It IS strait jacket, but straight is the alternate spelling.
**Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120
**Nor does ANY light source, you nong. You may also care to note that I
**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:
**The results are what the designers want them to be.
**So? The CPU in my computer must be attached to a heat sink. It ain't
**This would be a pot, kettle, balck kind of moment. Your half-arsed
**No, it is not. Read the cite again. CAREFULLY. Don't try to interpret what
**Sheer idiocy.
**The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2%
**They MIGHT. In Winter AND if the lamps are placed floor level and/or if
**Any sensible designer takes such things into account. My halogen
**The halogen torch is on the left.
Nope, AFAIK it's straitjacket in the US also.
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions
**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.
Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs
Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
<snip>
See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?
**I was EXTREMELY careful in my use of the term 'denier'. I did not call you"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions
**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some
more
research. Here are some prices in the US:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs
Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. Please do some
reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion
on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very
important issue. --
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like
'denier' that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to
put those who have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket
as the holocaust deniers.
**Not at all. We've had dealings in the past and I have no issues with the
**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?
**Possibly. Many people take such a view.
**As it should be. Many researchers have predicted that if CO2 levels reach
**Well, it would seem that, since climatologists study the climate, ignoring
**The Murdock controlled media claims it is all wrong. The scientific medai,
**Perhaps the BBC is concentrating on facts, rather than fiction. I accept
**I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.
**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her
**No, it did not. The initial momentum came about during the early 1970s
**I am familiar with the illegally obtained emails, which were carefully
**A very good scientist, actually. Of course, if you had taken the time to
**Some do. Some don't.
**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW are:
**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?
**Wrong. There are a very, very tiny number of climate scientists who
**What are you attempting to draw a comparison here with? A wind turbine
**I am not talking about nice. I'm talking about science. Keep the
**Some people say what they're paid to say and some say what they believe.
**You may as well ask what would happen if NASA admitted that the Moon
**Call it 95% certainty. That's close enough for me. If my local fire
**Have you read AR4?
**It's science, not religion.
**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather.
**NO ONE EVER said that humans were solely responsible. The Sun is the major
**Have you read AR4?
**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
The reports are here:
**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
No downside? What about the economic downside? If we went on a major
**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.
**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
**That would depend on the measures that are taken.
**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the
**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and
That is a very scientific observation.
Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
In english the word is Straitjacket.
** HEY FUCKWIT !!
