“What if climate change is a big hoax…”

By Wednesday December 23, 2009

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



77 Comments
  1. ECA says:
    12/23/2009 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..

    Reply
  2. JimR says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  3. pedro says:
    12/23/2009 at 10:32 am

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

    Reply
  4. Phydeau says:
    12/23/2009 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?

    Reply
  5. Phydeau says:
    12/23/2009 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. :)

    Reply
  6. JimR says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  7. Animby says:
    12/23/2009 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?

    Reply
  8. JimR says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  9. bac says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  10. Dennis says:
    12/23/2009 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. ;-)

    Reply
  11. Phydeau says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  12. smartalix says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  13. Breetai says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  14. pedro says:
    12/23/2009 at 12:09 pm

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

    Reply
  15. Phydeau says:
    12/23/2009 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

    Reply
  16. honeyman says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  17. testtubebaby says:
    12/23/2009 at 1:02 pm

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

    Reply
  18. JimR says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  19. LOWER CASE SCREEN NAME says:
    12/23/2009 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.

    Reply
  20. JimR says:
    12/23/2009 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)

    Reply

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25574 access attempts in the last 7 days.