Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 30    Average: 3.3/5]
65 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 2903
Rating: 3.3
Category: Science
Date: 02/09/14 08:15 AM

65 Responses to Climate Change: Is Global Warming A Hoax?

  1. Profile photo of SweepOfDeath
    SweepOfDeath Male 18-29
    938 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:07 am
    Link: Climate Change: Is Global Warming A Hoax? - Leaked e-mails from climate scientists suggest global warming is a hoax.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36195 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:24 am

    Remember "V" ? The visitors said that scientist had an evil plot so they discredited them and started rounding them up.

    Okay, a plot huh. Tens of thousands of scientists from every country and every university all over the globe have conspired to make you believe in Global Warming.

    Why? What`s the benefit to this hoax? And how do you organize that many people to keep a secret and tell the same lie? Or maybe it`s just true and global warming is real.

    The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
  3. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:31 am
    No, actually the e-mails don`t suggest that global warming is a hoax. At all.
  4. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5101 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:40 am
  5. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:47 am
    That is not what the video say at all. It says the complete opposite..
  6. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:53 am
    I don`t believe in man-made global warming, but I don`t believe it is a conspiracy either. I think it was a theory that gained some traction as a period of natural warming was occurring. The alarmist message of "global destruction" was entertaining enough for people to pay attention to and it made it easier for certain people organisations to gain notoriety, political power, and money. I don`t believe that most Climate alarmists are in some global conspiracy. But I believe because the issue is so politically divisive on so many levels peoples outlook becomes biased and they may not see the data in the same way. The same is true for the skeptics camp. Out of this you can get individual scandals and outlandish statements.

  7. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 8:57 am
    @ Madduck: Spot on. The video rightly concludes that, no, AGW is not a hoax and the emails were "lifted out of context by climate-denying blogs."

    Frankly, I`m not sure what`s going on here with the video title and link description. Perhaps this was just an attempt to stir up controversy?
  8. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:42 am
    Do I think that climategate was a scandal, possibly, yet even if it was, it was a small individual scandal and not evidence of a global conspiracy.
    Honestly, I don`t know for sure. I don`t put much faith in the review but I haven`t seen damning evidence either. It was definitely, worded real bad and I think revealed a little bit of the bias and politics that occurs in science. But honestly, I don`t think it mattered that much.
  9. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:42 am
    "That is not what the video say at all. It says the complete opposite.."

    "Frankly, I`m not sure what`s going on here with the video title and link description. Perhaps this was just an attempt to stir up controversy?"

    I think its an attempt to trap a person who is politically biased into stumbling in and without watching the video pledging their support for it. It makes a strawman argument and hopes to garnish biased support for what it means to disprove, in a attempt to discredit the skeptics camp and reinforce the support for the opposite camp.

    I think the construction and purpose of the video actually shows the deep bias on both sides and proves my point really well.



  10. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    713 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:51 am
    one of the reasons why i hold a sceptical view of agw is that all the `green` taxes and levies are not funnelled straight into alternative fuel research or population management schemes, and there also always seems to be several politicians attached to wind turbine companies.

    it may well be that agw is a real thing that is being ruthlessly exploited by politicians for personal gain and as a convenient way to plug huge holes in the budget. However, i would fully support any means to reduce pollution and curb the growth of the world`s population - 2 things that would go a long way to making our planet a better place.
  11. Profile photo of llaa
    llaa Male 30-39
    1664 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:53 am
    Picking and choosing quotes out of context; reminds me of Sunday school.
  12. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2310 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:04 am
    Do the reports take into account waste heat from combustion? The average car on the road releases more than 50 million btu of waste heat per year, based on an optimistic 35% thermal efficency. Multiply that by about 250 million cars, in the US alone.
  13. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2310 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:05 am
    It`s still a ploy of governments to manipulate the public.
  14. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6651 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:15 am
    What Gerry said.
  15. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:26 am
    richanddead

    Then you clearly have not read the emails. The scandal is clear. Sorry the scandals are clear. This was not a conspiracy. It was a muddle of different faults, from simple misrepresentations through conspiracies to outright scientific misconduct.

    Unfortunately every single review of the case was by people who wanted to cover it up. None of them ever looked at both sides, they only asked the people involved, and they only asked them the questions they wanted to answer. None of the enquiries looked into the science, even the one that was supposed to.
  16. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:33 am
    Why? What`s the benefit to this hoax?

    @Gerry1: Money! Obviously!

    Oh sure, most AGW supporters honestly believe it. But some folks (like Al Gore) became VERY rich off the world-wide "green investment" movement. Billions spent, nothing to show for it.

    The rich got richer and the poor got 200% hikes in their utility bills... all in the name of AGW.

    @Smagboy: The emails showed many wrongdoings and most definitely a `conspiracy` to fake data and silence critics.

    @madduck: The video shows both sides of the issue, very rare indeed!!
  17. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:43 am
    @ Randomxnp: "Then you clearly have not read the emails. The scandal is clear."

    Oh please. I`ve read the emails. There is no scandal. Eight separate investigations on both sides of the Atlantic found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. That includes an investigation, at the personal request of Republican senator James Inhofe, a hardcore critic of AGW, by the U.S. Dept of Commerce.

    I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again: This canard that it was proven that the scientists faked data is one of the biggest "zombie stories" in modern science: an error of fact that has been killed repeatedly but just won`t die.
  18. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:12 am
    @randomxnp: "Unfortunately every single review of the case was by people who wanted to cover it up. None of them ever looked at both sides, they only asked the people involved, and they only asked them the questions they wanted to answer. None of the enquiries looked into the science, even the one that was supposed to."


    I read them a while ago, I saw the word "trick" and their refusals to show their work for a period of time. Did something change? Maybe. As I said, "I think it revealed a little bit of the bias and politics that occurs in science."

    Look, I agree the science was skewed. But honestly, this is predominant through all science. You hardly ever see a science commision disagree from their donors views. I don`t think people grasp the need for money and competition that goes on between scientists.

  19. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:14 am
    Let me put it this way, you`ll probably never see an archeologist say their dig is inconsequential, a marine biologist saying we should focus on land issues, a energy company putting out that they cause disasters, or a government subsidised study differing from the governments position.

    Does it happen sometimes, I`m sure it does. But the vast majority of data is skewed or represented in a way that bolsters the money donors views. Thats why I said it hardly mattered.
  20. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:37 am
    @Squrlz4Sale: "Eight separate investigations on both sides of the Atlantic found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

    I don`t know Squrlz, multiple investigations on both side of the Atlantic have found that Bush didn`t lie about WMD`s either. But I know you don`t believe in that. I wouldn`t be so quick to poo poo someone else for believing in "zombie stories" as you put it. Not attacking but just saying.

    As Caesar said "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"
  21. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:38 am
    Anthropogenic climate is a fact- no arguments except from those with a vested interest in it not being. The main issue I have is that it should not matter- there are jobs aplenty to be had in renewables, a cleaner planet, we get to give tech to developing nations so they can avoid wrecking things even more..there is NO downside. Unless you are Shell. Sadly politicians are a venal bunch of money grabbing hypocrites ( yeah - looking at YOU Cameron)
  22. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:46 am
    @ Richanddead: "I don`t know, Squrlz, multiple investigations on both side of the Atlantic have found that Bush didn`t lie about WMD`s either. But I know you don`t believe in that."

    Then you`re mistaken; I don`t think Bush lied about WMDs. I think he had a strong desire to invade Iraq from Day 1 to "finish the job" his father left undone and those around him, most particularly Vice President Cheney, were keenly aware of this. For their own reasons, they then decided to collect any and all information, including unsubstantiated rumors, to make the case for an invasion and tip George W. Bush in the direction he was already inclined to go.

    Now, having addressed your WMD comment that came out of nowhere, here`s a request: Any chance we can keep the discussion here on global warming?
  23. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    @madduck": The question is if mankind is playing a significant role in climate change.

    " there are jobs aplenty to be had in renewables, a cleaner planet, we get to give tech to developing nations so they can avoid wrecking things even more..there is NO downside."

    First off, the "tech" is expensive, not as efficient, has different requirements, causes other problems, and is created in the 3rd world because no other nations want to deal with effects of mining the resources or can economically produce them on green energy.

    If you truly believe that "there is NO downside" I encourage you to read this. or this. @Angilion and I were discuss
  24. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    Ken Ham says its a hoax..
  25. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 12:50 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale: " that came out of nowhere"

    I was merely reacting to your statement. "the biggest "zombie stories" in modern science: an error of fact that has been killed repeatedly but just won`t die." And was more specifically commenting on people`s willingness to believe certain things that benefit their outlook.

    I think its apt because even though you claim that Bush didn`t lie, the point is that you still disagree with the investigators conclusions that it was based on Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi`s admissions. You assert that Bush was pushing the CIA to use that as a cause and so ascribe to a so called "zombie story" that refuses to die despite the investigations conclusions.
  26. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm
    I was just citing that everybody has a unique view and shouldn`t be discounted simply because it goes against an investigations conclusion. Such would be an an appeal to authority and is faulty logic in that sense. (Although I`d admit, we all surcome to it and are even dependent on it from time to time) I used this topic solely as a personal example that would apply to you, to show that we all do it. Thats all, didn`t mean to offend or change subjects.
  27. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    @5Cats,
    Do you honestly think they need to hold a Global conspiracy, encompassing thousands of scientists, just to raise the rates on your hydro bill? Seems to me, the corporations have been doing a great job of raising the costs of things without any excuse at all...
  28. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 4:10 pm
    The main problem I have with the alarmists is not this convoluted sort of argument you hear all the time, it can simply be summed up with the predictions they had for Florida circa 2006.

    Not only was Florida supposed to start sinking, but hurricanes would get stronger and become more frequent. This was supposed to start immediately. Obviously, they were riding the Katrina scaremonger train.

    Well, not a single hurricane has hit here in Florida since I believe 2007, and not a single Cat 3 or higher has hit the country in about the same time. We`ve only had like 2 weak hurricanes since then, and everyone has a hernia when they`re surprised that storm surges do exist, and that beach houses will get destroyed by even a baby one.
  29. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    I can also go into how all the models have really been failing, or have begun to fail. A huge portion of all the CO2 ever emitted was only emitted in the last 15 years alone. That time has seen no increase in temperatures, despite the greenhouse increase. That was the real clincher for my skepticism of the alarmist message. The general message could very well be correct, but the alarmist message is absolutely failing right now.
  30. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    @ Richanddead: "Such would be an an appeal to authority and is faulty logic in that sense."

    Noting the judgment of actual authorities on a given subject is not a logical fallacy; on the contrary, it is sound logic.

    For example, if someone making the case that aspirin is safe states that the FDA has investigated and approved the drug, he is making a logical argument.

    The "Appeal to Authority" fallacy you`ve referenced, on the other paw, typically occurs in one of two ways.

    #1. The person tries to leverage the authority of an expert in another field: "I have complete confidence in aspirin`s safety because my uncle, who was not only a Phi Beta Kappa scholar but also a federal judge, took two aspirins every day of his life and swore by it."

    (Cont`d)
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm
    (Cont`d)

    #2. The person argues that an opinion of an authority means it is unnecessary to consider new evidence that could potentially alter the authority`s opinion: "This recent study you cite, showing a causative link between aspirin and Alzheimer`s disease, is utter nonsense; the FDA has long-recognized aspirin as safe."

    Make sense?

    In response to others` claims that the "scandal is clear" and that there was a "conspiracy to fake data" among the climate scientists, I`ve noted the fact that all eight investigations of the Climategate emails found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

    If anyone wants to bring forth evidence that the investigations missed something, they are free to do so. The last inquiry was over two years ago, and to date, no one has.

    (Cont`d)
  32. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm
    (Cont`d)

    Lastly, if you or anyone reading this is still stuck on "hide the decline," the phrase much ballyhooed by Fox News, I`ve gone over that topic previously in another thread. I`d be happy to explain it again here, however, for anyone who is interested.
  33. Profile photo of chicagojay
    chicagojay Male 40-49
    2018 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 7:18 pm
    Yes. Yes it is.
  34. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:04 pm

  35. Profile photo of ledzeppeloyd
    ledzeppeloyd Male 18-29
    2385 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:29 pm
    maybe is maybe it isnt, but put your face near a tail pipe of a running car and tell me that breathing that doesnt have any effect on your lungs
  36. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    Sorry, libs, but there is absolutely no context in which "hide the decline" can be construed to mean ANYTHING other than "falsify the data."
  37. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:53 pm
    @ OldOllie: Sorry, libs, but there is absolutely no context in which "hide the decline" can be construed to mean ANYTHING other than falsify the data.
    Ollie, did you not read my explanation that I wrote for you earlier (and linked to in this thread)? Was there something about the explanation you didn`t understand?
  38. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 9:59 pm
    S4S, I read your explanation. I guess I`m just not as gullible as you are. Whether you`re hiding a decline in temperature or you`re hiding a decline in the correlation between temperature and tree ring growth, you`re still falsifying data to support a purely political position.

    It`s just a hoax so liberals can boss people around and take their stuff. You just think that because you`re a liberal, you`re going to get to be a boss. You are wrong.
  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    @ OldOllie: Well, you read what I wrote and you seem to be understanding what "hide the decline" refers to, which is progress. Once again, however, I`ll point out that that no data were falsified. The *Nature* chart that was being referred to in the email clearly labels the separate curves for the proxy data and the instrumental data. Furthermore, both datasets were available in the public domain at the time of publication for anyone who wanted to check them.

    In persisting to believe there was fraud, you apparently believe that Republican senator James Inhofe, who requested the Dept of Commerce investigation--which like the seven others investigating the scientists found no evidence of scientific misconduct--dropped the ball, I guess. Somehow, you seem to think that Inhofe, Washington`s most fierce critic of AGW science, passed up an opportunity to identify the falsification of data. I`d think the illogicality of that would give you pause.

    (Cont`d)
  40. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    (Cont`d)

    You just think that because you`re a liberal, you`re going to get to be a boss. You are wrong.
    I`m not even sure how to respond to this one. I`m "going to get to be a boss"? A boss of what? A boss of whom? Trust me, Ollie: I don`t want your stuff. Your Barcalounger is safe.

    I hope you`re staying online for a bit and are in a mood to chat because I`d like to discuss AGW with someone who`s intelligent and skeptical, and you fill the bill nicely.
  41. Profile photo of emmettyville
    emmettyville Female 40-49
    4345 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:55 pm
    already knew this. NEXT.
  42. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    @ Emmettyville: Uhh, Emmetty? It might help if you watched the video since the conclusion it comes to is, "No, it isn`t."
  43. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:27 pm
    @ elkingo ~

  44. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2014 at 11:44 pm
    All right, time to hit the hay, all. Goodnite!
  45. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:01 am
    @Squrlz4Sale: I`d have to disagree with you "the appeal to authority."

    "Noting the judgment of actual authorities" is not a form of inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, or deductive reasoning. Nor does the authority need to be in another field, that is actually known as an "appeal to non-authorities". Authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are usually more correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.

    Link
  46. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:05 am
    One of the most notorious examples that I can come up with is that of The Almagest and Planetary Hypotheses. Ptolemy was an authority of both math and astronomy, along with several other things, he was a true polymath. He wanted to understand why there were "wandering stars" or as the greeks called them "planets." He created a geocentric astrological model that was mathematically correct in every way. You could predict where a planet would be in relation to a star and the earth 10,000 years from now using his model, and you`d be correct. Yet he put the Earth at the center of the solar system.

    Because his formulas were so precise and because he answered every question, and because he was an authority, he was seen as more of an authority than others. His work was accepted more so than of people like Aristarchus of Samos who had the correct construction thousands of years before Galileo.
  47. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:05 am
    It was "the appeal to authority" that made us think we were the center of the universe for so long.

    Odd Fact: Ptolemy also coined the word "epicenter" in the Almagest.
  48. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:23 am
    @Sleepyhallow -

    I have 14 total light bulbs in my house. 2 of which, I leave on 24 hours per day. The other 12, burn an average of 6 hours per day, and 12 per day on the weekends. Total hourly usage is 588 hours per week. Which is 31164 hours per year.

    Using your estimates for cost per hour, it would cost me $12.46 per year to burn all my lights if they were incandescent, as opposed to $3.11 for florescent.

    However, and lets just assume I only replace half of my florescent bulbs per year, that means I am putting 35 milligrams of mercury into the trash and landfills and ground water per year.

    I don`t think either is "better" for the environment. One produces CO2, the other mercury.

    It is not I that has no logic my friend, unless you fill I am totally ignorant wasting that $9.00 a year on electric.
  49. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:29 am
    Oh wait.. lets be fair. I would need a total of 26 incandescent bulbs a year which is a total cost of $22.88; as opposed to the $68.80 I would need in the first year to stock up 16 bulbs (I estimated life of bulb, based on hours used plus 14 for the amount of bulbs I would need total. 14 +2 = 16). Granted, the next year I may only have to replace 3-4. However, 3-4 florescent bulbs cost around $12.00.
  50. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:51 am
    "If anyone wants to bring forth evidence that the investigations missed something, they are free to do so. The last inquiry was over two years ago, and to date, no one has."

    To this point, the last inquiry was in August 15, 2011, in November 22, 2011, a second set of approximately 5,000 emails were released that showed that among other things that the researchers had deleted entire sets of communications between members. And several scientist have come out against it yet as this video states their funding is from oil companies. (which is not entirely true, mathematicians and geologists like Steve Mcintyre are also funded by several mining firms.) Which actually highlights what I was saying about decisions based on the funding. Yet currently, no inquiries have been done for these E-mails.
  51. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 6:53 am
    To your point about "hide the decline" and "the divergence problem," you`re right that it was about tree ring data. But I`ll remind you that this problem was why they decided to use the outlier Yamal tree-ring data, instead of the polar urals which are more accurate. Esber was the one who corrected this problem. It is not legally wrong or unethical to use an outlier data set, even if it changed several thousand years of results to highlight short term present trend, but it does skew the data. One example is that Briffa actually reused the Yamal data from Mann even after Esper had explained why it was an outlier.

    This is the same data with the Polar urals in red and the Yamal in black.




    Notice how the Yamals don`t have "the decline" and fail to express a medieval warming period allowing a "hockey stick" look.
  52. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:26 am
    Yet, as I said before this type back and forth, the skewed statistics, the ethical questions it is based on, and all the politics is throughout the scientific community. I can cite examples from volcanology, marine biology, astronomy, etc. that mirror this controversy, the difference is they are not in the media spotlight. As Denzel said in training day "it`s not about what you know, it`s about what you can prove"


  53. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:27 am
    @Sleepyhallow: I`ve tried those eco-light bulbs. I found that they still burn out after about a year, they`re still half as bright, and they have an annoying buzzing sound.

    Actually it seems a lot of people have noticed that they don`t last the advertised time.
    link
  54. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:52 am
    5Cats

    "Why? What`s the benefit to this hoax?
    @Gerry1: Money! Obviously!"

    If it is a plot, they`ve not done very well at the "Step 3: Profit" stage. Not many scientists living in mansions in the Bahamas.

  55. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:55 am
    @richanddead

    "Actually it seems a lot of people have noticed that they don`t last the advertised time."

    Shock horror! A commercial product didn`t live up to the promises of its advertisements? IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!

    Find me ANYTHING that opens as easily/drives as far on a gallon/cleans as well/tastes as great with half the fat as the advertisements promise and I will HAVE ALL THE SEX WITH YOU UNTIL ONE OF US DOESN`T WANT IT ANY MORE.
  56. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:58 am
    @elkingo

    I strongly recommend LED bulbs. They cost a lot (it was about £70 to kit out my house), but they use ridiculously low levels of electricity, and to my eyes they`re brighter than the old-style bulbs they replaced.
  57. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:07 am
    @OldOllie

    "It`s just a hoax so liberals can boss people around and take their stuff."

    *looks around*

    Still got all my stuff. My gas and electricity and petrol gets more expensive all the time, but I don`t think it`s entirely liberals owning huge energy corporations.

    Oh...I do have ultra-bright LED lightbulbs that are saving me money and making my house look really bright and cheery, AND I don`t have to keep climbing up a ladder to replace them. So...yeah, there`s that EVIL they`ve inflicted upon me I suppose.

    Even the old CFLs that I still have a couple of have been pretty good to me. I *just* had one pop on me the other week, that I`d had on 24/7 for SEVEN YEARS. Another of the same age is still going strong. The rest (all LEDs) are about two years old now. We`ll see how they fare.
  58. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:58 am
    @Musuko42: "IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY"

    That a nice strawman argument, now please cite where I said it was a conspiracy.


  59. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:15 am
    Yeah.. the florescent ones do last longer, but they aren`t cheaper, and they aren`t better for the environment. That is the point of it though.. they are advertised as "eco" and "green".

    In reality they are a 3-5 dollar light bulb.
  60. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:29 am
    A 3-5 dollar light bulb with mercury poisoning the planet that is.

    Yay for green technology! /sarcasm
  61. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:30 am
    "Find me ANYTHING that opens as easily/drives as far on a gallon/cleans as well/tastes as great with half the fat as the advertisements promise"

    Ok...

    LINK

    LINK

    Link
  62. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
    Seems to me there`s still a whole lotta debate going on. So why force political policy that hurts people, a lot, when we really don`t know crap yet? There`s reasonable conservatism, which many conservatives are all for, but then there`s this absolute nutbaggery that just ruins your points. Stop doing all this for the money, then maybe I`ll listen.
  63. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5386 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    I point out the light bulbs though, because it is a small example for point.

    Research something like a Prius and see what the cost of that is (both financially and footprint wise). It is all a hoax to get your damn money, and you people buy it hook line and sinker.
  64. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1843 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 6:49 am
    OMG the curly light bulb argument. I fell for that one at the start, I must admit. Not one lasted anywhere near it`s advertised life. I didn`t know I had to practically call a hazmat team if one broke. One failed and actually caused a small fire in standard lamp. Good thing I happened to be in the room at the time.

    Due to the phase out of regular bulbs, last summer I was able to scarf up nearly 200 regular bulbs for under 20 dollars (~10 cents apiece) so I figure my supply will last long enough for a real solution to present itself.

    I`m all for a clean planet and conservation of resources. That`s just common sense. But some of the knee jerk "solutions" that we`re forced to accept aren`t rooted IN common sense.

    Many people use these bulbs and drive a Prius and still manage to use more energy than I do. So who is really doing more to save the planet?
  65. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:48 am
    @ DromEd and Elkingo: I can`t stand the curly light bulbs either. They`re awful. Crappy light (generally), slow to reach full illumination, often fail early, and are problematic due to the mercury. I avoid them like the plague.

    Fortunately, I think those curly bulbs will be history in just a few short years. LED light bulbs are coming on strong. And they are wonderful. High-quality, bright light at full intensity the moment you flick the switch. They last forever (25,000 hrs or 8-1/2 years @ 8 hrs/day) and use a fraction of the energy of the incandescents and about half the energy of the the curly bulbs.

    If you haven`t tried LED light bulbs yet, get yourself down to Home Depot and try the Cree brand. I illuminate my home office with eight of them. I never turn them all on at once because it would be absurdly bright. But if I did, total power consumption would be just 72 watts. Amazing.

Leave a Reply