost the reverse of the Industrial Revolution. Instead of making thing cheap and more plentiful, they want to make them more expensive and fewer.

Like I have always said if your going to make a alternative to gas/Diesel for cars and trucks. You’re going have to make it as cheap or cheaper and as easy/easier to use as gas/diesel. It’s like after the first Hybrids came out. The cost of the upgrade to the Hybrid over the standard model gas would have to hit over $5 a gallon to justify it.

We could have saved a lot of coal and Natural Gas if we didn’t stop built Nuclear Power Plants in the 70′s. But like now back then the left is scaring people for no good reason.

# 3 TheMAXX said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 am

This isn’t what John and Adam have been saying. Its what I’ve been saying. Fuck global warming! There are many clear reasons to want cleaner air and renewable energy. Why float some idea that is near impossible to prove when there are many easily proven more immediate effects that people have on the environment (air quality, drinking water, forests, food chain, oceans, radioactive waste, etc.). Lets cut down on emissions because children in cities are 30 times more likely to get asthma. Lets stop farmers and factories from polluting the water that we all share. Lets capture methane from farms to save money and energy. Solar panels save people money in freaking scandinavia where there is way less sun than here in the USA yet they are more prevalent there.

Plus that cartoon is dumb. Yes there can be many good outcomes to cleaning up our environment even if global warming is not man-made but the solutions being floated would not help the environment as much as make the rich richer and probably shield more companies from being sued when they trash the environment.

# 4 The Monster's Lawyer said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 am

#1, #2, #3 – You guys quit confusing everyone with the facts!

# 5 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:54 am

#1 Geez, another friggin’ libertarian. Thank god for those rugged entrepreneurs, who put a man on the moon, built our national highway system, and cleaned up the air and water in America. Because god knows the government could never have done those things.

Sigh… where’s an eye-rolling emoticon when you need one?

#3 I agree with you that the benefits are many whether or not AGW exists.

[How about this? - ed.]

# 6 Tim said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 am

If “missing the point” sums up what John and Adam have been saying about the media and the alarmist, then yes, this is a good example of missing the point.

It does solve the “Cap and Trade” Scam.

# 7 Tim said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 am

… that should be “doesn’t” solve.

# 8 Smith said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am

Oh the stupidity of the left! This is absolutely the dummest damn argument the enviro wackos make.

Energy independence: We would go a long way towards energy independence if we were allowed to drill for our OWN damn oil!

Preserve rainforests: We don’t control the rainforests. But those that do want us to pay them not to cut them down. I believe that’s called extortion.

Sustainability: Otherwise known as “cut your energy consumption by 90%.”

Green jobs: What a farce! Those photovoltaics everyone is so happy about, they’re being built in China. Do you think increasing energy costs by 200% makes our businesses competive? God what idiots!

Livable cities??? I’m sorry, but I fail to see any benefit to cities when energy is restricted.

Renewables: You don’t need Global Warming to get there, you need competitive technologies. Which, by the way, will take care of itself if we are really running out oil. (Do people really believe burning food for fuel is an answer? Do they not understand that irrigation water is also a scarce resource?)

Clean water, air: Ah, the dummest argument of all. You want to limit the SOx and NOx emissions on a coal-fired plant? You have them install scrubbers, which is what EPA has been doing for nearly forty years. You want cleaner air in cities? You install pollution controls on cars. You want the air even cleaner? You tighten up the NAAQS. You want it even cleaner? You tighten up the NAAQS again. And again. And again. This is the process that has been going on since the early 70′s … and it works!

# 9 The Warden said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 am

Uncle Dave,

The Nazi’s wanted a better world too with clean air, renewable energy, livable cities, and others on the list of the cartoon. Where they right to get to that by the means they pursued? Of course not. People against the current crop of snake oil salesmen like Gore etc who are pushing idiotic policies want the same things as Gore but want to go about it a different way where people aren’t taxed and lives aren’t ruined. The fact you can not understand this points to your sheer arrogance and intolerance just as the Nazis were. And when I type that it doesn’t mean I think you are anti semitic and want to kill people. Just that the pro global warming gang is employing the same type of shrill rhetoric that the Nazis used.

# 10 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 am

#8 Preserve rainforests: We don’t control the rainforests. But those that do want us to pay them not to cut them down. I believe that’s called extortion.

You like having oxygen to breathe? Then you better care about whether those trees are cut down. Remember photosynthesis from science class? Trees turn C02 into O2. No trees, no O2.

# 11 deowll said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 am

Making reasonable efforts to keep pollution low is a good move.

Building codes for better insulated new construction, higher mpg for new vehicles, and more energy efficient appliances seem reasonable.

Green jobs simply mean it takes more man hours to produce the same amount of electricity which will cost more. The overall impact on the economy for more expensive electricity is bad. People with limited incomes may be forced to do without even if that means their lives are wretched.

Neither wind nor solar can be counted on to keep a power grid up and running 24/7. Most greenies have a stroke at the thought of nuclear. They also may fight solar and wind because they don’t like the way they look. Something has to give. Most greenies seem to want it to be everybody else’s standard of living.

Carbon credits are a scam.

Using farm land to grow fuel drives up the cost of fuel and food. The farmers do okay.

Getting Indonesia to drain swamps to grow palm oil trees for greenies exposed a lot of peat that is going to rot and produce I think about an 8th of the CO2 for the next few years. You don’t hear much about that.

Right now the people running the man made global warming mess seem to be con men, hucksters, and the people they have conned. I find dealing with such to be distasteful not least of all because their first objective is to swindle the public including me.

# 12 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 am

What people don’t understand is that the world is getting smaller, metaphorically speaking. Brazilians cutting down thousands of square miles of trees in the Amazon affects us. Chinese spewing millions of tons of pollutants in the atmosphere affects us. Japanese taking millions of tons of fish from the ocean affects us. That’s the whole point of these international conferences. The countries have to work together to keep the world liveable.

# 13 Uncle Dave said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 am

#9 Warden: Where exactly did you get the idea I am against cleaning up the environment and for Gore and the other profiteering-at-our-expense phonies whose policies, if implemented, will lead to less freedom through one world government and all the rest?

# 14 qb said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 am

Smith, if the US drill all the oil it wanted in and around the continent, where would you get the other 80% of the oil trade shortfall? You consume about 20 million bbl/day and produce 5 million bbl/day. Even being very generous the most you could bring on from Texas, California, Alaska, and Louisiana is 4-5 million bbl/day.

Your other thoughts are just as insightful.

# 15 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 am

#9 Sigh… the Nazis built world-class superhighways (autobahns). So us building our own superhighways, does that make us Nazis?

Godwin’s Law still applies, even if you’re not an anti-semite.

# 16 Dallas said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 am

Great illustration.

Since it’s a cartoon illustration, maybe the conservative sheeple can start to internalize it and relax.

I dare Fox Noise to feature it on their cartoon network.

# 17 Mark T. said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:42 am

What? You like being lied to as long as it is for your own good? What are you, four years old?

# 18 Antonio said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 am

#8 – Green Jobs. What about the jobs to design, test, market and sell the PV cells you reference? Is it possible we might keep a couple of those here?

I notice you didn’t reference the “Healthy Children” bullet point. Come on, I’d dying to know what malicious intent we liberals have when we attempt to keep industrial runoff out of our childrens’ drinking water through regulation.

# 19 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 am

#18 Antonio, I think their answer would be: If enough people’s children die from drinking poisoned water, the parents will sue the mega-billion dollar corporation and eventually (helps to mutter your super-duper libertarian magic words here) the company will be forced to stop polluting. Maybe. But no burdensome regulation, that’s the most important thing, much more important than the lives of children!

# 20 Kilby said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 am

And the global warming issue was solved. Thanks, internet.

# 21 pedro said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:58 am

Is not What If. It’s “when will people accept it is a hoax”

#5 I’ve been wondering the same thing. I need that whenever you post.

#10 Ah, showing your true loony colors. Triple ration for you today.

#15 I’m cutting the cheese right now. I hope it affects you shortly.

#16 Oh, the sheeple competing for their master’s attention. Bad news, you’re late. Fido won you, as always.

#18 Did you got the effects of my fart already?

# 22 natefrog said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:04 am

#8;

If you’re going to call something the “dummest damn argument”, you should at least be able to spell “dumbest” properly.

What a moran [sic].

# 23 RBG said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:04 am

“What if climate change is a big hoax…”

Kind of like what they say about religion, huh?

RBG

# 24 chuck said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 am

It’ll be a better world for the people with the green jobs. The people with regular jobs who have to fork over 30% of their income in order to pay the salaries of their “green” superiors won’t like it so much.

BTW:
1. Reduce energy waste.
2. Increase energy efficiency.
3. Reduce oil use (by using solar, wind & nuclear).

We can do ALL 3 without having cap-and-trade or caring about CO2, and still end up with a better world, plus keep the $billions that we’re paying Al Gore.

# 25 stopher2475 said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am

Anyone in NJ knows that when you drive on the Turnpike past Elizabeth and Linden it used to smell like the world’s largest stink bomb. It doesn’t anymore and if you think that these companies did that voluntarily without kicking and screaming the whole way your nuts. I’m not for cap and trade (seems like a money grab) but making these companies clean up their mess is a quality of life issue that is easily demonstrated. Just ask the people in that area who can breathe now.

# 26 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am

#21 Thanks for the color commentary little pedro. You’ve polished your Twitter skills to a gleam.

Quite a wide assortment of “neener-neener boo boo so’s yer old man” comments there, sport.

# 27 ECA said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 am

Lets see..
More expensive food?
taking out extenders, replacements, ADDED water/seasoning to meat..Cutting SUGAR and using REAL OAT/WHEAT/CORN in cereal??(at $3-4 for 10oz it should be made of LEAD)
You mena they PAY MORE, after we send it OVER SEA’s??? where they dont ADD all that CRAP??
How about Cotton and wool Clothes for those that ARNT RICH?? What other country has 90% synthetic/plastic in their clothing??
LEAVE the peanut oil in the PEANUT BUTTER..
GET rid of the MONSANTO modified SOY BEAN(real soy beans take 3 processes to make them edible).. Look up CANOIL(canola)(rape seed(??)) then ASK what vegetable makes OIL.
LOOK into the history of WHY sugar is expensive in the USA. Its a CLOSED MARKET. Sugar cane is the major product of what STATE? And the USA does not want any competition. Even tho we can get it for less then 1/2 the price.

You want to FIX things?? Start with comparing WORLD WAGES. Compare the TOP wage to the lowest. Look at HOW the USA taught other countries about BUSINESS 50 years ago. AND why they are winning TODAY.

The problem is that the GOV. has slowly taken away PARTICIPATION in GOV. WE are on the OUTSIDE. we have to change that, as well as START WATCHING THE FIXERS. OPEN it up so WE can see what is going on.

DID you know that if you can get 2 million signatures and GIVE it to the GOV, they have to do it?? They have to bring it to a VOTE?
And if you get 10 million, you have over 1/5(20%) that VOTED our president into office?
IF we can get 100 million signatures on a petition… you could over rule ANY VOTE IN THE USA.. and ALL they have done is DIVIDE and RULE. and no one can AGREE on anything.

# 28 amodedoma said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am

Everything’s a hoax, nothing’s true, it’s all false. Those that think something can be done are just as delusional as those that think it would hurt their lifestyles to try. This whole issue is making painfully evident that many humans are party animals. No concern for the future as long as the present is acceptable. Most of the proposed action if undertaken would represent a great advance for mankind, regardless of the validity of climate change. But no it’s all a scam… The party’s almost over anyways. There are too many humans, our numbers continue to grow and our voracity for resources grows too. It’s obvious to even the most foolish that we can’t go on like this forever. But don’t let me bring you down, party on dudes!

# 29 smartalix said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 am

19,

That is arguably one of the most stupid things I have read on this site recently. Isn’t runaway litigation one of the reasons behind the health-care collapse? Regulating through the courts is a last-case scenario, not first. People like you obviously have no inkling of the importance of properly implemented and executed regulation in the quality of our food and environment.

The special interests on the Right spend all their time trying to fuck the people for maximum gain at the minimum cost to itself. It does not mind paying a couple million to a few dead or diseased kids when it can save 10 million in unimplemented safety regulation.

# 30 Dennis said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 am

Here’s an idea: Turn them off.

Thats right, turn off the lights. Save the energy for later. Save the money spent by NOT having a garish light show on something you need.
Something that will help you in the coming year.
Turn off the unneeded light displays, the ornamental lights of total waste.

Save the energy for the good of your pocketbook, if not for the planet.

Or, turn the lights off and send me the savings. I could use the money you’re wasting. Since you want to spend it, why not give it to me instead of spending it to support that tired old Electric Utility that is just going to charge you MORE for the amount you use?
Think of it as a way to spread the joy of the season to someone who is currently Joyless.

Spread this around. Tell your friends and neighbors. TURN OFF THE DAMN LIGHTS.

Thank you, and Happy Merry.

# 31 Rabble Rouser said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 am

Here’s my take.
Either we clean up our act on OUR ONLY PLANET, or we don’t.

If we clean the place up, there will be healthier humans, if we keep skanking it up, we will not survive as a species, because of the pollution, and lack of resources.

Not based on scientific fact, but REASON.

# 32 Floyd said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 am

#1:
“Only entrepreneurs, who have the ability to calculate costs versus rewards, can come to the most efficient conclusion on how resources should be arranged.”

Entrepreneurs/capitalists arrange resources to maximize their profits, not to maximize efficiency or minimize wastefulness.

Of course, government is not the best group to maximize efficiency or minimize waste, either.

So now what do we do when both of these groups seem to ignore efficiency and wastefulness?

Think about it…

# 33 qb said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 am

BTW, just one more item to think about. The US, the world’s biggest food exporting nation, ran a food trade deficit in 2005 for the first time since the 50′s. If that doesn’t make your socks roll up and down, nothing will.

# 34 pedro said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 am

#26 And what else do you want me to reply to your inane, repetitive & completely predictable lefty loon “arguments”?

# 35 Bob said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am

LOL politicans!
What have they done for you lately?
What are their contributions to society?
When was the last time they solved anything?
They can’t even solve the problems they create themselfs.

# 36 Postman said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am

Just to clarify on the hybrid car thing…

My hybrid Camry has paid for it’s premium over the last 150k miles, assuming gasoline is $2.50 a gallon. However, for a couple of years gasoline was north of $3 gallon, and once you add in the tax credit and money saved on air freshner because my farts now smell sweet, I have come out thousands of dollars ahead:)

oh, and in spite of all the fud, battery still going strong:)

# 37 The Corrector said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 am

Here is the truth:

Adam is a moron.
John is a money grubbing jerk who’ll go along with anything if he thinks it will get him a dime.
Most of the people who post here are idiots.

You get what you ask for: if so many of you think it’s a hoax, and it may very well be, – go out and do something about it. Posting on an idiots blog about how you are soo smart and know everything, amounts to ZERO.
If crap and trade goes through and you pay taxes to combat climate change, it’s because you LET IT HAPPEN. Posting on some dick-head’s blog is not action.

# 38 Postman said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am

#37

when the senate retardlican leader issued a fatwah on senator bird and asked

# 39 Two to the Head said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am

@37
Hello kettle? Pot calling.

# 40 Thomas said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am

#37
Reminds me of the scene from Life Of Brian where they talk about taking action:

FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let’s face it. As empires go, this is the big one, so we’ve got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
LORETTA: I agree. It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
REG: You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It’s not going to shift one Roman soldier!
FRANCIS: So, let’s just stop gabbing on about it. It’s completely pointless and it’s getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS: Right!
LORETTA: I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
JUDITH: They’ve arrested Brian!
REG: What?
COMMANDOS: What?
JUDITH: They’ve dragged him off! They’re going to crucify him!
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1: Yeah.
JUDITH: What?!
COMMANDO #2: Immediate.
COMMANDO #1: Right.
LORETTA: New motion?
REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah– that there be, ah, immediate action–

# 41 ECA said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 am

30,
EFFICIENCY SUCKS.

Lets say you have a small town, and everyone uses the OLD bulbs, and its costing them $120 EACH per month for electricity.
SAY we change those bulbs, FINALLY for those $3 Florescent bulbs.
(we can debate EXPENSIVE products later..heaters, Stoves, hot water, TV,…)
Changing over costs abit of money, but the savings are instant..
Lets say about 50%.(for the change, you can save more) and you end up at $60 per month.

Others see that your bills are cheaper, and they ask why. They start the Whole Town to change over.

After about 1/2 the town has changed over the ELECTRIC company notices that ‘THEY aint getting enough money’ and Raise the rates.

In the end you will STILL be paying $120, and IF you dont change OVER, you will PROBABLY be paying around $180 per month.
———————————–

NOW for those that are into STRANGE but true..
who remembers when those bulbs were $20-45 EACH. the Screw in Florescent.. And they DID last longer.
But if you did the math, the TIME they lasted was EQUAL to replacing STANDARD bulbs, over the SAME time frame..
————————————
HOW about a NEW stove thats Efficient, COSTING ALLOT more then an OLD style stove??
Learn about convection stoves(wonderful things) and for WHAT it does(all it adds, is a Fan to move the air inside) you will pay $100+ more for the stove..
————————————
Another interesting point.
Is that we are STILL selling out our METALS to china. and BOOSTING the price in the USA.
If’ that material ends up in products SHIPPED BACK tot he USA..Arnt we just shooting OURSELVES in the foot?
————————————
Look at the NEW style of Washer dryers..
FRONT LOAD and EFFICIENT.
They changed the WASHER Clutch system to something better..That SHOULDNT COST THAT MUCH. and has been around for YEARS.
————————————-
How about that COMPUTER control in your cars.
For those that UNDERSTAND computers. That thing SHOULDNT cost more then about $50. And 1-5 Different ones would be ALL that are required..

# 42 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am

Re: The Corrector… Anthropogenic or natural… or a bit of both…the debate is still alive and kicking. That’s a good sign that not everyone is a sheeple. Real science doesn’t recognize ‘majority rules’. it just keeps poking at the question at hand, irrespective of those who want to silence it. The Skeptics here are supporting the scientists who see big cracks in what’s been presented so far. THAT IS doing something. I’m definitely a skeptic of many claims from those who are so sure of themselves that they have abandoned real science.

When my future, and the future of my children is at stake, I’m not going to ignore corruption, manipulative science and secrecy, no matter how many times I’m called an idiot by Chicken Little.

# 43 pedro said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 am

#37 You must be what some call an “Intellectual”. I wanna be like you.

# 44 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am

#34 #26 And what else do you want me to reply to your inane, repetitive & completely predictable lefty loon “arguments”?

Little pedro, maybe you haven’t noticed, but people are having a debate here. So far you haven’t come up with any kind of coherent position to defend. All you do is say “nyah nyah yer wrong” and you let the other guys do the heavy lifting of expressing a viewpoint. You’re like the cowardly little sh*t who hangs around with the bully, trying to hit the other guy when he’s distracted by the bully.

Be a man and have the courage and intelligence to express a viewpoint, or STFU and let the adults talk, mmkay?

# 45 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am

#43 You must be what some call an “Intellectual”. I wanna be like you.

You’ve got a loooooong way to go, little pedro.

# 46 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am

ECA, the trick to making CFL’s last longer is to leave them turned on if you are using that space frequently. It’s the on-off switching that wears them out the most. This might seem like a waste of energy at first, but consider all factors including the energy used to make the bulbs and cost of disposal. Personally I hate the things… each one is chalk full of electronics and more plastic that ends up in the landfill…. and yes a microscopic amount of mercury. But I use them to help pave the way for better technology. Baby steps.

# 47 Animby said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am

#41 – ECA : You must live like Al Gore if you think LIGHTING your house costs $120 per month. What do you use in your beside reading lamp? A 200 watt bulb?

# 48 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am

Comment on the cartoon…

I laughed my head off. (where do these sayings come from??)

What was so funny is how godly the anthropogenic pundits think of themselves and how badly they understand the reasons for skepticism of the whole political and scientific process surrounding the climate change debacle.

Read my metaphorical lips… most of us want a nice, healthy world to live in. Nobody but the truly insane wants to die in a proverbial vat of toxic waste.

# 49 bac said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am

If you ran a country that had a modest amount of oil reserves and oil fields and you were shown that oil would be in short supply compared to its usage, which of the following scenarios would you choose?

A) Publicly state that you would curtail the usage of foreign oil by using more of your own oil. This would give your country more independence and possibly employee a few more people.

B) Hold back the usage of your own oil. Keep on using foreign oil until your country can develop technologies that will reduce its dependence on oil. When the foriegn oil production dwindles, your country will have plenty of oil to bargin with.

# 50 Dennis said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am

#41 — I was talking about the Excess Xmas Lights actually.

Go on…ask your lit up neighbor “Hey, do you feel Global Climate whatever is real?” and watch them say yes as they power up enough wattage to light the way to the Nebula Galaxy.
I say Scratch the Excess Lighting and Send ME the money you would otherwise be sending to those greedy Power Companies. I need it more than they do, and I can guarantee it will be used for GREEN purposes.

# 51 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am

LED lights show a lot of promise, but they’re still very expensive. Last a long time, low power consumption. I don’t know if they have any toxic chemicals in them like the CFLs though.

# 52 smartalix said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am

46,

Sadly, it would have been better for everyone to wait and not drop cash on CFLs as now LEDs are finally at the efficiencies and light quality needed for illumination. Yes, they are expensive, but LEDs are far superior to flourescent and last longer than any other lighting technology. Also, some of the most cutting-edge LED technology is actually made right here in the USA (CREE). CFLs are a false savings.

# 53 Breetai said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Been saying it since the begining. Just because Climate Change is a hoax dosn’t mean I want people shitting in fish bowl. I have to breath this stuff.

The Human made warmists lying assholes are why the pacific has a new island made of trash.

# 54 pedro said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm

#52 I still have to find bright enough LEDs for everyday lightning

# 55 Phydeau said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm

#54 Here’s an LED bulb that says it’s equivalent to 100W incandescent, 900 lumens, only 13W. $50, 50,000 hours according to the website. I wonder about the quality of the light though… will it look natural or weird?

http://tinyurl.com/yjaen52

# 56 honeyman said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm

This is the argument that most greenies bring to the table, that although the implementation of AGW countermeasures is corrupt, at least the environmental issues will be tackled.

I don’t by this reasoning. The money will disappear into the pockets of the elites, bankers and corporations, the goodwill will be scammed and used to give the same elites more power over us, and we will continue to get the blame for AGW and asked to empty our wallets and relinquish our liberty.

As #3 correctly stated, if we get back to common sense environmental issues and ignore the cynical power grab that is AGW, we might just have a chance. Unfortunately, many people regard green issues as the equivalent of being told by mum to clean up your room, and they throw a tantrum and refuse to do it.

Its time for people to grow up and realise that green issues, for the most part, are not just about wealth creation (or lack of), they are about maintaining quality of life.

# 57 testtubebaby said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm

This misses the point. Climate Change is not the fraud. The people behind it are.

# 58 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm

smartalix, agreed… but I sort of just go with what’s greenish and available at a reasonable price. As my CFL’s die, I’ll replace them with the best (but reasonable) technology currently available. I have two 17-led flashlights. The weird blue light needs some getting used to, and although bright looking, seems to fall short of illuminating enough in our optimal visual spectrum. I doubt that they’ll ever burn out or even use up the double AA batteries, but I couldn’t spend much time in a room full of that light. I have no doubt that the light-headed brainiacs will figure it all out soon enough though.

# 59 LOWER CASE SCREEN NAME said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm

When I read how people want to reduce SUVs and urban sprawl to save the world, it turns my poop “green”. More spreading and more SUVs makes a better world, not less. Find a better power source that doesn’t cost more ad we’ll use it, but don’t make it all smaller-that’s for the 3rd world, not the greatest nation and people in history.

Now I need to go hang another 75 light strings just for fun.

# 60 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Re:#55, Phydeau, they are counting on you not bothering to look up what an incandescent bulb actually puts out in lumens… it is actually 1750 lumens, not 900 as they claim. So in fact, you would be paying $50 for a 50w light equivalent… a fridge light. (thanks for the link)

# 61 Obamaforever said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm

From: Obamaforever
To: Animby (Me do calculations? You must kidding!!!!) per #47

Quote:
#41 – ECA : You must live like Al Gore if you think LIGHTING your house costs $120 per month. What do you use in your beside reading lamp? A 200 watt bulb?
End of Quote.

What does it cost to run a 200 watt lamp?

Note: Animby, we plant bulbs and light lamps The proper term is “lamp”. Now you know.

Let us show what we will be using in our calculation;

$.10/kwh ($/kwh for baseload usage)
30 days per month
1000watts/kwh
200 watts/lamp
1 lamp
24 hrs/day (you can reduce this usage if you like)

The calculation:
200/1000 x 1 x 30 x 24 x $.10=$14.40/month
$14.40 is what you would pay for a 200 watt lamp.

A CFL equivalent would be 55 watts (more or less).

The calculation:
$14.40 x 55/200=$3.96/ month
Savings: $14.40 – $3.96=$10.44/month

Thus, a 55w CFL would save you $10.44/month. Note: Remember this is the maximum savings (i.e. 24hours/day). If the usage is 8 hours per, you can 8/24 x $10.44 to get the new savings.

Animby, ECA was talking about if a SMALL TOWN (albit a very small town) changed over to CFLs. He was not talking about an individual. ECA states this at the very beginning of his post (per #41). Animby, you must read more carefully!!!!

# 62 Obamaforever said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm

From: Obamaforever
To: Phydeau
To: JimR per #60

Quote:
# 60 JimR said, Re:#55, Phydeau, they are counting on you not bothering to look up what an incandescent bulb actually puts out in lumens… it is actually 1750 lumens, not 900 as they claim. So in fact, you would be paying $50 for a 50w light equivalent… a fridge light. (thanks for the link)
End of quote:

JimR, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please follow if you can.

The following equation is used to determine how many fixtures (and the type of fixture) you need to light a room:
Note: this is called the Lumen method or the Zonal Cavity method.

N=E x A/(n x LL x LLF x CU)

N= number of fixtures
E= the illuminance (fc)
n= the number of lamps per fixture
LL= the number of lumens produced per lamp
LLF= the combined light loss factors
CU= the coefficient of utilization from the tables
A= the area of the working plane (or floor) that will be illuminated by the fixtures

Note: the above equation is the condensed version. What you have is terms inside of terms for the complete version.

JimR, as you can see (I hope) there is more to lighting then “lumens”. “Lumen” is only a small part of how we light a room. You cannot go by lumens alone to properly light a room!!!

JimR, now you know—I hope.

# 63 LeprechaunAngst said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm

“Anyone with any knowledge of history and on how government works knows that it is the *worst possible* vehicle for attaining such noble ends.”

Wrong – Regards, School Integration

Additionally, in this case the government is leveraging the market through cap & trade.

# 64 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Obamaforever… I’m…I’m… at a loss for words. I don’t know whether to laugh… or scream (never been able to scream)……. have you ever heard of the term “the lights are on but nobody’s home? I’m all for conserving energy, but jeesus man….

When you referred to “zonal cavity” were you talking about cerebral storage space? …I mean … holy cow man, I’m sorry but… AAAAAH!

You’re putting me on right? He’s putting me on isn’t he?… guys?

Isn’t he?

# 65 Glass Half Full said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm

The folks tackling this on a political level are idiots and think this is all 100% true or 100% false. Reality is complicated. So is this issue, VERY complicated. No question the earth is warning “overall” more than it has since humans have been around. No one has ever sailed the passage north of Russia in recorded history. The glaciers on Kilimanjaro have been around as long as cave drawings depicted it. Whether humans cause this or not is almost beside the point. Yes we should clean up, pollute less and for GODS sake get out of using middle east oil as our #1 goal!!

But everything, everything is a give at take. Switch to all LED light bulbs to save energy? Great! But then in Iowa you have to turn UP your heat in the winter (burn more energy) because the old light bulbs actually produced a fair amount of heat. Did you save money? Depends on my variables. In Minnesota they discovered that their fancy low energy LED street lights don’t melt the snow anymore, so they lights get obscured and they have to sent out trucks (energy) to manually clean them off. Saved anything? Hard to calculate.

This is complicated and the motivations are complicated too. The Republicans just want to screw the Democrats regardless of the bill/point/policy. The Democrats want to embarrass the Republicans. Lets drop the politics crap and just deal with the reality. It’s a complicated issue with complicated solutions. We’ll have to be all smart like and everything…LOL

# 66 Obamaforever said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm

From: Obamaforever
To: JimR per #64

The zonal cavity equation does not pertain to the cavity in your head, JimR. The equation tells you what type of fixture to use, what type of lamp to use, how many fixtures to use, and the layout of the fixtures.

The equation will not directly help you to conserve energy. To conserve energy you will need to go to the Energy Conservation Code in your area. It will tell you what the watts per square foot of lighting you need to use for your application. With the watts per square foot you can use the zonal cavity method to get the best lighting for the watts per square foot.

JimR, a person of your limited intelligence should not be talking about lumens or anything else (i.e. Climate Change) of which you have little or no understanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# 67 LOWER CASE SCREEN NAME said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm

#65 – Actually it’s all very simple: Pick any “problem” – if the solution requires Americans to live a smaller lifestyle or become less dominating internationally compared to other countries, the solution is unacceptable.

# 68 pedro said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm

#64 No, he’s like that

# 69 Animby said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Obamaforever: “Animby, you must read more carefully!!!!”

Let me suggest YOU read more carefully. He specifically says the inhabitants of his small town pay $120 “EACH” for their electricity.

As for the definition of bulb. Please get out your dictionary. Yes, the first definition (in Websters Online edition) is that of a plant stage but the second definition is : “… a bulb-shaped part; specifically : a glass envelope enclosing the light source of an electric lamp or such an envelope together with the light source it encloses”

So you don’t read very carefully.
You don’t know the meaning of the words you DO read.
And you’re a troll, anyway.

Look up the meaning of “dim bulb.” You’ll find it in the mirror.

# 70 JimR said, on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Pedro, he has to be on drugs or something.

# 71 pedro said, on December 24th, 2009 at 12:47 am

#69 said: “So you don’t read very carefully.
You don’t know the meaning of the words you DO read.”

That’s why he and conFusion share a special bond on the blog.

#70 Actually, I think is lack of prescription drugs. Kids like him (10 Y.O. or so) need their Ritalin.

# 72 Animby said, on December 24th, 2009 at 1:20 am

Pedro – in his defense, I think his vocabulary is better than a ten year-old. I’d say 15, maybe 16 and recently discovered Wikipedia.

# 73 deowll said, on December 24th, 2009 at 1:21 am

It would appear that some people posting here want to deal with the world as it is in hopes of reaching better solutions to real problems.

The liberals posting here don’t care about external reality. Their only reality is between their own ears. External facts just get in their way.

Both groups claim to be trying to make the world a better place for people to live in.

For some reason I find I believe that anyone that ignores external realities is doomed to create a great big ugly mess no matter how noble their cause may be if they are given the chance.

# 74 Uncle Patso said, on December 24th, 2009 at 4:45 am

# 8 Smith:
“We would go a long way towards energy independence if we were allowed to drill for our OWN damn oil!”

Not such a long way: maybe 5% to 10% of the way. That’s all the oil there is off the coasts and all the wildlife preserves.

People here keep saying the government is not the way to get these things done, there’s a better way! Well I say, what? What is the better way? I haven’t heard one single idea that explains how we achieve these things. “Better technology,” “entrepreneurs,” “don’t tax people to death,” etc., etc., etc. That’s all very well and good, but how does any of that get hundreds of millions of people to work and back every day and heat and light their homes, businesses and factories without sending trillions for oil from countries whose people hate us? How?

# 75 Obamaforever said, on December 24th, 2009 at 11:13 am

From: Obamaforever
To: Animby per #69

I know it is hard to follow ECA’s stream of consciousness, but I was able to parse his words.

Here is what ECA was trying to say: “Everybody in a small town uses the same bulb. The bulbs cost the town $120 EACH month in electricity.”

One must understand the intent of ECA’s words to get a clear understanding of what he trying to get across.

I had hoped that my calculations showing the cost savings of using a CFL vs. incandescent lamp would clarify matters—alas, it did not.

As for the definition of “bulb”. Your dictionary’s definition gives the common usage for “bulb”. Since I was explaining a technical matter the correct, technical term would be “lamp”. In short, the common term is “bulb” and the correct, technical term is “lamp”.

Please google ‘bulb’, ‘lamp’, ‘lighting’, and ‘technical’ to see that this is true. Or, you could call up a lighting designer and he would tell you the same thing.

I realize that as a physician who gets his science from business magazines the above is way over your head.

Physician, no; Chiropractor, yes!!!!

# 76 Mr. Fusion said, on December 24th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

There is a two fold part that several people are missing regarding ECA’s comment.

Not only will each individual save a small amount, BUT each community, and in fact the world in general, will save by eliminating the need for fossil fuel power generation.

CFLs are just one small part that can help everyone use a little less energy. CFLs may not be perfect, and I agree they do have their own drawbacks. Sitting still and just moaning or thinking this is someone elses problem is even worse.

# 77 Rick Cain said, on December 26th, 2009 at 12:17 am

We can substitute natural gas for coal and oil for heating and production and curb a lot of heavy metal pollution, radioactive release and toxic wastes.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!